Things I Like/Dislike about Modern 7dtd and Why I think Alpha 17/18 are a perfect balance between survival and arcady sandbox

[theFlu]

TFP doesn't care about what types of bases players make.

Perhaps; but then on the flipside of that particular coin is that TFP doesn't seem to know what kind of a base they want players to use. Or, maybe they do, but nerfing the strength of "simple walls" by 3-10x in this patch doesn't fill me with confidence.

 

[Roland]

Perhaps; but then on the flipside of that particular coin is that TFP doesn't seem to know what kind of a base they want players to use. Or, maybe they do, but nerfing the strength of "simple walls" by 3-10x in this patch doesn't fill me with confidence.

They don't have a specific kind of base in mind that they want players to use. Despite increasing or decreasing block hp strength or increasing or decreasing zombie vs block damage, none of that is done to try and shape what the community builds. In the option menu you can alter zombie damage vs blocks to compensate if necessary.

 

[theFlu]

They don't have a specific kind of base in mind that they want players to use.

That sounds ... depressing. There's no balance if there's no design to balance to/against. Which leads to unintentional 3xx nerfs, so I'll buy it, I guess. But hey, at least hatch hallways still work just as they did.

 

[4sheetzngeegles]

U can't throw spears anymore

Yes you can, at least on pc. The throw mechanic was just commented out. It is fine in first person,
but the animation hold state was removed, so in third person it kind of resembles an underhand
knife throw. But since I play solo.

If people would like a thrown spear option, I think the better option is to just make a new weapon (perhaps calling it a javelin)

That's what I have been doing, I just duplicated the stone spear called it javelin and changed the color. The pick up
box is odd. never did it with iron or steel, i don't want to lose them. I do still pick up my bike almost every time by habit.

allow it to stack

Didn't think of that thanks for the idea.

A throwing skill could be an entirely new weapon group that includes throwing axes, javelins (or spears), throwing knives, etc.

Shhhhh! that was supposed to be a secret.

 

[Kazgrel]

@8_Hussars I was playing online a lot at that time on different servers. The majority did it. And nowadays many want that easy cheese back for exactly that reason.

I wouldn´t mind the LBD that Darkness Falls has at all.

I was going to mention that DF had what I felt was a fairly well done LBD setup, but I haven't played that mod since A19, but I doubt much would've changed to the LBD implementation.

Would be nice if, say, you could gain a point in a particular skill by crafting the highest quality version of whatever the item is. A semblance of LBD mixed in with the magazine system. Sure, could someone try to emulate the stone axe nonsense? Sure. But doing that with stuff that cost a bunch of duct tape and forged iron/steel isn't exactly practical in most settings.

 

[Rotor]

They don't have a specific kind of base in mind that they want players to use. Despite increasing or decreasing block hp strength or increasing or decreasing zombie vs block damage, none of that is done to try and shape what the community builds. In the option menu you can alter zombie damage vs blocks to compensate if necessary.

I would consider that a nerf against 10% zombie block damage.

 

[pApA^LeGBa]

@Someone_Alive If you watch a lot of YT videos, i get where you might get your idea of destroying certain cheese bases on purpose. But it´s YT, it´s basically just making themselves look good. I am pretty sure back then then when the wedge blocks could be used to build a pyramid that they can´t climb, there was several YTers claiming they found it and TFP killed it because of them. Same with the force field blocks.

 

[theFlu]

Same with the force field blocks.

Heh; I'd buy their willingness to fix the game a whole lot easier if they didn't keep releasing new force field blocks. They're aware of the issue, want it gone, but can't automate a test case to run against blocks once a year?

 

[meganoth]

That sounds ... depressing. There's no balance if there's no design to balance to/against. Which leads to unintentional 3xx nerfs, so I'll buy it, I guess. But hey, at least hatch hallways still work just as they did.

They have testers who will tell them if the bases they create work like expected or not.

 

[theFlu]

They have testers who will tell them if the bases they create work like expected or not.

Are those testers designers, or players? If designers, there is a design, it's just "whatever happens to come to mind at the time of testing". If players, then TFP is definitionally designing against players. I don't mind either way anymore, but neither matches with the other claims...

 

[meganoth]

[...]

I know the game is not going to change significantly at this point. They'll tweak a few numbers and call it good rather than completing the game they started because that's their history. Heck, they say they're already working on another game in another engine when this one is one third finished. Impression is: they bit off more they could chew with the RPG promises, perhaps inspired by the success of Skyrim or some other "open world" phenomenon like everyone else, including Bandai Namco and/or FromSoftware to be frank; raked over the trader/looting/crafting systems trying to get them absolutely perfect when there is no such thing as 'perfect,' but only whole or complete; and are now out of time to make drastic changes. Lesson learned? Tune in next game?

