Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About firstedition

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I posted something similar to what the OP said back when a18 came out (or was it a17)? The Fun Pimps just want you to fight the horde. They don't want it to be a choice. Which is really weird because their game seems to be all about handling the situation in the way YOU want. Except the horde. It's a huge failing on the part of this development team. Instead of letting players deal with the problem in the manner they decide (be it having some kind of fortress, digging a bunker, making a kill-tower, outrunning the horde or whatever), they continue to try to railroad the player to this one activity. Instead of, you know, finishing the game, they just keep fighting with the players over this. It's crazy. So now we have zombie vulture missiles instead of a finished game. Hurray. But what I think is worse than that is the reaction from these boards. You see people like this come along all the time, making an account to give some feedback (to a game still in alpha) saying "Why can't I just get in a jeep and outrun the horde?" and the community here dogpiles them and says "git gud or gtfo". Either you like the changes the Fun Pimps make, or you're told in so many words to trot-off and play minecraft. Either you like to play the game their way, or you shouldn't be playing the game. I mean, there are plenty of legitimate questions. "Why do vultures stop vehicles?" "Why do zombie vultures move so fast?" "Why do zombies tunnel through solid rock?" "Why does zombie damage multiply when more of them attack one object?" "Why do the zombies automatically know where you are?" "Why do the zombies know the layout of your base to path to you?" "Why do all the PoIs play out the same?" "Why aren't the traders and settlements smashed during Day 7s like mine is?" "Why is my loot tied to my level?" "Why does a hardware store only have stone tools?" The answer to each of those is that the Fun Pimps have systematically nerfed every route through the game so that your optimal strategy is to play the game in the manner they intend. All those other 'options' that the player might try? They're WRONG. People come in and see this amazing game with all this freedom that the player can have. An exciting experience where they can decide and execute the strategy on how to deal with the zombie apocalypse... except then they discover that after a patch or two they've been playing it WRONG. The Fun Pimps do not agree with their playstyle. So zombie cobras that move through walls are introduced to nerf that playstyle. And the game is still unfinished. It's been what, like 7 years? Oh, and then anyone who comments about it on the boards here is told that they're wrong too. Either grind up and get your guns in the PoIs and build your concrete cube or trap-tower and play the game how we play it or GTFO. So, my condolences to you, OP. Welcome to 7 Days to Die. This is now your intended experience. "Enjoy."
  2. So if I build underground, they're coming through the ceiling?
  3. Hey, Been a while since I checked on the game. Are the zombies still burrowing through solid rock? Last time I played the zombies got a damage buff to objects when they were in groups. And on Day 7s they could burrow through about 60 meters of rock in about 30 seconds. That still going on? Everyone still building up instead of down? Just asking.
  4. 2) Strategies that involve zero effort during Horde nights are unacceptable. So, this counterargument is saying that the developers do NOT want a situation where surviving the 7th-Day Horde requires zero effort on behalf of the player. They also say that, specifically, they want to avoid counters to the Horde that require zero maintenance, even if it has taken effort to set up. I'd say that both of these concepts are in error, because it overlooks one key fact: the player already always expends effort when they choose how to deal with the Horde. So, whether the player is expending almost no effort, or all the effort, they ARE, in-fact, dealing with the 7th-Day horde. How? By making choices on how to handle the event. They ARE expending effort, even if that effort is something as simple as "I climb that radio mast and hide at the top all night." This counterargument would argue that this strategy involves little to no effort and is therefore bad. However, I'd say even the current 'successful builds' to overcome the hordes, be it with traps, cages, platforms, etc. are all designed to REDUCE effort on behalf of the player. Why penalize the player if they successfully reduce the amount of effort to zero? The point is, even a player who elects to literally do NOTHING during the 7th-Day horde is making a CHOICE on how they deal with it. And that is what makes the situation so interesting as a player. We can have a choice. We can (or could)... -Fight them head on -Make an obstacle course of traps -Watch our pit trap kill them all -Take a 20 minute break from the game as we sit in our underground bunker -Go for a midnight drive on our motorbike while listening to some Timecop1983 -Hide on top of a gas station using molotov cocktails we made -Get hit a bunch, fall on the ground and die for 20 minutes That last choice, simply dying, is one that absolutely requires no effort on behalf of the player. Even if you include something to penalize them, the player always, ALWAYS has an option to expend no effort whatsoever on the Horde, so long as they are prepared to pay the requisite cost (in this