PC V2.0 Storms Brewing Dev Diary

[Blake_]

There has never been a need for a general perk category other than to psychologically placate people who thought they were "wasting" their points on an attribute they didn't plan to use. The general tab is fine I guess but it means that those perks will always have the expensive fixed costs for every single playthrough instead of sometimes being expensive and sometimes being cheap depending on how a player chose to progress. The tradeoff has been a few new perks so that's fine but I never felt the need for this general tab. If I perked into Agility but also wanted to get to level 2 of LOL and level 2 of Miner69 and Motherload then I knew they would be expensive but I paid the points to get them and I didn't agonize that I had some abilities with knucklewraps and clubs that I was ignoring. It was just extra costs for me as an agility player. On a later playthrough if I did strength it made it fun how cheap those mining and harvesting perks were this time but if also wanted to use a bow a lot that would be expensive for me.

The more things they shove into that general category the less variable progression will feel when replaying the game.

When you say variable progression you are defending the roleplay aspect of choosing an attribute . That side of the game is never going to be diminished because if they really squeeeeze their brains and extract the most conflicted perks and make everything inside the attributes about the player and fluff (original, fun, non-conflicting stuff), meaning jumping high, max health, finding treasure, licking rabbits, salvaging, getting laid, punching faces while getting silver and gold nuggets, quest reward shenanigans, sneaking, and a looong etc then there needn't be conflicts or repentments, just plain choices and fun results. Now, eventually the General tab might have to have some manner of cap between some of its perks if that happens, yet with enough perk levels, the cap is uneeded.

But that is an opinion, Whichever way they choose to go, I would love it either way.

 

[Abnormal Zombie]

Due to all the changes, a 1.x save will not load in 2.0.

Bummer. Was looking forward to something productive from the Fun Pimps.
Delete everybody's hard work why don't you? So rude.

I just lost all respect for this update.


EDIT: So this also means every player will be required to download this mandatory update before playing online, which will also void all previous saves, thus FORCING DELETION of the saves of all your happy customers. Was this thought through?

 

[bdubyah]

Bummer. Was looking forward to something productive from the Fun Pimps.
Delete everybody's hard work why don't you? So rude.

I just lost all respect for this update.


EDIT: So this also means every player will be required to download this mandatory update before playing online, which will also void all previous saves, thus FORCING DELETION of the saves of all your happy customers. Was this thought through?

As I said, it's been like this for PC for years now. It sucks, but it is what it is. Just know if you start a save when 2.0 goes stable you'll likely be able to keep that save for a pretty long time while 3.0 is in development.

 

[Space4Ace]

During the dev stream they hinted at some kind of big change to Horde Night and mentioned a dev diary specifically on that. Anyone have any idea what they meant by that? Or is that a future update beyond the current 2.0 one

The only big change that I'm aware of is that all zombie can be in Horde Night. I did see the scientist and a few others that I had never seen in a Horde Night before. I know that the Mutated, Frost Claw, Desert Plague and Burnt zombies will be in also.
No Bears or Zombie Bears I think, but that's okay, they're just too big!

 

[Space4Ace]

Bummer. Was looking forward to something productive from the Fun Pimps.
Delete everybody's hard work why don't you? So rude.

I just lost all respect for this update.


EDIT: So this also means every player will be required to download this mandatory update before playing online, which will also void all previous saves, thus FORCING DELETION of the saves of all your happy customers. Was this thought through?

I do feel your pain but, it's still an unfinished game that has many features still not in (Bandits, story, etc.).
You could always wait until it is completed before playing if that's a problem for you.
As for me, I love starting a new world. The early days of progression is my favorite thing, and building a base with a new design is always something I like doing.

 

[Double G]

That sounds like a very personal decision. But then again, people stood there crafting hundreds of stone axes before.

If you've completed all the other tasks, the biome hazard is still in effect. If you have a lot of time left, you can't really freely roam around the biome because you have 3 mins before the hazard starts killing you. I mean, I guess you could go in deeper and explore and then start running out before the 3 mins is up, or maybe walk around the edge of the biome. There's really not much else you could do.

 

[Abnormal Zombie]

Something bad isn't justified as acceptable just because it has happened before.

As a programmer myself, I relatively understand how easy it would actually be to implement a backwards compatibility mechanic.

It's not that it can't be done, it's that they didn't think to try - probably also following the same logic: "We've done it this way before, so why not?"

 

[faatal]

Something bad isn't justified as acceptable just because it has happened before.

As a programmer myself, I relatively understand how easy it would actually be to implement a backwards compatibility mechanic.

