Crater Creator
-
Posts
2,661 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Articles
A20 Bugs
A21 Bugs
Events
Posts posted by Crater Creator
-
-
1 hour ago, Lenny Lettuce Lips said:
I like this. 100% on board.
I think someone mentioned being able to build up to the highest you can afford without having to ad additional UI fluff and I like that more. It' simple if I have the ability to build a tier 5 but the parts for a tier 2, showing me a tier 2 as the upcoming result would send the message. I do wonder if this could be confusing to newer players if implemented in that fashion however... Maybe a prompt? like "You can afford to build tier X, would you like to proceed?"
You don't want it to be confusing, but you don't want to have to make an entirely new kind of UI thing either. And the game doesn't have prompts like you're describing, that I can recall. That's why I suggest e.g. colorizing the number of parts. But it could also be one of those notices on the bottom of the screen, or an informational buff, unless that's too hard to see under the crafting menu.
I'm not too worried, because at least the way I play, I wouldn't go to craft something without grabbing as full a stack of each ingredient as I have in storage. I'd have to go out of my way to grab 10 pistol parts when I have 30 - it wouldn't happen by accident.
0 -
On 5/23/2022 at 4:37 PM, Maharin said:
I would assume that it is there so people know how dated an image is. Once 7DTD goes gold I'm sure it won't be there anymore.
I don't do screenshots except through my OS so I don't see the stamp you're talking about. But... if you turn off the interface is it still there on the screenshot?
And people = testers in particular. Nothing's worse in testing than regressing on a bug someone reported that's actually from a deprecated build of the game. I second your prediction that it'll be gone (by default) when the game goes gold.
0 -
1 hour ago, Maharin said:
I see two problems with this, but would still rather have this method than the current way it is done.
- Parts get used up with no way to retrieve any of them (scrapping an item made with parts should return more parts, imo)
- If there is no confirmation or UI feedback before the attempt is made then people will most certainly cry foul about this implementation, too.
In short, TFP needs to build a UI that can handle building lower tier tools. It can be done simply enough using the trader quest rewards selection UI as a template. Make the XML friendly to pulling out a list of all tiers/variations for a given craftable item and you're done (if it isn't already easily possible).
Yes, I'm over simplifying but I don't think I'm far off.
The first problem I don't think is unique to my solution. In the current game, you could just as easily craft a low-quality weapon, then upgrade the skill, and then lament that you used up your parts with no way to retrieve them beyond scrapping the item you made. I'm just putting the choice in the player's hands of what quality to build instead of forcing max quality on them. Just to spell out the idea more, if for some reason you wanted an item at lower quality than you had the parts for, you could put away some parts and leave the rest you want to use in your backpack. But I'm sure the most common use case would be players that want to craft the best quality they can with the parts they have.
With that said, I would welcome higher quality items scrapping for more parts. And/or, there could be a skill that improves your ability to recover parts from scrapping. Heck, even with the system we have now, I wouldn't be as scared to craft a low-quality item, if I knew that I'd consistently only be down 25% of the parts when scrapping and rebuilding it to a higher quality.
On the second problem, yes, it should be clear when you could make a higher quality if you had more parts. That's why I propose colorizing the parts seen in the crafting recipe window, with the appropriate journal entries updated to document this. I admit colorized text isn't perfect since some people are colorblind, but I'm thinking in terms of a minimalist solution that requires the least UI work: less work than repurposing the trader reward UI or adding a new widget for quality selection and re-arranging the crafting window.
0 -
On 5/29/2022 at 8:42 AM, Lonestarcanuck said:
Please allow us to make the level of tool we want up to our max. for example if I can make T5 auger and it needs 15 tool parts but I have 10 let me make a T3 auger.