case, time spent dealing with death penalties). Why is dying over and over a mechanically acceptable method of dealing with the Horde, but preparing something ahead of time is penalized? The player is still pays the cost for their 'zero effort' strategy, one is simply spent ahead of time while the other is spent after. No matter what the player chooses, the player IS dealing with the 7th-Day Horde event; they are seeing an event and taking the action which they feel is appropriate. And being given that choice is a huge part of what makes the event so interesting and entertaining for the player. Having a lot of choices is, for example, one of the thing players love about tabletop games. They love that they don't HAVE to fight their enemies straight on. They can negotiate with them, lure them into traps, stealthily go around them, trick one enemy into fighting another, turn on the party and join the enemies, etc. Just because a group of players 'trivializes' an encounter doesn't mean the Dungeon Master (DM) has run a bad encounter. It means that the DM gave their players the freedom to reasonably handle the situation instead of railroading them on to one particular course of action. That's my criticism with the concept that Hordes MUST take effort. I feel the game is railroading me. That it's telling me "THIS is how we want you to deal with this situation." Again, all weapons, powerups, ammo types, armor, they work great against zombies, but pit traps, concrete barriers and hiding don't because... you are being railroaded into a combat situation. I feel like, I used to have the freedom to deal with the zombies in a lot of ways. Now, I have to either look up exploits, follow someone elses build design, or play the game in a way that I don't really enjoy. All because the 'DM' wants me to expend my effort on the Horde in what they feel is the 'appropriate' manner. They are removing my choice and supplanting it with one of their own. Not very fun if you ask me. My final words on this topic to the developers would be this: It's OKAY if players come up with something that trivializes your Horde encounter. If pit traps kill them with no effort, that's okay, because the player chose that, put the time and effort in to make that. Players will literally always have the option of putting in zero effort during a horde (by dying) - they will just deal with it later. To restrict players from exploring the option of 'zero effort' defenses is a futile effort that only stymies the current player's creativity. If the developer's goal is a game that forces a combat situation, that's fine, but I think the game would benefit if it set that up more clearly and directly. Anyways, those are my rebuttals to the two main counterarguments I've heard. Again, I want to reiterate the respect I have for the staff and apologize if any of my post came off as confrontational. I am trying to confront something I see as a problem, but I hope I haven't given any offense in the process of doing so. Thanks so much for reading.
  5. Hey Everybody, Wow! Lots of replies! Thanks for all the great discussion! And a HUGE thanks to our Moderators and Fun Pimp Staff who have taken the time to read and reply!! Thank you so much for taking the time to read all my post and give some feedback. I know that some of my post has an 'us' versus 'you' kind of language, but I just want to reiterate that in no way am I trying to make any kind of personal attack, and that the purposes of these posts are purely to present a point of view which I hope will help the Fun Pimps in their development endeavors. I have nothing but respect for how hard all these guys work, and I wouldn't bother writing these if I didn't care about the awesome game they've created. You guys are awesome. Thanks again for reading and replying to this thread. Also, this reply ran a bit long, so I'll have to post the second part to it in another reply post. Please forgive me for double posting but it wouldn't let me post something this long. So, with all that said, I want post a bit of a rebuttal to some of the counterarguments here. Here are the two main ones I've seen: 1) The nerfs and changes have been done in order to achieve acceptable zombie behavior. I can agree, to an extent, that this kind of modification is necessary. Yes, zombies being able to jump reasonable distances seems warranted. And yes, zombies going into a 'berserk' mode and attacking things around them if they can't reach you also seems appropriate as well. Giving zombies the ability to dig down also, yes, seems like a thing a zombie should reasonably be able to do. And yes, being able to attack storage boxes seems completely reasonable. However, this behavior modification has gone to some lengths that I think far surpass what reasonable zombies could do. For example, they can sense you through solid objects, regardless of distance - a sense that cannot be fooled by any sort of decoy. They can also psychically detect the shortest route into your base. They can also smash stone with their bare hands. And, at full health they can fall any distance and survive. So, I wouldn't so much have a problem with zombies digging, but I would expect they would do the same damage to stone as my character would do to stone with their bare fists. But, since the desired behavior is to oust players from their subterranean lairs, the zombies behavior includes a massive boost to damage to objects. This seems inconsistent because, despite their ability to do massive damage to blocks they have had no damage boost to