Roland

It’s okay. It has stone axes on it. Wait for your gamestage to improve enough for the one with Ak47s.

First of all, I never told you to go play Minecraft instead. I wasn't even talking to you in that post and what I said was that if people don't want to build unsupported bridges there is always Minecraft. That is not the same thing as telling you to just leave and go play Minecraft instead of playing this game. You supplied all of that aggression yourself and then misdirected it at yourself when I was clearly talking to RIngkeeper. Secondly, I like to deal in reality. It would be nice if Deadman Gulch was just a few blocks narrower or if the SI just extended a few blocks longer but they don't. I wasn't trying to be patronizing. I was being pragmatic. Build supports for the bridge and provide a way for the zeds to ascend that you can control. That is actually the most helpful suggestion made in this entire thread. Everything else has been pipe dreams about how awesome if SI might work differently but....it doesn't. Wondering about how the bridge might have extended without supports in a setting that never existed for the game is also unhelpful for the here and now. I'm sorry you don't like my actual help but if you are looking for actual solutions for bridging the gap of Deadman's Gulch....listen. So please stay and build the bridge. Play Minecraft too if you like. The two games aren't mutually exclusive. And don't look for ways to take offense especially when comments aren't even directed at you.

That's a nice backstory you're adding but no....the bridge never existed pre-zombie apocalypse. The developers did not build the bridge finished and then blow it up in the middle. It was constructed as it is now--- a partial bridge with a bit on each side. So there was never ever a full unsupported bridge built there using the same blocks/materials they did. They are if you give the zombies a valid path...

So really it seems to come down to the change in the skill system that soured 7 Days a bit. I don't agree that having an xp point system for purchasing perks you want vs grinding for those perks through repetition is any more or less freeing. I see them as both being confining in their own ways and freeing in their own ways. XP point system lets you do whatever you want in the game-- any activity of your choice-- and you can still progress in the skills and perks you want to progress in. That is very freeing. It is more confining because some combos of skills you might want to do will be more expensive and take longer to do. It also is a more abstracted system and not as immersive-- although as I've stated many times you still CAN play it immersively by making sure to do activities that relate to how you want to spend your points (if that sort of immersion is important to you). LBD lets you easily work on any skills in combination simply by doing the activities required to up those skills and it is neither more or less expensive to do so. You grind what you want. However, you are stuck having to do a lot of that activity--perhaps more than you find to be engaging and fun in order to get it to a high skill. LBD is very immersive when played in a natural manner the way it is intended as a model of real life living. Both systems get screwed up and cheesed by people who care more about efficiency and min/maxing more than anything else. I like both systems. I don't feel confined at all by the perk system in 7 Days but I can understand that others might. I think both systems are valid and good designs and 7 Days could have kept LBD and been a great game and Valheim could go to a point system and remain a great game. Of course, those players who hate one system or the other would not be happy but you can't help what people prefer or dislike.

Perhaps I have been doing it wrong. building defenses before summoning a boss is a good idea. I hear campfires work well... I kid...I understand your point about every game having cheese tactics. Some people would call this part of the sandbox element of 7 Days being preserved. You can build a base, fight out in the open, makes some small adjustments to a POI, design a kill corridor...whatever strikes your fancy-- all of those are viable options without the devs designing things so that the only way is that building is necessary. I'm fairly certain that Valheim will eventually have "handholding" as well once they realize the number of people playing with the wiki open... Valheim has the same exact you must do this to do that mechanic- you just prefer the fact that you must sit by a fire for awhile to get the rested perk rather than spending a point for it. You like your chopping skill to go up as you chop trees instead of spending a point for it to go up. That's fine. But don't kid yourself that you aren't being forced to do something in order to get something. Actually back in the good old days there were no skills or learning by doing. Then there was for a time and then there wasn't learning by doing any longer. LBD has its strengths but also its weaknesses. I like both systems. 7 Days is fun with the point system and Valheim is fun with its LBD. I think one of the weaknesses of Valheim's LBD is that at least for me, it kills any desire to start a fresh game with a brand new character. But, maybe the game would still be fun with all the skill progression already mostly done as you say. Do you want to be forced or don't you...? Maybe I'll try it in Valheim and see if it is fun or a yawn fest as well. For me, 7 Days to Die is great for starting over and trying new pathways and I think that part of it is that you can just play the game without having to grind in one specific way to get one specific skill increased. Your experience is holistic from playing and then can be spent to increase those skills you want. You can do anything if you are fine with just playing and spending points for those things you want to improve-- instead of trying to only spend points in the most efficient way possible. Just like POI's. You can explore them any way you like or you can limit yourself to the lighted path. Both can be fun but neither is forced.