I completely agree, and this is the perfect way to implement it. The game simply makes the highest quality item possible with the number of parts you have in your backpack at the time (assuming you have the skill to craft that level). At most, it would be nice to colorize the parts in the crafting UI to highlight that you could craft higher quality with more parts, but otherwise no UI work is necessary.1 -
5 hours ago, Laz Man said:
My thoughts on this may not be original, but to add to the voices:
- The designer in me instantly wants to know what happens if I destroy the pipeline between the valve and the fire. I look forward to finding the answer... and I appreciate how in any other game the answer would be, "What? You can't just break the pipe anywhere you want. It's just a game, don't expect so much."
- It feels off that closing the valve, so that something making noise makes less noise, wakes up the zombies. It would help plausibility if, instead of a tiny pfft sound, there was a more jarring sound, like an exaggerated metallic shudder of the valve shutting.
-
If you have the art budget to do that... could you please revisit the flamethrower trap concept?
Nothing fancy, just a big open flame like this that consumes gas when turned on. Dungeon crawling is great, but crafters & builders want to enjoy fire hazards, too!
7 -
9 hours ago, Jinx_DG said:
I love that idea! But wouldn't it require more coding than just slapping an arrow to the front of said door? And would it add to the pc load as it's an extra animation asset needed instead of being attached to the asset itself?
Both good questions.
On the coding cost, I don't think it would be worse than adding arrows. Those arrows would have to be coded to render only when placing the block, and not render at other times. So coding the door to play an animation (which already exists) when placing it would be no worse than that, coding-wise.
As for PC load from having another animation loaded, I don't know if the game is optimized to unload animations for blocks not currently in the world. There aren't a lot of these animations compared to, say, enemy animations or player character animations, but it would still be a good optimization to have. Even if it is, we're talking about having one more animation for the few seconds it takes a player to place the door, before the door is placed and will have that animation loaded forever after. The player can't have more than one block equipped at once. Compared to all the other types of doors etc. that are typically loaded in the world at any given time (at least when around POIs), each of which has their own open/close animations, the one added animation would have minimal impact.
For that matter, the blocks may already be playing a looping 'stay closed' animation while you're placing them, that happens to include no movement.
1 -
This occurred to me during a discussion on the Steam forum.
Problem: players don't know which way many doors, hatches, and drawbridges will be placed. They run the risk of installing them backwards, which can render them ineffective, ugly, and/or costly to fix.
Solution: what these problem cases have in common is that the block animates. So when the game shows a ghostly version of the block to indicate where it will be placed, this ghost version should be animated, playing its opening or closing animation on a loop. Then the player would always see its orientation, range of motion, where space for it is needed, which side the hinge is on, etc., without requiring arrows or other new art assets.
4 -
I've cleaned up recent posts, so that the thread can stay on the topic of the Darkness Falls mod without distractions. The last thing I want to say about it is that the forum does have a block/ignore feature, as described in the Explanation of Features and Guidelines.
4. Blocking/Ignoring Users
If you and another user aren’t getting along, you can block specific users so that you don’t see their posts. Understand that by blocking users, you may miss out on important parts of a discussion.
On the official forum, add or remove users from your ignore list by clicking on your user name at the top of the page and selecting Ignored Users.
On Steam, go to a user’s Profile -> More -> Block All Communication.1 -
On 4/8/2022 at 8:56 AM, BFT2020 said:
Sorry, going to nitpick here.
That is not a bug. If you look at the vanilla xml code, it only looks for traders in the pine forest for that quest. So the game is running correctly in regards to the trader quest. It would only be a bug if there was a nearby trader in the pine forest and it could not find it.
If you are running maps with little to no pine forests, then you have to modify the vanilla xml code for that quest for it to find a trader outside of the pine forest biome.
It's a feature that the TFP developers added to the game based on how they think the Find Trader quest should work. This feature might have to be changed based on personal choices in map generation (and TFP might adjust it in the future also), but it is not a bug.
I take your point that the behavior is working as intended. However it's overzealous to say that's not a bug. It can still be a localization bug, if the game tells the player "NO TRADER" in situations where that's an objectively false statement. The fix could be what Blake's talking about where the mission resolves itself, or it could be changing the localization to say "No traders meet criteria" or similar.