players. Also, it seems inconsistent with player expectations. A player expects an unarmed humanoid to break rocks at the same rate at which their character does (their character also being an unarmed humanoid). The fact that a zombie, at full health, can survive a fall of any distance seems at odds with the goal of zombies achieving acceptable behavior. If I was in Halo, and I saw a grunt fall from the top of the map onto the ground, and it didn't die, I would instantly assume that was a glitch or oversight. Why would I not assume that same thing for 7 Days to Die? It seems inconsistent with the rules that the player is presented with. In short, I'm not criticizing all the updates that have been made to the zeds. Certainly giving them the ability to leap, dig and attack storage boxes seems completely reasonable. But it also seems like a number of abilities have been massively improved solely for the purposes of overcoming obstacles the players might set up. I want to talk about how it's okay for zombies to be stupid and flawed. If the developers create an AI which the players can manipulate and take advantage of, well, that's just humans being humans. For example, when catching lobsters, fishermen lower a crate into the ocean with a special opening. Lobsters crawl in to get the bait but can't get out, at which point the crate is hauled up. Catching the lobsters requires ZERO effort on behalf of the fishermen once the trap is laid. In fact, lost traps can even continue to kill, as the lobsters inside will die, which will attract other animals to get inside, and die, and so on and so on. All with zero effort from the fishermen who laid the trap to begin with. Is this an exploit? Are the fishermen abusing broken lobster A.I.? No, this is simply humans being humans in our problem solving. We look for patterns and use them to our advantage. No matter how sophisticated your A.I. gets, people will always do this. The same is true when seeking places of shelter. When you're being stalked by a sabertooth tiger and you get into a cave and close up most of the entrance with large rocks, you've put yourself in a position where that threat cannot harm you anymore - which was your goal to begin with. You're literally exploiting the fact that creatures cannot penetrate rock, which humans have done forever. But in 7 Days to Die, the zeds are given the ability to specifically circumvent that strategy, completely ignoring the reality of that situation, which is inconsistent with how the zeds are portrayed. What I'm trying to convey through my argument here is, updating the zombie's A.I. so it can do new things is fine, but in some cases it has far surpassed what a reasonable zombie-survivalist might expect. In specific, the zeds have adapted to counter certain player strategies, but not others. Like the fact the zeds can tunnel through stone, but don't do absolutely absurd amounts of melee damage. Or the fact that no single fall can kill a full health zombie. I am trying to say that I find the zombie's behavior very inconsistent given that they are clearly identified as 'zombies'. I would go one step further to say that these inconsistencies of behavior have not been included out of any desire to achieve an 'ideal' behavior for a zombie, but rather are included specifically to thwart certain player strategies. (continued below)
  6. So, as you can see, out of all the options that the player had to deal with the situation, the developers have been systematically disarming each until their desired game-play was the most optimal. My question is: why present the player with an infinite array of options to deal with this situation and then take all but one of them away? What this does is: it means that instead of the player being rewarded for creatively dealing with a situation, they are rewarded for following the developers style of intended play, and this is inherently at odds with a sandbox type experience like 7D2D. Why offer all the varied block manipulation, traps and building materials if only a tiny few are useful, given the zombies bizarre range of powers? The game is clearly directing the player towards one style of play. But having one style of intended play isn't bad at all - it's rather that the game can't decide if it wants to be an open-world sandbox or an concise gameplay experience. For example, if I want a polished, good, high paced game of shooting waves of zombies that charge at me while I use my weapons, be it guns, nailguns, shotguns, melee weapons, etc., to fend them off, I'll play Killing Floor 2. That game succeeds brilliantly because it focuses on doing one thing, and doing that thing very well. In KF2 I don't have the option of building useless traps that the zeds will path around, or waste time on pits that will never kill them, even if they do fall in. KF2 doesn't waste my time with options that its developers have intentionally sabotaged. 