Skaarphy

I've recently generated a 4k map with "few" towns. Too few, apparently, because that resulted in a map with no traders. I didn't want a game with no traders so I had to quit and make a 5k map. Result: 2 traders. The way I see it, 7DTD just begs to be a game where you have a massive amount of options available to you when setting up a game. I think It's in a pretty good place already when it comes to defining your difficulty and other rules under which to play the game: Bloodmoon frequency, zombie run speed, XP and loot amount, etc. That's all great to have. But when it comes specifying how you want your world to look like when generating it it's sorely lacking. Are there any plans to not have traders tethered to towns? Maybe even to let the player specify how many traders he wants on a map? Or be able to generate maps where you have one big river running from north to south? Or a chasm? With all bridges broken? Or one giant city covering most of the map? Are there any plans to get to something like that, eventually? Does anyone know?

I literally starting salivating when I saw that. Definitely on my bucket list.

I was wondering if this is possible, and if people would like it. I heard the original idea behind 7DTD was for the player to be infected right from the get-go and giving them 7 days to find a cure or they turn into a zombie. With the game as it is you have no problem: chop tree stumps, or get some money and buy it. But how about this: 1. Just like in the original verson you have 7 days to find a cure but antibiotics only take care of acute infections. You will still become a zombie if you don't find the proper cure which can only be found randomly in T5 POI loot stashes. 2. When you die or when your 7 days are up you die for good but everything you've done so far will persist: your base, your stash, every change you made to the world map. You just start anew as a level one character who needs to find cooking magazines to learn how to make coffee. Is that a thing that can be done? Does that sound interesting to anyone?

I would actually do that even though I have no clue of modding and editing and XML (whatever that is) but my computer just doesn't allow large towns. I get framerates of about 10. I was actually about to quit until I have bought myself a better one but then I remembered that Navezgane has these small square towns instead of the sprawling ones with their FPS-kllling downtown areas, and it worked. FPS suck, but playable.

To be honest, I didn't think about it too much, I just thought it'd be interesting to play a map that's just one big town and nothing else. You'd have to go about it very differently, I think. No mining would mean not a whole lot of gas, for instance, so you'd have to pick and chose where to go by motorcycle and where to walk or ride your bike. There'd also be very few trees, so finding a large amount of wood would be like a christmas present. You'd also have to be more careful with your ammunition since you just can't grind some resources to get some. Things like that. It'd be an interesting way to play, I believe. Performance issues would be a thing, of course, but maybe it'd be not that bad, I don't know. I know I can't run towns for s**t because my computer is ancient, but maybe it's not that bad for many other players. And for me, once I get myself basically an entirely new computer.

One where you can tailormake maps just like you want them to, with options like: - The exact number of traders, starting from zero - The exact number of settlements and towns, from zero to infinite (i.e. covers the entire map) - The scarcity of mining resources like iron, coal, etc. Is that a pipe dream?

How about a zombie dinosaur, like in a Jurassic Park crossover?

I was wondering whether the path is too long: They spawn near the side where I'm at, don't register the entrance on the other side, and try to dig through. But they do this no matter where they spawn. I have since made a second entrance, on the diagonally opposite side of the first one. When I'm on one of the sides and lock the door behind me they'll go and attack the blocks on my side. But when I then open the door, run over to the other side, and close the door there the ones that don't immediately come inside will then run over and again attack the blocks on the side where I am. I can then repeat that, always with the same result. I've made a few screenshots of the base. The first shows how the entrances look like, the second the below ground part, and the third the above ground part.

I have built a semi-underground base with 36 blocks length and 15 blocks width, and with one block being above ground and five blocks being below ground. There is an entrance at the end of one of the long sides with double stairs leading down. The below ground part has a two block width pathway with electric fences lined up all the way from one side to the other. The idea is to lure them down the stairs onto the pathway where they get electrocuted and where I then blast them with explosives. Only it doesn't work. What they do instead is run all across the above ground section to the side where I'm at and start destroying blocks. It's rare that one of them actually takes the stairs. Anyone an idea why that is?

That sounds excellent. Have you considered doing it in a kind of modular way? Like, giving options to not removing quest rewards, adjusting the time for restocking according to your preferences, etc., and being able to do that in the menu? Is that possible?

A solution could be for traders to not give out any quest rewards above tier 3 or 4, and for them to sell high-tier gear for a considerably higher price. That way you could still get useful gear through quest rewards, and still have good reasons to save up some dukes, but it wouldn't kick crafting in the balls.

Meaning, the 3 you think are most useless ones. For me it is: Animal Tracker: Arguably moderately useful before A21, with the abundance of wildlife it now serves no purpose at all. When maxed it might serve to warn against bears and such, but I've never felt that this would be particularly useful. It does seem to be useful for a dedicated hunter in multiplayer though. Treasure Hunter: Unless I go all-out on buried treasure jobs (which doesn't sound like fun at all, plus they're low-tier anyway) I see no point in it. Treasure maps are too rare for it to have any impact, and the 30% more ammo when maxed isn't that compelling either. Rule 1: Cardio: Tempting at the beginning but that's it. If it covered all stamina regen and not just when sprinting it'd be a different story but since it doesn't any points invested seem to be better put elsewhere.

Not sure if this is really such a huge issue. The very first zombies you meet are simple, slow and isolated ones, ideal for practice. Plus you have this death protection buff where you don't lose anything except your stuff, which you can then go pick up. If people are not able to figure things out after a few attempts and get so frustrated from that that they stop playing the game, I don't know, that seems to be on them. Food and water is a bit of a different issue but still managable. You are hungry and thirsty? When you ask yourself where to find water and food the obvious answer is people's homes. And when you go into people's homes you easily find some. Not much but usually easily accessible. You might get into trouble if you go deeper than the kitchen but that's how you learn, isn't it? So you just do kitchens if the risk of the upper floors seems too high for you. I don't know, it seems to me that just asking yourself what you need and how to get it - and being sensible about it - gets you through the first days without much frustration, even as a complete noob in these types of games.

One solution could be to make high-tier, high-end items excessively expensive. 200.000 Dukes for your tier 5 automatic shotgun, and you'll think twice about purchasing it, even if you have that kind of money. That way magazines and crafting still have value and at the same time traders don't need to be nerfed in that they're selling only junk.

Not sure why so many people have such problems with me talking about "the player." I think I made it clear enough that I'm talking about my impressions and that I might be wrong. It also goes without saying - yes, really, it does - that there are always exceptions, and always people who are less interested in this and more interested in that, or not interested at all in that other thing. But to be fair, I think I did bring my point across rather poorly. I already said so in an above post, and I just now edited it into my original post to clarify things a bit.