0 -
On 4/1/2022 at 12:44 AM, Ripflex said:
Maybe have 4 Bandits being the most to spawn for an encounter and turn off further zombies spawns due to noise or feral sense attraction to avoid heavy performance hits. Also scripted bandits ambushes instead of sleeper spawns in certain POIs would be interesting.
Scripted enemy encounters get repetitive when you're making multiple visits to a POI in a playthrough. More importantly for this game, scripted enemy encounters don't mix well with 100% destructible worlds. I guess it depends on how much scripted stuff you're envisioning, but the dynamic, world-aware behavior needs to be there, and robust enough to kick in at any time.
One feature TFP discussed publicly not long ago is sleeper zombies that roam through a POI, instead of them all being stationary (a feature I insist be called sleepwalkers, because come on
). From a technical perspective, that sounds exactly like entities that travel along patrol routes, so if implemented, it sounds perfect for bandits.
2 -
10 hours ago, Heafus said:
...my impression is the devs have said they will not put it in the game? I could be wrong about that, but for some reason I remember reading that....
The weird thing is, I remember a dev video (A17 or so?) where Madmole talked about adding this feature. As I recall, they may have even demoed it in the video. I don't know what would have changed their minds.
0 -
6 hours ago, Demonoid74 said:
They will be just like zombies with weapons...except what makes them special is they will actively and constantly cuss you out in the most vile language you ever heard!
Things about your mother etc etc....That'd be hilarious.
TFP: Here are your bandits!
TFP: *replaces zombie grunts with Trader Rekt voice lines*
TFP: *makes no other changes*
1 -
10 hours ago, Matt115 said:
Funny story - i was doing quest near our base and my friend came to help me with loot. Screamer shows up near our base but nothing happens because zombies were triggered on us not on our base. In your situation bandits would focus on loot - so you can sit in near poi doing your job and in this same time bandits will rob your base because it will be still in "respawn range". Using yours logic the first thing that players should do is join to settlement to be safe because more people easier to protect against zombie and bandits right? but honestly - friendly npc sounds good on paper but this would be overcomplicated, If would be zombie game dev i would just make few settlements and make explanation like " almost everybody sits in settlemtents because it is too dangerouse outside so even bandits dissappair after few years after outbreake, now only adventures and few psycho traveling" to minimalise stuff connected with them
faatal said, "They will not loot stuff or destroy things unless they are in their way just like the AI currently does." The 'bandit screamer' idea is designed to work within that framework, while still allowing your stuff to be a risk factor for how often bandits appear. A 'bandit screamer' would focus on loot only in the same way that a zombie screamer focuses on forges. Your stuff triggers them to spawn, but they don't attack or loot your stuff. Again, I'm trying to work within the rules faatal has revealed on how bandits will work.
I didn't say anything about friendly NPCs. These bandit screamers could be a separate system independent from other bandit encounters, the same way zombie screamers work independently from sleeper zombies in POIs.
0 -
18 hours ago, Matt115 said:
Nope. this would be annoing as hell because : it would force you to sit in your base 24/7...
That's one reason why they'd operate on the same basic idea as screamers. Nobody sits in their base 24/7 because of screamer hordes, right? So players wouldn't do that for bandit hordes, either. There could even be a bandit 'screamer' that comes first, and whistles loudly or calls in on their walkie talkie if they see you.
Like anything else, the frequency of bandit hordes should be balanced appropriately so it's fun rather than tedious. But it seems to me like a natural consequence of having a big, fancy base with a lot of valuable stuff should be that you're a bigger target for bandits. After all, bandits are robbers by definition. They should launch opportunistic attacks, rather than solely playing defense or lying in ambush. And "a lot of valuable stuff" is probably the easiest option to quantify since everything already has an EconomicValue.