7D2D on the other hand presents the player with a massive array of options in dealing with their predicament, but then undercuts that by systematically nerfing or removing them until only a certain kind of gameplay is left - disregarding what the player wanted as their experience. To the developers, I would say, you should embrace the myriad of ways that players want to deal with the zombies. Players should be able to choose if they want to kill zombies with traps, if they want to kill zombies with fall damage, if they want to evade zombies by hiding, or evade zombies with decoys, or evade zombies with vehicles. They should be able to spend the horde nights running zombies over in blade-outfitted vehicles, or hiding at the top of a whether mast while the zombies below search in vain. They should be able to barricade a house so the zombies have to come through their trap laden front room, or build a concrete obstacle course that has the zombies running through it like a tower-defense style maze. Developers, in a sandbox game, it is the player who decides the optimal way to play, not you. You can introduce things for them to mess with, but, ultimately, what they do with those things is up to them. If anything, the developers should make sure that each of the strategies works, and add even more. Maybe you could tame a dog to lure zombies into traps? Or maybe fun physics related traps to fling enemies into pits. Embrace the variety of crazy and creative strategies your players have for dealing with the situation - don't suppress them. Or, on the flip side, if the developers DO have a specific experience in mind for their gamers, they should focus on that. Don't let players dig underground if you don't want them hiding out the hordes underground. Don't let the players build such high structures if you don't want them to go so high. Don't let the player build so-called 'reinforced' walls if the zombies are going to tear them down with ease. Don't allow your player to build pit traps if fall damage isn't a viable way to kill their principle enemy. In short, either deliver a concise, directed experience, or allow the player the freedom to play the game in the way they choose. If a player chooses to use a strategy that makes zombie corpses fall at their feet where they can loot with ease, that's okay - that's a player reaping the rewards for a well-executed strategy. If a player spends every 7th day cooped up in their bunker, completely sealed in, that's okay - that's a player who has chosen that path and can deal with the consequences. If a player spends their 7th night in an intense run and gun battle with an enemy horde, that's okay - that player had plenty of options to do other stuff but chose the one they enjoyed the most. When you nerf to one strategy, it's like giving a bonus to another. When you continually nerf and remove player's choices you are ultimately telling them "There IS a 'right' way to play this game," which, for a sandbox game like this, is really a shame.
  7. Hey Fun Pimps, Happy 2019! I hope it's a great year for you. I recently fired up 7 Days to Die again and gave your newest version a spin. I gotta' say it has come a LONG way from the days of Alpha 11 where I came in. I do, however, have some serious feedback that I would like to give regarding your latest version of the game, and, indeed, the direction the game is going in as a whole. I hope you understand that I wouldn't bother writing an essay like this if I didn't care. I have a lot of fond memories of this game and I hope that by providing this feedback I can help you guys make it even better. So, without further ado, here's my feedback: When you nerf one option, you effectively provide a bonus to another. To the Developers, When you nerf one option, you effectively provide a bonus to another. So, for example, when you make it so players can't effectively hide from the hordes, what you are essentially saying to them is: "The choice you made is not intended gameplay. Even if you try you will fail." I feel that message - subtly directing the player towards a particular style of play through mechanics - is at odds with the spirit of the open-world sandbox survival game that you have created, because it eliminates the most important thing gamers look for in these type of games: player-choice. When players find an exploit that allows them to lure zombies to fall to their deaths, and you change the mechanics so that is no longer possible, you are telling the player: "Your choice in dealing with situation is not the one we would like you to take." You are, in effect, removing one choice players had. Continuously removing choices that players have in dealing with the hordes is at the core of the problems for me with the latest builds of 7D2D. If I am not fighting the hordes head on, I'm - according to the developers - doing it 'wrong'. If I try to use pit traps to kill zombies, I'm doing it 'wrong'. If I'm trying to trick stupid, mindless zombies into killing themselves on my traps, I'm doing it 'wrong'. If I'm trying to build a base that kills zombie hordes without any effort on my behalf, I'm doing it 'wrong.' I would rather enjoy a game that either A) Gave me full choice for any of those strategies to succeed, or B) specifically put me in the situation where I could focus on enjoying the intended experience. As a player I'm NOT interested in playing a game that presents me with a huge array of options, only to waste my time as I discover that most are useless. So, let's briefly look at strategies players have used to deal with the 7th-day Horde and talk about how those strategies were systematically torpedoed - how the amount choices in dealing with the bloodmoon horde has been made smaller and smaller. - Using walls of storage boxes that zombies can't target as barricades. Since the zombies can't target or damage them, there was no way for them to penetrate the defense. It was later changed that zombies would target these and break through. The developers were saying here "Using this strategy is not how we intend for you to play the game," so they fixed it. And this is one of the few places where I agree with that choice. Moving on. - Using large pits