PC Zombie killin' experience gain

[skullpoker]

7D2D would be very well suited for including stealth as a play style. But that activity isn't something you can measure and give XP for.

Using one of the most popular RPG's of the last decade as an example, Skyrim had a pretty solid system for rewarding Sneaking near entities and for using a sneak attack, which not only gave XP for sneaking but also for the weapon used. Since 7 Days already has weapon XP for attacking/harvesting, all they need to implement is some if>then code to reward sneaking near entities.

Skyrim is also an example of a game that doesn't give any XP for quest rewards, but only for using a given skill, much like 7 Days. You didn't seem to get more XP for a killing blow than for any other attack that damaged an entity/practice target.

Point being, I think a lot of people like the mechanic of gaining xp by using skills, and if we lose XP for killing zombies then they might as well take weapon skills out of the game entirely as "fear" people wouldn't be using them to kill zombies and there simply aren't enough animals in the game to make keeping code for the skills worthwhile. And the next logical step after that is to take weapons out of the game entirely, eliminate hunting, and make farming and scavenging the only sources of food. I hope that sounds as bland and horrible to everybody else as it sounds to me. Full Refund time if that happens.

 

[skullpoker]

I honestly don't see 7DTD switching to getting experience mostly from quests. I could easily be wrong but that isn't the way I see things progressing.
On the class vs. skill argument I'm more of a class+skill guy. I MUCH prefer improving skills by using those skills instead of generic experience pools and spending generic points. Use a hammer, get better at using hammers and, to a lesser extent, get better at bashing things in general. Skill trees help with this mechanic, which is mostly what I see classes as... access to specific skill trees.

I'm not opposed to a general character level and even using it to gate some things but the focus in my mind should be on skills. Quests should be more about gaining reputation or acquiring items instead of experience. The journey while completing the quests is where your character should experience the personal gain. I always hated the "wait until the end of the campaign to get your experience and improvements" mentality of D&D (though I did play it for a LOT of years, starting with the first edition red book).

Did you know there was a table in AD&D 2E specifically for non-combat XP? I never played a single game where it was "end of campaign" XP, but we did "end of session" XP a lot. And of course, in-session XP for good role-playing. Er go, not for using skills, but for being in character or tactical thinking or clever solutions...

Currently, quests in 7 Days give skill points as rewards that you can spend where you want and that seems to be an excellent system. Kill all classic Male zombie types within the time limit: +3 skill points. Miss the time limit: +1 skill point. It's a good system given how skills work in the game, and the only way to advance at level cap. Frankly, if you find enough quest starters it can be much quicker than levelling although some of them are pretty horrible (punch zombies to death while drunk, kill lumberjacks with fire axe...).

 

[Guppycur]

Yeh. Session != Campaign. End of the run is when we divied out xp. Then I'd have my players argue for more, based on how they role played correctly.

 

[KanedaSyndrome]

Beating up the one of the "big-bads" does have a reward - you're still alive and it hasn't trashed your base! That's plenty of incentive to fight one in self defence (and plenty of a sense of major accomplishment when you successfully defend yourself from one).
But going out looking for one to fight for the sake of it (rather than in self-defence) shouldn't be rewarded because it shouldn't be encouraged. It goes against the genre of this being a survival game.

Therefore, zombie kills shouldn't give xp, of course.

Hear Hear!

 

[Mirar]

the only reason why i Play this zombie survival/crafting game is, because it has a xp/level system that is in my sight pretty well implemented in a survival game.

ofc it Needs some balances, but remove reward for killing zombies is like you get nomore stones from hammering on a big stone with a pickaxe.

in this game you Need that reward for killing zombies, no mather what some guys want.

 

[themirror]

the only reason why i Play this zombie survival/crafting game is, because it has a xp/level system that is in my sight pretty well implemented in a survival game.ofc it Needs some balances, but remove reward for killing zombies is like you get nomore stones from hammering on a big stone with a pickaxe.

in this game you Need that reward for killing zombies, no mather what some guys want.

Agree. But I think that getting xp for traps/turrets is not so fair and they need to stay as it is. Getting xp for explosions and/or molotov actually is in the same group as traps, maybe it can be changed

 

[skullpoker]

Agree. But I think that getting xp for traps/turrets is not so fair and they need to stay as it is. Getting xp for explosions and/or molotov actually is in the same group as traps, maybe it can be changed

Agreed. There's a difference between a placed TNT and a Stick of Dynamite that you're actively throwing. One is a trap, the other is an action. But something else to consider there is that explosives damage landscape/structure, so it might be difficult to implement "XP for killing zombies vs XP for destroying blocks", unless that XP is directly rewarded for Harvesting, which would be indicated if smashing blocks with a sledgehammer does not give XP.

 

[meganoth]

I honestly don't see 7DTD switching to getting experience mostly from quests. I could easily be wrong but that isn't the way I see things progressing.