Awesome! Thanks @Gazz So just uncomment it and then duplicate it a few times changing the biome number so it applies to the other biomes and play around with the gamestage base-add value? Definitely going to play around with this. This adds to the player's gamestage so it will affect both enemies and loot, correct? This could give a rough approximation of what is coming without some of the "among other things" you mentioned. so as a first stab at it like.... <!-- wasteland gamestage bonus--> <passive_effect name="GameStage" operation="base_add" value="100"> <requirement name="InBiome" biome="8"/> </passive_effect> <!-- snow gamestage bonus--> <passive_effect name="GameStage" operation="base_add" value="80"> <requirement name="InBiome" biome="1"/> <!-- desert gamestage bonus--> <passive_effect name="GameStage" operation="base_add" value="60"> <requirement name="InBiome" biome="5"/> </passive_effect> <!-- burnt forest gamestage bonus--> <passive_effect name="GameStage" operation="base_add" value="40"> <requirement name="InBiome" biome="9"/> </passive_effect>

This is interesting. Which xml edit? I did a cursory look in spawning, loot, biome, and progression but couldn't see a value to edit that would affect gamestage one way or another by biome. This could be fun to play around with in A19. Could you point?

No..you could ALSO build 2-3 pillars up spaced apart as bridge supports much like rl bridges have and that can look much better than meh. If you want to build structures that have no need of support there is always Minecraft.

Could you, though? Your vague generalizations that 7 Days is on rails and you must do things in xyz order and that there is a forced pace and progression that is always the same isn't doing it for me-- without specific examples of what you are referencing comparing the two games I just don't see what you are claiming. I could say that Valheim "forces" you into a linear progression because there is no way you can go straight to swamp or plains and be remotely successful until you've done Black Forest at the least. I mean, I suppose on my second full playthrough of the game I could do whatever I wanted since my persistent character would already start the game with all skills progressed and all techs and tools unlocked... But on a first playthrough one could say in a general sweeping way-- Valheim is definitely on rails as far as exploration and progression and the devs force you into xyz-- Your example of one guy just spending time collecting stuff and filling boxes and going solo and you working with other players and both styles working-- I've played both ways in 7 Days (recently and not just "back in the day"} and they both work. Of course, just like for Valheim, it requires that you just play, not min max, not game the system to rush the progression-- it works. I guess I just don't see what you are talking about in 7 Days as being forced to play a certain way. I certainly don't feel forced. I still play nomad at times, take over existing POI's at times, and build my own base from scratch at times. I still make my own objectives for the day and then carry them out and get distracted by other things that happen. I get that you don't like the streamlining of some of the processes like what they did with ore or removing sticks and fiber and shifting to a point system instead of an LBD system. I know you feel forced to follow the light path in POI's. But none of that translates to the game in general being on rails and there is only one forced way to play and there is no sandbox feel. There are fewer steps to getting ore that you can use for crafting than there used to be. But that doesn't force you into one style of playing. In fact, everyone is so excited for the biome difficulty progression (just like Valheim has!) and yet....who can argue that that very mechanic isn't going to "force" even more linearity into the game? Sure, you can choose to go to desert or snow or wasteland during the first week but most will play the game in the "right" order just like they do Valheim. So, yeh...some side by side comparison would be appreciated over generalized statements of feelings.

I’m glad Valheim came out and the devs were able to play it before completely implementing their own biome difficulty progression. Hopefully, the things they like about biome progression in Valheim can inspire them as they design biome progression in 7 Days. As Gazz said, they’ve had biome difficulty progression planned for awhile and it has to be a good thing to be able to analyze the pros and cons of a popular game that already has that part of the game implemented. Same for Valheim— if they ever decide to go deeper with their own random nights of base defense, they have the benefit of having played 7 Days to Die to see what works and what doesn’t for them.