1 -
11 hours ago, faatal said:
There should be melee and ranged bandits. Some may do both. Melee are the first ones I'm working on.
They will be hostile. Possibly later there could be neutral or friendly ones belonging to a faction. They will not loot stuff or destroy things unless they are in their way just like the AI currently does.
They are zombies with weapons, but with different behavior. Like they will hide in cover and wait to ambush you.
Hmm. That's actually disappointing, to me. Bandits that don't care about loot wouldn't be very bandit-like.
Perhaps the spawning of bandits could be affected by loot, even if their targeting/pathing isn't. The game could (infrequently) add up the EconomicValues of the player-placed items in every container in the chunk, and ever so often this value could add to an 'economic activity' map. When the economic activity reaches a threshold, the game spawns a scouting party of bandits. In other words, it's a rinse and repeat version of the activity map that generates screamers.
That, and air drops, seem like two targets in which bandits should be dynamically interested.
6 -
On 3/23/2022 at 1:36 PM, kazangati said:
Long time lurker off and on. but first post, what are the chances they will add Zinc And copper mining, It would be nice to make our own brass. Sorry if this has been asked before.
Welcome to the forum. I'm not a dev, but having followed them long enough, I know that this has been asked before. Brass being a non-mineable forge resource is no accident. It's part of the vanilla game's design, that you can't make bullets through mining alone.
0 -
I'll move this to the Support forum.
So you know, a null reference exception is the game equivalent of your car's check engine light. It's a generic error, which doesn't really narrow it down to a particular class of problems. The pinned thread in Support should provide instructions for providing a log file among other things.
0 -
9 hours ago, AtomicUs5000 said:
I think there is a big difference here because you can clearly see who reacted and in what way. I'm not saying it is any better or worse, but the forum kinda pushes things to a more personal level.
I think you're right. And the conclusion for me is, this is why we can't have nice things: the nice thing in this case being knowledge of who reacted to your post.
If the forum were less transparent and didn't identify who reacted, then seeing those unattributed, impersonal reactions would be easier to tolerate. Yet it's ironic that the solution (short of removing negative reactions entirely, which would be stifling) is anonymity, since that only allows for more 'cowardice' as Fox would call it.
0 -
6 hours ago, Roland said:
If there is ever a 7 Days to Die convention and they show up, I hope they never say a word the whole weekend but simply give a thumb up or thumb down to each person they pass.
Do people still interpret reactions that way? I never have. A negative reaction - even on platforms where a downvote does mean negative fake internet points - doesn’t mean, “I deem you a bad person.” It means, “I didn’t like your content,” e.g. your post when it’s a forum. That’s why the reaction is permanently tied to the post that triggered it.This isn’t directed at Roland:
I don’t understand someone who takes, “I didn’t like something you wrote,” as a personal affront, that requires retaliation against something the reactor wrote. No one would respond to a written out post that way, right? If you write up a treatise on how to fix farming in A20, and someone says they think you’re all wrong in a reply, you don’t go looking for one of their posts to rant against out of spite, right? Or if someone downvotes your YouTube video or your Reddit post, you don’t track down the user and downvote some of their content, and shake your fist if they’re just a lurker with nothing to downvote.
I guess my point is, there are Kuosimodos on every site where content has an up/down rating system (and as Roland points out, we don’t even have that). Usually you don’t know or don’t care who they are; you just look at how people react in the aggregate.
1 -
Sure, a user's IP is logged. It's logged on every... post.
(not to mention how IP address isn't as uniquely identifying as it once was).
I'd think it was a weirdly configured bot account - a fluke of programming - except that then I'd expect other accounts to behave similarly. Still, absent more information I wouldn't say we have carte blanche to call Kuosimodo names, whoever or whatever it is.
I also recall that the last time it came up, Kuosimodo had a healthy mix of positive and negative reactions. It's true that people take more notice of negative reactions. One could argue that Kuosimodo was influential in removing the poop reaction... kind of like the buddy I played with that killed his teammates incessantly in the spawn room in Team Fortress 2, until the admin relinquished and turned off friendly fire. Now, the worst Kuosimodo can do is thumbs-down your post, unless they ever want to speak up.