Perfectionism is a momentum killer and, if there's anything TFP can be "accused" of, it's perfectionism.

Not making any suggestions for improvement for the reason noted above: I know the game is not going to change significantly at this point.

Instead of trying to make everything look like it was caused by Bethesda you could just read the original kickstarter pitch: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/7daystodie/7-days-to-die-zombie-survival-game
While some details have changed that pitch will tell you that whatever definition of RPG you have, they had a much simpler definition and that is exactly what we will get in the finished game. No, they did not bite off more because their scope for "RPG elements" was always a lot smaller than you seem to imagine.

Now I am not saying anything about whether their definition of RPG is correct or watered down or whatever. They wanted an XP and skill system ("Earn XP and upgrade your skills"), a very basic story (which would "guides the player to other survivors, better loot and undiscovered Points of Interests") and they called that "blending the best elements of FPS, Survival Horror, Tower Defense and Role Playing Games".

There is not the faintest trace of them claiming they wanted to add choices and consequences or multi-layered quests where you can role-play a character similar to say Baldurs Gate III.

 

[Suxar]

Sometimes when TFP fixes a block or adjusts the AI/pathing, it may appear that they are trying to wreck your base design but they really weren't. They didn't even know how you were building your base.

I disagree. The vertical support at the doors was removed precisely so that the doors would not be abused.

But in general it is good that these adjustments are being made. Without them, I would probably have abandoned the game.

 

[meganoth]

Are those testers designers, or players? If designers, there is a design, it's just "whatever happens to come to mind at the time of testing". If players, then TFP is definitionally designing against players. I don't mind either way anymore, but neither matches with the other claims...

I would assume they are players, also the developers seem to play a lot themselves. But you know that already, you read this forum as much as me.

Lets say a lot of them say now "horde night gets kind of boring, the zombies could just destroy 2 blocks all night with a very simple horde base I tried". So a developer might increase block damage of zombies and wait for their next report. That is balancing, right?

You naturally could call this "designing against players" whenever it is a nerf, and "desigining for players" if it is a buff. But since game design is not about making it easy for players but about providing just the right challenge, I would hope you never try to design a game if you adhere to that simplistic view.

 

[theFlu]

You naturally could call this "designing against players" whenever it is a nerf, and "desigining for players" if it is a buff.

Ye, whether buff or nerf, I'd call it "designing against players", as in "designing against an environment" - not hostile action, just against a "set of requirements". The depressing part is, the requirements are somewhat completely arbitrary. "As long as our testers have fun"? It's not the worst idea in the world as a measure, but I don't think it can really work as a goal, esp in a decade-long project.

At the current state, a tower isn't needed for this "tower defense" game; you can just mega crush through a horde night, killing none, or all. A wooden shack won't survive the first horde, and if you've trapped yourself in one, you're likely dead. A 20 block concrete elevated bridge will get you through most of what the game throws at you, but again, so does not having one.

Are these all good or not? If the mega-crush strat is valid, then why were vehicles removed as an option.. etc. Results of lack of direction. The whiplash is an expected part of EA, but nailing down a target would at least diminish that somewhat.

 

[meganoth]

Ye, whether buff or nerf, I'd call it "designing against players", as in "designing against an environment" - not hostile action, just against a "set of requirements". The depressing part is, the requirements are somewhat completely arbitrary. "As long as our testers have fun"? It's not the worst idea in the world as a measure, but I don't think it can really work as a goal, esp in a decade-long project.

I would guess TFP developers know their testers and (!!!) know how they compare to an imagined average player they want to balance the game for. That is surely not an exact science but an art. Or call it vodoo, which sometimes works and sometimes fails horrenduously. Apart from that they surely see us as guinea pigs and may add any information from us general players to their evaluation.

At the current state, a tower isn't needed for this "tower defense" game; you can just mega crush through a horde night, killing none, or all. A wooden shack won't survive the first horde, and if you've trapped yourself in one, you're likely dead. A 20 block concrete elevated bridge will get you through most of what the game throws at you, but again, so does not having one.

Are these all good or not? If the mega-crush strat is valid, then why were vehicles removed as an option.. etc. Results of lack of direction. The whiplash is an expected part of EA, but nailing down a target would at least diminish that somewhat.