to lure the zombies to their deaths, even as they were attempting to avoid falling in. A deep enough pit would cause a horde to bunch up on the ledge, and eventually they would slip and fall to their deaths. It was later changed that zombies could not be killed by a single fall. So using pits AT ALL is either non-viable or requires special 3-tiered pits which make no sense, except in terms of the mechanics that were intended to eliminate pit traps entirely. The developers are sending the message "Pit traps are not the solution for the 7-day Horde." - Using bases on stilts in the middle of lakes to avoid the hordes. Since the hordes were slow and couldn't reach the player the zeds would sit in the lake and do nothing. This was later changed to where the zeds would attack things around them, thus endangering the stilts upon which the base sits. So, now zeds can track people from underwater and can break through concrete because this strategy by some players didn't sit well with the developers. The developers though the players shouldn't be doing that, so they changed the game mechanics. - Using walls, spikes and traps to lure zombies into a maze of traps. This abused the zeds pathing mechanics and would lure them into run through a gauntlet of tower-defense like traps, thus obliterating them through little effort of the player. However, the zeds are now aware of such traps (whether it makes sense or not) and will simply tunnel directly through any standing walls to reach the player directly. So, in reponse to player using traps to deal with zombies, the developers just made them super aware, able to know where traps are without any ability to see them, and able to know the most direct route through your base to get to you, and they are able to smash through walls easily. And again, this was done because the developers didn't like that players could invent base defenses which would trivialize their hordes. - Using a raised platform, spikes and traps to lure zombies into a maze of traps. This works like the previous method except that instead of separating the maze with walls, it uses falls instead. However, zeds have been altered so that if they fall off the path, they will attack the stilts upon which the platform sits, thusly defeating the defense. This is basically the result of an arms race between players and developers. Players took the previous idea and modified it, and the developers - again - have shown that they're not interested in players using those strategies so they've implemented even further abilities for the zombies to counter it. Specifically, our all-aware zombies don't immediately path back towards the player (despite clearly knowing there they are), instead they will flail along on the ground for some time, hoping to knock out any support structures the player might have. The zombies do this only because it is a measure taken to remove this type of play from the game, and for no other logical reason. - Using a very high vertical tower to avoid detection and attacks from the zombies. This was nerfed because now the zombies, upon arriving at the base of the player's location, will attack anything, including the base of the tower, eventually leading to its destruction. Again, the developers didn't want their players to be able to hide, even if they went beyond the range of the zombie's massive detection abilities. There are still methods to overcome this behavior from the zeds however, but the developers are telling the players here, concretely, we don't want you hiding from the zombies. - Using an underground bunker to hide from the zombie hordes. Rather than face a horde, players would simply tunnel deep underground and wait them out. Now, however, hordes not only automatically detect players underground but also can tunnel through solid rock straight to their locations. Again, super-aware, super-strong, rock-crunching mobs for the win here. The developers don't want you to hide, so they create this behavior, whether it makes sense or not. - Using a vehicle to ride throughout the horde event as to avoid any zombies. By staying mobile through the horde the player avoids conflict with any zombies and thus can indefinitely avoid confrontation. No counter to this method has been introduced yet. My guess is that the developers don't want this as intended play either, but I also guess it'll take them some time to devise a method to defeat this. Maybe some kind of EMP that can turn off vehicles, or an enemy who specifically targets and destroys vehicles. - Using heavy weaponry, mostly guns with high damage, high rate of fire and accuracy, to dispatch the zombies in a straight up fight. No counter to this method has been introduced yet. Notice that no zombie-behavior has been introduced to specifically counter this. Being able to smash blocks fast doesn't impact the zombies melee damage against a player at all. Being hyper-aware is irrelevant here because the player wants to find and confront the zombies. Zombies attacking terrain at random here plays to the player's advantage in this case as well, serving to slow the zombies down. Everything the player has WORKS in this situation. Unlike previously where zombies avoid traps, demolish concrete walls, and have super perception (which guts half of the things players can make), guns do full damage, power-ups provide valuable boosts, armor prevents damage very well and first aid restores health very fast. It is clear that this is what the developers are trying to push their players to do. ( continued below )
  • Create New...