Well...you can ignore the first two or three bloodmoons and stay pretty safe on the roof of larger POIs if you just want to spend time clearing POIs or doing quests, or harvesting resources. That’s 21 days of playing however you want without feeling rushed to prepare for the horde. You can also decrease the frequency of bloodmoons to once every 10 days or once every 14 days etc. 7 Days definitely has a tower defense emphasis that Valheim doesn’t. I see that as them being different types of games and I wouldn’t want either to change what they are to be more like the other in that regard. I’d rather just be able to play both depending upon my mood. The boss progression is something I think 7 Days could definitely add to great effect. They could do it with bandits having a forest lieutenant, desert lieutenant, snow lieutenant, and wasteland lieutenant. Killing each one opens the way to the next and culminating in a showdown with either the Duke or Noah depending on which faction you went for. But....they could also just as easily decide to save something like that for a sequel.

The tutorial pop up does not pause the game. The only thing that pauses the game is pressing ESC if you are alone in the world.

I see what you're saying and maybe this is what Guppy was talking about as well. I agree that Valheim really starts stacking up the tasks you need to do in order to reach whatever your next objective is and there is a lot of "I want to do A but that means I will first need to do B which requires I do C" type of thinking. Personally, I do that same type of thinking about 7 Days to Die as well-- although I am much more familiar with 7 Days to Die. Valheim required a lot of figuring out how to do C so I could get B which would let me do A and that exploration space is fun the first time you experience it for any game. but then--you've learned the process and it becomes just a process to play through. The thing about Valheim, though, is that working through your list of tasks is pretty casual. I never feel that time matters. As novel as the tree chopping was at first, I hate chopping trees because it is click by click on the mouse. and now the novelty has worn off and really all I want to get is fine wood. Same thing when I need to go hunting for hides. When I know I need like 30 and so all my playtime is going to be running around shooting animals, it makes me not feel like signing on. Am I excited to reach the next boss and get to the next biome? yes. But the tasks I must do to prepare have become mundane and require a lot of time and effort- so.....I find myself playing less often now. Of course, that's just me. Plenty of people are continuing to have lots of fun with Valheim. Nothing Valheim does right, btw, will change 7 Days to Die. The dye is cast for this game. But perhaps they will be inspired for the next game. I LOVE the spatially relevent upgrades to workstations. I love the variety of workstations. I also wish 7 Days had more workstations and higher tiers of existing workstations. I also love the boss progression and the biome progression. It is a great way to pace the game and open new items and resources. Biome progression is coming to 7 Days but I doubt it will be quite as pronounced as Valheim. I don't think people will get absolutely rekt by going into say the desert in 7 Days before they are ready like you do in Valheim if you wander into or even sail too closely to a biome you aren't ready for yet...lol

Say what...? What rail? What do you mean there is less to do than there used to be? I don't agree with this at all. I guess I would agree that we briefly had caves and they were a fun thing that we don't have any longer but we also didn't have caves before we did until we didn't again. What else was there that we could that we can't now? I don't feel anyone dictating how I play or how I build. POI's are exponentially more interesting than they used to be. I guess there are "rails" there IF you follow the path-- which I don't. But even with the lighted path, the POIs are more interesting than the empty cardboard boxes we used to have. I understand and have the same frustration about some of the simplifications but that doesn't put the game on rails or mean there is less to do. Wait...are you talking about LBD? I really don't like the LBD in Valheim. It kills replay value for me. I will never restart a new game with a new character the way that game is set up. Valheim will be a one-time playthrough for me...

But...the game's player base WAS small and as a fledgling game the number of reviews were also small. As the game gained notoriety and the player base grew then a larger population of reviews came in and there were a much more significant number of poor reviews based on the learning curve of the game. You always say you understand why the developers make decisions to turn this game more mainstream and approachable even though you dislike the changes and would like for it to keep it's unique and complex processes and unforgiving survival mechanics because it makes for a more interesting game. I agree that the complexity and unforgiving difficulty make for a more interesting game. I also believe that such a game will always remain niche. Sure, those of us who were here at and near the beginning and are still here playing, figured out the mechanics and stuck with the game even though we died a lot at first. But that doesn't make us typical players. Typical players die several times and then call the game stupid and uninstall it-- or even worse...refund if that option is still available. So if you make a lower difficulty the new default but keep the old default as a higher setting then you are including a lot more people and those who like it tougher can turn it up and feel better about themselves.