Megacrush can't be crafted, so you have to collect to always have enough for every horde night, with a duration of 6 minutes you probably need 3 per horde night, right? While not very difficult it isn't guaranteed, maybe you don't find enough in a week and suddenly are without enough megacrush and probably without a backup horde base as well.

And it is a less obvious possibility Joe Average Player will not necessarily notice (I am not talking about players who like to watch youtubers that tell them all the expert exploits. There is no way to keep the game somewhat sandboxy and close each and every loophole). Using minibike/motorcycle/car on horde night? Who doesn't notice that possibility immediately has carots on his eyes.

Also, every player has a vehicle ready on premise at the third horde night latest, and it acts as a shiny get-out-easy sign as soon as things go sour and panic sets in. If it is there and the horde base crumbles not many players who are principally against this cop-out would still adhere to principle and try to make a last stand. But getting enough megacrush for the purpose of running away on horde night, that takes premediation.

These may or may not be reasons why they did not do something about megacrush but did something about vehicles. Faatal has been saying they will not fix or close any and all loopholes players will find, but they will fix the big ones.
"big"tm, is in the eye of the beholder, but before vehicles were nerfed I remember the forum being full of discussions about cars on horde night. I don't remember a single discussion about megacrush, except for this now.

Anyway, it still could happen that they nerf megacrush. Opinions change, circumstances change.

 

[Roland]

That sounds ... depressing. There's no balance if there's no design to balance to/against. Which leads to unintentional 3xx nerfs, so I'll buy it, I guess. But hey, at least hatch hallways still work just as they did.

They have rules for how blocks should behave, how pathing should occur, and how the AI should function. When they find bugs with those rules they fix them. Designing the game with a specific base build in mind would stifle creativity. Designing the game with specific rules in mind but no predetermined "most correct" base design in mind allows for a lot of creativity for how players use those rules to come up with interesting designs.

The hatch hallway violates no rules and so I expect it will always work. I do believe it needed to by slightly modified in 2.0 due to the rule change that zombies can crawl through 1x1 openings much more easily. But it does still work as you say. It just needed some creative adaptation to the new rule.

 

[theFlu]

While not very difficult it isn't guaranteed, maybe you don't find enough in a week

With daily resets of the vending machines I'd be surprised if I couldn't get 3 by d7. There's 4-8 selections per day from a drink group that has 5 items on it, one of them is 1-2 MC. The likelihood of not getting 3 is .. somewhere under 1%. Per machine.

I'd say it's a whole lot easier to obtain the 3 drink at 2160 dukes than it is to obtain a minibike. Bicycle doesn't really differ from sprinting, although it does offer decent protection, it's so much less nimble than I'd just rather run even without the MCs. Would use water, and maybe a point in cardio for that and be rather golden.

And the vehicles were nerfed first; then MCs were added to the drink vending machines in a vendo update. That's why I'm annoyed at the lack of direction, if it was a goal that you can't just trivially flee a horde night, I'd think they'd have taken that into account when making MCs a "standard buff". But as it isn't, well, it isn't.

 

[theFlu]

It just needed some creative adaptation to the new rule.

Not really; in principle the zeds will hop the hatch now, but you'll kill them just fine at the rate they do. Sure, the plate above helps, but that was already a part of my design to hinder doggos. Not that I've used one for a long while..

Designing the game with a specific base build in mind would stifle creativity.

I don't think I agree. Designing against, say Cobble_base_week_1, would ensure that that type of a base can deal with what's expected for the fist horde. It doesn't have to stifle players from doing things differently; but it would bring a goal to the table. Having such a thing would allow actual answers to questions like:
- can the player obtain the mats (and how difficult is it)
- should this fail for a relatively high GS player, and how?
And more practical ones:
- is this cheese design actually more practical than the basic solution (if you can cheese with spending twice the resources, is it actually cheese..)
- how much does "change X" effect the base (ai, block damage, skill design, whatnot)

With "we designed it for the fun of the testers", we'll get
- could our tester to obtain the mats? I mean he went with the MC strat, soo, yeah, I guess.
- did he have fun doing it? he didn't do it, so, we don't know.

- is this cheese more practical? hell yes. No base at all, that's haxx.
- how much would reducing the speed of MC effect the base .. well, it might start existing again...