3 -
25 minutes ago, meganoth said:
It would be much work for the level designers to adjust the trigger areas. But that is not the question, because that is already possible to do with 7D2D as it is.
The question to Faatal is whether the trigger area that is up to now only triggered by the PC himself entering it can also be made to trigger from blocks that he destroys. And that in an efficient manner.
Okay, I understand now. "Extended to the wall blocks" sounded like you were asking to extend coverage to blocks outside of the sleeper volume (trigger area).
I see the potential benefit of what you're asking. But I would also note that sleeper volumes are not matched with walls in a consistent way. Sometimes the sleeper volume is large enough to include the walls, and sometimes it isn't. So relying on blocks being in the sleeper volume or not to trigger the zombies within would yield inconsistent results, unless a design pass was done on the sleeper volumes to establish consistency.
0 -
9 hours ago, meganoth said:
A question for faatal: Would it be possible that trigger area for POI rooms is extended to the wall blocks and breaking such a block also triggers the zombies in that area?
I think this might fix a possible exploit where breaking through walls makes zombies not wake up.
The trigger areas are box-shaped volumes, hand-placed by the level designers. It seems unlikely a programmatic solution would work in all POIs, without taking away the designer's control (e.g. making the zombies wake up too early in some cases).
0 -
10 hours ago, ElDudorino said:
This is exactly how I've pictured it. I really like the idea, although with maps of limited size you would eventually run out of things to clear (though you could be tasked with defending territories that are under siege).
Absolutely! The devs show interest in doing random events, and one type of random event could be bandits attacking a far-off territory you control, which you have to go over and defend or else lose it. I think it would be a fun, impromptu challenge to defend a POI you never voluntarily identified as a base. Or if that's too random, the bandits could target trader POIs specifically, as those have always been designed like defensible bases.
I also don't mind the prospect of running out of new POIs to conquer, and eventually controlling 100% of the territory. That would be a satisfying long-term goal to pursue, and it could encourage exploring the whole map. There should still be some types of quests you could do in POIs you control.
1 -
4 hours ago, POCKET951 said:
Honestly some citys feel like they need 2 traders, or someway to ask for more quest if you aren't admin.
trader quest diversity is better in A20 because we get 5 tiers to choose from.but then these 5 quest in tiers 1-4 cycle through about the same 10-20 Pois over and over and over.
Yes I can go to the Pois and just clear them, but I want to be able to reset every POI in the city with a quest if I want to, and that just isn't possible atm outside of playing 30 hours for a reset
I am not sure what the solution would be like, but I would really like more POI diversity from traders
Now that each trader is placed in a way that they’re kind of associated with a town, the completionist in me would like to see the trader send you to each POI in that town, comprehensively. You’d do a quest in each one, and at the end the trader would reward you for taking control of the whole territory.It would be satisfying in its own right to be ‘done’ with a whole town, but one could also take the idea further. Imagine completed POIs are colorized on the map, a la Saints Row. A fence could go up around the border of the town, pre-placed but hidden in the RWG tiles (complete with signage with the town’s name). Zombie spawns within the town limits could be reduced (i.e. stop spawning any extra zombies that spawn because you’re in town). If more friendly NPCs are ever added, they could start showing up in cleared towns.
All this could give the player memorable, unique feelings of rebuilding society in the apocalypse. Unlike most games, it could be done even without a rigid storyline or a static map.
4
Safety-Deposit Boxes in Banks
in General Discussion
Posted
If you see no text (e.g. “Metal Drawer” or similar) when aiming at it, then it’s not the loot container version and there can’t be anything inside. There are some blocks, like paintings, that can be placed over a hole in the wall to hide a different, lootable block. But the metal drawers used here aren’t one of those.