I didn't advocate 7D2D to use mostly quests for XP. The stuff about quest xp was just a recap what RPGs were and are are doing now, historical context and all. I should have included a tldr :smile-new: . For 7D2d I just proposed the following:

7D2D would be very well suited for including stealth as a play style. But that activity isn't something you can measure and give XP for. The solution would be (like RPGs who give xp for solving the quest, no matter how) to give rewards for reaching objectives instead of what you do on the way. So if we assume that players roam the world to scrounge, xp could just be given for scrounging instead of giving xp for the zombies that stand in the way of scrounging.

 

[meganoth]

Using one of the most popular RPG's of the last decade as an example, Skyrim had a pretty solid system for rewarding Sneaking near entities and for using a sneak attack, which not only gave XP for sneaking but also for the weapon used. Since 7 Days already has weapon XP for attacking/harvesting, all they need to implement is some if>then code to reward sneaking near entities.

A sneak attack really is a nice idea, but it is already implemented in 7D2D, remember the popup when you attack a zombie in stealth? Doesn't help with the missing xp of stealthily ransacking a building, but it is a good use for stealth.

Giving xp just for sneaking near an enemy is not that easy. You don't want to reward xp continually to a player just sitting there near a zombie and waiting or moving back and forth without doing anything sensible. That could be exploited in lots of ways

Point being, I think a lot of people like the mechanic of gaining xp by using skills, and if we lose XP for killing zombies then they might as well take weapon skills out of the game entirely as "fear" people wouldn't be using them to kill zombies and there simply aren't enough animals in the game to make keeping code for the skills worthwhile. And the next logical step after that is to take weapons out of the game entirely, eliminate hunting, and make farming and scavenging the only sources of food. I hope that sounds as bland and horrible to everybody else as it sounds to me. Full Refund time if that happens.

Here you completely lost me, sorry. You are extrapolating from a few "fear" people, as you call them, to TFP completely going bonkers. NO, that is not the next logical step, that is you thinking of morlocs overtaking the world.

 

[skullpoker]

Here you completely lost me, sorry. You are extrapolating from a few "fear" people, as you call them, to TFP completely going bonkers. NO, that is not the next logical step, that is you thinking of morlocs overtaking the world.

Oh, pardon me. I tried to come up with something as (immersion breaking? daft? counter-intuitve? poor game design?) as not getting XP for kills. Given your "WTF" reaction, I think I hit the mark.

 

[Aurelius]

Giving xp just for sneaking near an enemy is not that easy. You don't want to reward xp continually to a player just sitting there near a zombie and waiting or moving back and forth without doing anything sensible. That could be exploited in lots of ways.

I think it's doable, as long as there is a chance to fail your sneak check and the xp reward is inversely related to your sneak success. (eg higher chance of success, less xp received.)

Project Zomboid already has this mechanic in place.

-A

 

[Maharin]

Our rule in D&D was that if we didn't end up in a town there would be no experience or advancement and that frequently (but not always) meant we went many sessions before experience was doled out. /shrug We also used to do marathon sessions of 10+ hours, too, so whatever.

 

[Kattla]

I liked this game the most when it had no xp / levelling system at all.

 

[Aldranon]

Take in the first two.

1) Most people want a feeling of progress in a game, that the things they do, lead to accomplishment.

2) Because of the above, they will endure a surprising amount of hardship and repetitious activities.

Most people will then see why people do and don't do certain things in 7D2D:

A) Play below ground and build huge underground complexes and long subway tunnels.

-or-

B) Play above ground and gimmick an above ground fort to take as little damage as possible.

-or-

C) Cheat up a bunch of ammo and several "playdough" durability weapons and go crazy.

B is viable if killing zombies has a point. Ether a chance of good loot, experience or clues. As the game provides no real benefit to killing zombies, the intelligent, non-cheating person makes their base below ground.

Same thing with exploration, or as I call them: "Brass expeditions" as that ends up being the ONLY point.

So with a game that completely stops creating fun by mid game and requires the player to make up some fun, or stop playing. You would think that a robust adventure system is at the top of TFP list.

Is it?

 

[RestInPieces]

I liked this game the most when it had no xp / levelling system at all.

And nowadays some people think that if zombies don't award enough xp players will stop killing them and the game will fall apart...

I can't say I am totally against a character progression system, but I don't like the game being focused on one either. A proper atmospheric/immersive survival should definitely not be about chasing carrots on sticks or grinding xp - these characteristics are more fitting to a happy-go-lucky mmo.

And about the "let me play how I want" PC catch phrase, that has become a creed during these last years in the forums... I swear I get triggered every time I see it, I want to kill a cat or something.