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

There is not the faintest trace of them claiming they wanted to add choices and consequences or multi-layered quests where you can role-play a character similar to say Baldurs Gate III

I didn't say there was. "Action game with 'RPG elements'" has taken over the industry. RPGs are, in fact, rarely made anymore despite that most action games are tagged with the label because publishers don't want to back them. Publishers think studios will be wasting time and money creating content no one will ever see, which is a fallacy if ever there was one. That's not why I've withdrawn my support for the game and I didn't say that's why I've withdrawn my support for the game. Subnautica is not a RPG either, but Unknown Worlds didn't promise more than they could deliver and start ripping out partially implemented systems, e.g. the biome effects system and palpable ways to offset those effects, replacing them with "live action" game "challenge" windows, potions and HUD messages rather than developing a complex, robust and compelling system, which I get the impression TFP has neither the time or money left to accomplish. The best way most can put that is all over this forum and everywhere else: "I like the concept, but the implementation leaves much to be desired," to paraphrase.

Not dissing TFP here. In fact, I pointed to the (unconscious) phenomenon that has the entire industry, including FromSoftware, in its grip: the "open world" phenomenon by which the game obviously has been inspired. (In addition, of course, to iinstitutionalized greed.) TFP didn't have the resources to pull one off and that's okay. They're not the only developers to have forgotten that the bigger an open world map is, the more space there is to fill. (Identical ruins and rises anyone?) Nor are they the only developers to walk back scope and scale at the last minute. These are industry trends and not any one person or group's fault, certainly -- trends one can only hope are stopped in their tracks and redirected at some point. Unfortunately, the only way to make that happen is to "make the darkness conscious," in Jungian terms, and most of us are not going to do that willingly.

 

[meganoth]

I didn't say there was.

I specifically highlighted the theory I was trying to debunk. If you disagree please say exactly in which way TFP wanted more RPG in the game than they provided. You can quote the kickstarter to proove your points just like I did. Or are you saying the kickstarter is not showing their intentions?

"Action game with 'RPG elements'" has taken over the industry.

Ah, the generalization again. The single-minded industry doing it and that explains everything, probably even the vanishing of glass jars and giant bees

RPGs are, in fact, rarely made anymore despite that most action games are tagged with the label because publishers don't want to back them. Publishers think studios will be wasting time and money creating content no one will ever see, which is a fallacy if ever there was one. That's not why I've withdrawn my support for the game and I didn't say that's why I've withdrawn my support for the game. Subnautica is not a RPG either, but Unknown Worlds didn't promise more than they could deliver and start ripping out partially implemented systems, e.g. the biome effects system and palpable ways to offset those effects, replacing them with "live action" game "challenge" windows, potions and HUD messages rather than developing a complex, robust and compelling system, which I get the impression TFP has neither the time or money left to accomplish. The best way most can put that is all over this forum and everywhere else: "I like the concept, but the implementation leaves much to be desired," to paraphrase.

Not dissing TFP here. In fact, I pointed to the (unconscious) phenomenon that has the entire industry, including FromSoftware, in its grip: the "open world" phenomenon by which the game obviously has been inspired. (In addition, of course, to iinstitutionalized greed.) TFP didn't have the resources to pull one off and that's okay. They're not the only developers to have forgotten that the bigger an open world map is, the more space there is to fill. (Identical ruins and rises anyone?) Nor are they the only developers to walk back scope and scale at the last minute. These are industry trends and not any one person or group's fault, certainly -- trends one can only hope are stopped in their tracks and redirected at some point. Unfortunately, the only way to make that happen is to "make the darkness conscious," in Jungian terms, and most of us are not going to do that willingly.

Sorry, I am not buying your theory of game companies having a hive mind that follows one strategy and one strategy only. In fact the game industry produces the same amount of high quality true RPGs like in its best times, but that never was very high and always prone to periods of longer "silences" between releases. They represent a market niche that isn't really small, but also not so big to allow even 3 big ones in a year on the PC to be successful. Also RPGs are very costly to produce because of all the branching events the player decisions produce. But due to customer expectation those games can't be priced higher than other genres. So they present a higher risk for the studio as they need to sell better on average.

Limitations of computer hardware compared to a human GM historically led game developers to branch out into diverse directions. RPGs with preset characters, RPGs with central character or party-based, turn-based, real-time or RTwP, jRPG, action-RPG, open world RPG. A lot of this branching out happened 20-30 years ago already and on one hand diversivied the genre and made it appealling to more players but also splitted the market into smaller segments. You are a prime example of that market segmentation that lets each type of RPG compete in a much much smaller market.
That you feel the market dried up is mostly because you narrowed your search window to such an extent that you don't find anything while the industry as a whole produces fodder for everyone. And you seem to look for RPGs in the wrong places. Even I with my wider definition of RPG would never look in the direction of From software in a search for "mostly pen-and-paper-like" RPGs no matter the misleading advertising.