It's not that it can't be done, it's that they didn't think to try - probably also following the same logic: "We've done it this way before, so why not?"

We do have version numbers and backwards compatibility in much of our data, which generally allows x.y versions to keep working with minor .y versions changes, but most of the time we change too much with major updates and a ton of stuff breaks.

 

[ProlificPoultry]

There has never been a need for a general perk category other than to psychologically placate people who thought they were "wasting" their points on an attribute they didn't plan to use. The general tab is fine I guess but it means that those perks will always have the expensive fixed costs for every single playthrough instead of sometimes being expensive and sometimes being cheap depending on how a player chose to progress. The tradeoff has been a few new perks so that's fine but I never felt the need for this general tab. If I perked into Agility but also wanted to get to level 2 of LOL and level 2 of Miner69 and Motherload then I knew they would be expensive but I paid the points to get them and I didn't agonize that I had some abilities with knucklewraps and clubs that I was ignoring. It was just extra costs for me as an agility player. On a later playthrough if I did strength it made it fun how cheap those mining and harvesting perks were this time but if also wanted to use a bow a lot that would be expensive for me.

The more things they shove into that general category the less variable progression will feel when replaying the game.

It’s really a non-issue having the general tab. Literally it’ll feel like less variable progression if that’s how you play the game like no one’s stopping you from still allocating two points into strength as if you were going to get miner 69’er to level 2 or just going a little into strength to get another perk. It’s allowing people to have their whatever attribute focused builds without needing to spend points into other trees. I mean is that not why they are constantly rebalancing the attributes and their perks? So that the trees can stand on their own? Otherwise, why not have it the way it was before in alpha 16 where skills didn’t fall under any attribute?

 

[Blake_]

I've been seing many streamers flock to Pack Mule because of how easy it is to get and ... 50% chance to negate damage? Lol. Alright. 1 in every 2 hits you take no damage. With a level 10 character. I've never seen such a huge ""nerf me, please"' target on a perk's back before.

The change did improve statistical usage of the perk in telemetry data for sure, like making cocacola with the original main ingredient and giving it to children.

 

[Roland]

Something bad isn't justified as acceptable just because it has happened before.

As a programmer myself, I relatively understand how easy it would actually be to implement a backwards compatibility mechanic.

It's not that it can't be done, it's that they didn't think to try - probably also following the same logic: "We've done it this way before, so why not?"

I'm not exactly sure how the consoles work. Can you disable the automatic updating of 7 Days to Die so that when 2.0 is released your game won't update to it? If you have a way to remain on 1.4 until you are fully finished with that world you should take those steps now. If you update to 2.0 your 1.4 saves will not be able to be loaded and I'm not sure if there is a way for you to revert back to 1.4 once the 2.0 update takes place.

 

[meganoth]

It’s really a non-issue having the general tab. Literally it’ll feel like less variable progression if that’s how you play the game like no one’s stopping you from still allocating two points into strength as if you were going to get miner 69’er to level 2 or just going a little into strength to get another perk. It’s allowing people to have their whatever attribute focused builds without needing to spend points into other trees. I mean is that not why they are constantly rebalancing the attributes and their perks? So that the trees can stand on their own? Otherwise, why not have it the way it was before in alpha 16 where skills didn’t fall under any attribute?

The short answer: In a co-op multiplayer game a developer wants to give players choices of characters that are as different as possible. In this game this is done by having attributes with situational, somewhat weaker and a few perks everyone wants distributed over the perks. Choosing a class means choosing between those sets and leaving some other most wanted perks for your co-op players to choose.

If the developer moves most-wanted perks into general then each co-op player will look and feel the same, making the choice of attribute less and less important, hurting replayability and co-op play.

 

[Outlaw_187]

Something bad isn't justified as acceptable just because it has happened before.

As a programmer myself, I relatively understand how easy it would actually be to implement a backwards compatibility mechanic.

It's not that it can't be done, it's that they didn't think to try - probably also following the same logic: "We've done it this way before, so why not?"

I'm going to assume you're a newer player to 7 Days.
This has in fact been a thing ever since I started playing back on PlayStation 4, alpha 14.7.
Every new (big) update required a new start.

They always suggest a new save even with patches, for example when 1.3 updated to 1.4, but It wasn't necessarily a requirement.

Anyway, this used to bug me too when I started playing. However I became accustomed to it and just looked at it like many practice or tutorial runs. Learned from all my mistakes & improved where I could.

Now by the time bigger updates come out, I'm ready to restart with a fresh save.

