Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


RestInPieces last won the day on December 31 2019

RestInPieces had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

92 Shiny

About RestInPieces

  • Rank
    Colony Founder

Personal Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. What I am saying is that as the player's GS rises they will end up getting max quality spears in normal zones, as well as more dangerous zones. And the sensible thing would be to cap those normal zones so that more dangerous zones are always more lucrative. So, assuming they put various different caps for "T1-T5" POIs/zones, I don't see any merit in this change for this specific purpose. True. Hell, it largely depends on how they have set up things and their internal tools, but theoretically they could randomize any prefab at instantiation/runtime, at least when it comes to traps or containers, which is why I don't understand why they went with the whole dungeon POI thing, that pushes players to nerdpole etc.
  2. 1) Opposite in the sense that if they actually want to add zoned loot, both lower and higher levels of loot should be probable and I fail to see how this change serves anything at all towards that goal. Even in the case they want to increase zone GS at, say, TX POIs, they will obviously also have to decrease or cap zone GS everywhere else anyway, because as the player GS rises else they will again end up getting the same loot. In other words I don't think the 18->19 change indicates a willingness for leveled zones in the slightest. And from my experience until now, it's not that they only extended the stone age (which is good in my book), but also made lower loot levels improbable, which creates its own set of problems, part of which are being discussed in that crafting thread. 2) Been hearing that for a long time -- hope Roland's statement is fresh and that MM will include gameplay features and not just RWG features.
  3. Meganoth, they have been hinting at this for years -- is there any quote from TFP that states their willingness to do that (loot-wise as well)? Because the latest changes reflect the exact opposite.
  4. Dominated? Survival was always an afterthought. Temperatures? Plenty of solutions out of the box. It is more of a small annoyance anyway the way it has been implemented. Weather? What weather. Diseases/Injuries? Nothing too threatening, plenty of materials for medicine and even if there weren't the DP is almost negligible. Food? You can just get by with meat -- plenty of animals. Will be annoying but you can make it less annoying with 1 point in master chef. Balance? How much time do you spend doing each of the aspects of the game you mention VS survival preparations? I certainly find myself spending the least amount of time for it.
  5. So at some point, TFP, instead of making dozens of POI variations though scripts with randomized loot containers, traps etc, with chances that factored in zone, POI or even spawns, they decided to: Populate the world with pretty much identical "dungeon POIs" in a randomly generated sandbox, place a loot box at the specific spot (in a destructible voxel game), stuff them with sleepers and making roaming zombies a rare sight and make item scaling more dependent on GS to homogenize every POI even more. Followed by a barrage of unsurprising band-aids like increasing the sleeper randomization, amount of "non-dungeon" POIs and now, allegedly, GS increases for POIs AKA slow, but useless steps towards what people were asking for in the first place. In my opinion, the same thing keeps happening with most systems in the game through the alphas, like the AI, crafting or perks, to the point that I frankly wonder whether they will create more problems than they fix in next alpha. Not to say that there haven't been plentiful and significant improvements, but some decisions are just baffling.
  6. So, essentially you just want others to stop asking for something different, because that "something" hasn't been implemented yet, which is the reason people are asking for something different in the first place. Is that an educated guess? Enlighten us.
  7. Sorry, but what *is* your point exactly? "In case you haven't already noticed the scaling counter-intuitiveness, here's an option."
  8. Hardly BS, if they lack any long-term reasons to do that. Constantly having to farm clay and iron or cloth and glue surely doesn't give them one. And I disagree with "it's fine if they don't". Anyway, none said that crafting isn't also one of the game's pillars, but it shouldn't make exploration obsolete at any point of the game. Therefore, for starters, we need an item sink which would boost both.
  9. Looting is unfortunately the only thing that drives exploration, which unequivocally is one of the game's main pillars. I agree, that would actually boost both crafting and even looting. I think the stat drop shouldn't be larger than tier differences though.
  10. Really wish they will take the time to revamp it before A20. I feel it should apply to the tier as well so that the world revolves less around the player. Like keeping T3 relatively rare anyway, more dependent on zone and POI lootlists and perhaps on GS but by a much smaller factor. It would be great if the amount of player control and predictability in this case, was more in line with gameworld information (the kind of POI, zone), rather than meta information like player level. Still nothing should feel guaranteed. That would also require less homogenized zones and enemy GS scaling. This already happens to a degree (guns are more likely in SM, medicine more likely hospital, different zombie groups), but both item and enemy scaling are imo too depended on that meta number that solely revolves around the player we call GS. On top of that they could make GS fluctuate, with both random events and player actions, although that will turn out to be problematic if applied globally and when BM are largely already influenced by it, so they could just be zone specific. At any case, like Roland says, none is obliged to listen to every random's opinion and especially not the devs, if they are content with what they have. It's not like they don't have many reasons to be content already -- many, if not most of the changes since A16, ticked those design sanity checks and imo were educated choices towards a more structured game. Now, as players, it is not our place to tell them how to balance their game with "overly constructive" feedback, but it's perfectly legitimate to describe how we feel about the current state (that's what feedback should do), even if the game is moving towards a different direction imo. Those who really do want to play a different game and are sour about pretty much anything this one has to offer, have already moved on and won't bother posting anyway.
  11. Always hoped they would get rid of the existing enemy and item scaling, at least to a degree. Instead they add more of it. Oh well.
  12. Of course there is. You can aim for realism while making all the gameplay compromises you need.
  13. Loved the wellness system, except that in A16's context, it was more or less terrible. Now, in A17+ with death being of some consequence and a few more incentives to raise it, it might actually have been nice. As for hunger, I haven't played A19 yet, but I can't help but be skeptical when people say they are starving to death, because the same thing was being said for A18, but with 25% loot and never buying from traders/vending machines, I never encountered such a problem. (And no, you don't need hundreds of hours of playtime to learn where to get food.) Also, are people actually going for high level recipes, or just expecting to survive with lvl 0 recipes like boiled eggs and charred meat, without investing in food/hunting related perks, as they did in A18?
  14. At last! My favorite change, and hope it opens the way for more.
  15. No thanks, it will probably end up with me needing prosthetics... Are you kidding, our character would make MacGyver blush. In all seriousness though mechanical arms were used since half millennia ago and didn't exactly need conventional surgery.
  • Create New...