First of all, this is a forum and it should be obvious that everything expressed here is an opinion. Anyway, the reality (imho) is that not everyone can play how they want - it's bloody impossible. The game may contain elements from several genres in the description but it can't be everything at the same time. Neither can the devs implement a myriad of things only to gate them behind even more options. Plus some elements can hurt others by being thematically/mechanically antithetical. One such thing (imho) is getting phat xp rewards from zombies like the ones in A15(? if I remember correctly).

 

[RestInPieces]

Take in the first two.
1) Most people want a feeling of progress in a game, that the things they do, lead to accomplishment.

2) Because of the above, they will endure a surprising amount of hardship and repetitious activities.

Most people will then see why people do and don't do certain things in 7D2D:

A) Play below ground and build huge underground complexes and long subway tunnels.

-or-

B) Play above ground and gimmick an above ground fort to take as little damage as possible.

-or-

C) Cheat up a bunch of ammo and several "playdough" durability weapons and go crazy.

B is viable if killing zombies has a point. Ether a chance of good loot, experience or clues. As the game provides no real benefit to killing zombies, the intelligent, non-cheating person makes their base below ground.

Same thing with exploration, or as I call them: "Brass expeditions" as that ends up being the ONLY point.

So with a game that completely stops creating fun by mid game and requires the player to make up some fun, or stop playing. You would think that a robust adventure system is at the top of TFP list.

Is it?

Completely disagree that this is the root of the problem. As I said above, I strongly think that a survival game should focus around survival, lest it stops being about survival and turns into a mere mmo-style shooter. One thing is for sure, it cannot possibly be everything at once.

Every action needs a motive - I completely support that. But there are many different kinds of motives with different levels of motivation power that make the player act differently. I play with 6-7 rl friends of mine every time the game releases an update. Observing them, their playstyle never changed significantly since A1, until A15 (if im not mistaken) with increased zombie xp was released, at which point they clearly viewed enemies as grinding material. As enemies are abundant and instantly accessible, they felt compelled to "power level", ignoring their characters' lives/well being or other activities, for the sake of these xp rewards. Completely natural, since the game encouraged them to.

Zombies awarding experience will not make "underground players" live above ground and in the case they do, it will be for the wrong reasons. Players living underground are not a problem in the first place - the underground itself is, according to the opinion of those of us who want underground threats (for our sakes ofc).

As for the brass expeditions - they will just turn into xp grind expeditions. They are brass expeditions because survival mechanics are flawed. Maintenance and upkeep costs need adjustments, spoilage and machine failures need to be introduced, loot needs to be adjusted, events and other more compelling and less bland reasons than xp grind.

But I bet an arm and a leg, that many of these problems come from the plenty of options we have in the first place, that are supposedly always a good thing. Hopefully someone understands why I am saying that but won't get into it further at this point.

 

[StompyNZ]

The main point in my view is that if you are actively doing something and the game has a progression system then you should be getting XP in some form for it.

Killing zombies is active.

Mining is active.

Crafting was active. ish. it got nerfed to not give skill xp cos of grind...

Collecting resources and building traps is active, killing zombies with traps is passive

For me, when I play, I usually just want to go destroy some zombies. I often wish they would do that in walking dead instead of the dramtic long scenes of people crying and such.

Im good at fps games, so zombies in 7days are not much of a challenge. I also enjoying choping them to bits...

I still find it easier to get character xp from mining.

I wouldnt really change how I play if zombies gave no xp, but progression would be a lot slower so if it was balanced to offset that then it doesnt matter.

If someone wants to go full rambo on horde night it should be rewarded with mad xp, because they should be considered mad but the game doesnt have a way to stop people with the right buffs (i.e coffee), so instead of nerf xp, that should be addressed.

 

[Aldranon]

I recommend reading both RestinPieces and StompyNZ last comments.

Somewhere between mine and their two comments, is a great game.

Maybe giving XP at all isn't the way to do it. Maybe just a straight what you do is what you get better at kinda thing. Some things will need to be grouped up but that would stop the dig a hole in the ground to get good at bartering for example.

You want to get better at fighting Zombies? Then fight zombies!

 

[meganoth]

Oh, pardon me. I tried to come up with something as (immersion breaking? daft? counter-intuitve? poor game design?) as not getting XP for kills. Given your "WTF" reaction, I think I hit the mark.

Strange, that you have so much problems with imagining that killing zombies without XP could be fun in itself. I must be much more bloodthirsty than you :smile-new:

 

[meganoth]

I think it's doable, as long as there is a chance to fail your sneak check and the xp reward is inversely related to your sneak success. (eg higher chance of success, less xp received.)
Project Zomboid already has this mechanic in place.

-A

Ok, still exploitable (for example surround yourself with spikes, watch tv until you hear spikes cracking), but it sounds like a workable alternative on the whole. Not sure if the calculation of the distance to all zombies around as soon as you are stealthed would hurt performance though.