 

[mike collett]

Can you disable the automatic updating of 7 Days to Die so that when 2.0 is released your game won't update to it?

turn off your modem - if you dare

 

[BFT2020]

So what’s the harm in moving the resource gathering perks into the general perks tree?

There is no harm, just a different way of playing the game. If you want to do it that way, just mod it so all the perks are in the general tree instead of being tied to an attribute perk tree.

For some, it removes the consequence of making a choice. I like playing agility builds, but I understand that I won't be as good with a shotgun as I am with a pistol. I love that type of gameplay.

 

[Jost Amman]

The real problem is that most players don't really "role-play".
Most of them are just copy-paste min-maxers. That also reflects society at large.
People tend to copy other people's behavior if they think it will benefit them.

To each one his own I guess.

 

[SylenThunder]

Something bad isn't justified as acceptable just because it has happened before.

As a programmer myself, I relatively understand how easy it would actually be to implement a backwards compatibility mechanic.

It's not that it can't be done, it's that they didn't think to try - probably also following the same logic: "We've done it this way before, so why not?"

This is an industry standard for software that is still being developed.

You did notice the warning in the store that it was pre-release software yeah?

 

[Adam the Waster]

I think you need to play it first to see, especially since the fun pimps have a tendency to go nerf happy or change stuff in a real unattractive way

I think it's for the best I don't need to play yet to hear you have a 50% chance to block any attack is going to be strong af

 

[Riamus]

Will we still be able to play on our 1.4 saves still?

When I started my game on Xbox, the news article on the start screen said 1.4 saves won't work. Does that mean they won't work with the new features, or they just won't run at all?

If 1.4 saves won't load at all:
* It will mean the large scale base my friend and I have been creating for the past 4 months while waiting for this incredibly delayed update will be for nothing. We'll not just be extremely disappointed, but also angry - honestly. We have worked on it with hopes of using it for this update and sharing it with our other friends at the time of the update. If our efforts and creativity are to just be erased, that's grossly inconsiderate.
* It means the version number on the save files has no purpose. It otherwise suggests each save from different game versions are still playable.
* It means there was no effort given to include backward compatibility. It is not only expected, but also not a difficult programming endeavor. Delay it another month or six if needed.

If 1.4 saves won't work with the new features but can still be played:
* I'll just be disappointed.


I'm not sure if this has already been covered, but even if it has I think it's important to voice my opinion. Can you let me know?

Either way, looks like disappointment is brewing.


P.S. The 50% damage buffs/defense perks in the update seem ill-thought.

First, to answer your question -- 1.4 saves will NOT work in 2.0. That has been verified by the devs.

Now, here are some things to keep in mind...

• You do not HAVE to update your game. You can keep playing on 1.4 until you are ready to update your game. Just turn off the automatic updates on your console for this game. You will not get the new stuff, but that's to be expected. Note that if you do not turn off the updates and allow the game to update, you will not be able to revert back to 1.4 on console.
• This game is designed to be played over and over. You should expect to start new games regularly with this game. It is a very different game than most others out there in that regard. Since that is how it's designed, starting a new game is not really a problem. It just takes getting used to the idea.
• This game is in active development - note the pre-release information about the game. Thing in active development will often require you to start over with any major updates. If that isn't acceptable to you, you can choose not to update the game or to wait to play it until development is complete.
• Only major updates are likely to require a new game. That means 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 and then the game will be complete and you won't have to worry about it again. So that's a total of only 3 restarts that would be required. It will be very rare (likely never happening going forward) to need to restart a game for a minor update like 2.1 or 2.2. Each of these major updates will take a decent amount of time between releases. I'd personally expect around 1 year between, though they want to believe it'll be about 6 months between. That's plenty of time to play a game before starting a new game (most people would play at least a dozen games in that time period).
• As the developer has pointed out in his response here, they try to keep things compatible, but major updates have so many changes that just can't be compatible that it's not feasible. Again, this is not a finished game yet, so this is to be expected.
• Even if you could continue a 1.4 save in 2.0, you'd miss out on the 140 new POI and various other things that wouldn't be in an older map/save, so it is better to start a new game anyhow.
• Look at it as a way to try something different. If you liked building the base, then you'll like building a new one as well. And with your past experience building that one, you'll have ideas of what to try with a new base.
• And although it won't help you since you're on console, on PC it is possible to copy a base and make it a POI you can place back into a new game. If you were to choose to play on a dedicated server, or with a PC hosting, it *may* be possible to have a PC user copy your base and place it onto a new map for you to use. You'll have to redo any wiring and may have to replace things like crates or turrets, but the base itself would still be there for you.

 

[LiamTaylor1996]

Will they be tornado on this update with storms like just wondering thanks