Sure, they could push the default even more towards the casual end of the spectrum but if what they have done so far hits the sweet spot of being seen as a gritty unforgiving and challenging survival game by the larger population and yet it is still approachable by most, then there is no need. We could make the default Warrior and 16 max alive and jogging speed during the day and we would still get gamers coming around wanting to post, “This game is such a cakewalk...” but for the majority, they would be dying left and right on Day 1 and never put in the time needed to surmount the learning curve. These days, people will refund the game within their two-hour window if they can’t handle the default difficulty rather than turn down the difficulty and play “baby” mode.

That’s because the default was lowered a couple of years ago now so the number of complaints about the game being too hard are much more scarce now—you’re correct. But they were plentiful back in the day as well as lots of conversations on the forum suggesting that people turn down the difficulty when they complained that the game was “unfair”. You can believe what you want but I have the benefit of having seen things both before and after the default difficulty change. Like I said, people like you will, at an instant, be willing to come here and admit that the game is sooooo easy and you can only get enjoyment by playing insane nightmare 64 max alive 25% loot permadeath. Those who struggle with surviving even at the present settings don’t like to brag about that fact. Instead they call the game “crap” and “poorly balanced” and “unfair”. the game has ALWAYS had frame rate issues on certain hardware in the past, there were bad reviews about bad performance AND due to difficulty. These days, as you admitted, most bad reviews are about bad frame rates and that is because of a very smart change to the default difficulty that was made.

Doubtful this will happen. It is more about gamer psychology than tech limitations. Gamers are more likely to rage quit and never play a game again and give that game a bad review rather than turn the difficulty down to an easier setting where they will have more fun. But gamers WILL turn the difficulty up on a game they find too easy for them and will often brag about the fact that they play at a higher than default difficulty setting whenever the opportunity presents itself. That’s why default difficulty was changed from Nomad to Adventurer and why default max alive is more likely to move to 4 than it is to 16 if it needs to change at all.

Or an unexplored discussion topic....

The pipe shotgun looks pretty junky and definitely like it was jury-rigged together. Functionally it is the same as the blunderbuss but uses up shotgun ammo. There’s lots of shotgun ammo to be found...

Well if it eases the pain a bit, I heard a rumor that Al's Diner gives discounts on Bear Hugs and Blimp Rides to those who walk in wearing a Belt o' Shotguns. With perks like that, who could be against wasting a bit of shotty ammo? Exactly! You're Welcome! Now, that that is cleared up I wonder if I could interest you in the purchase of a particular bridge over Deadman's Gulch in Navezgane County-- going cheap....

Nothing wrong with carrying 5 pipe shotguns on your belt. In fact, everything is right with that.

I don't think they have touched this yet. Game balance stuff like this doesn't happen until the last month or so when Joel starts playing monster sessions to test balance for himself. RIght now with all the RWG changes it is off and on whether traders even spawn in a given A20 build. Its not really possible at this point to play a long term or real game of A20. You can get on to try out different things like the new pipe weapons, or explore a newly added POI, or travel around to see the world generation and town layouts. I've tried the buried supply quest to see the changes they made but I haven't done a lot of questing yet in A20 because that takes time and you don't want to invest that while there are good odds your save will break because something isn't working because of some other change that was made. Now that I downloaded A19, I'm actually feeling like playing a longterm game of that. My honeymoon with Valheim is about over. It is fun but lately when I sign on and remember that I quit because I knew I had to do a bunch of grinding, I tend to sign off again right away instead of playing, thinking I'll wait until another day to see if the mood hits me again to do all the chores I need to do. How about you streamline your posts into three versions: Streamline Snark, Porn Inuendo, and MMA References... 😜

Its because of how you are defining a full build. You seem to be defining a build solely by what you spend points in. So the fact that you could find a purple tier auto shotty and use that alongside your turrets doesn't count to you as being part of the intellect build because you are narrowly defining the build as only what you spend points in. Logically, the intellect build includes all unperked weapons no matter what weapon type they are-- the advantage being that when using those weapons in tandem with the turrets you have a great advantage over what the game can throw at you. No other build lets you use other weapons in tandem with the weapons you perk into. You have to choose the M60 you are fully perked in OR the auto-shotty you are not. Intellect lets you use the fully perked turrets AND the auto-shotty you are not. That is the endgame advantage of the intellect build. You have your pick of any of the tier 3 top quality real guns in the game to use with your turrets. Junk Turrets should only equal other real guns in a mathematical thought exercise exempt of any actual gameplay context because the real truth is that players don't just watch their turrets take care of the zombies for them. Actually, just watching the turrets do the work or going AFK while they do the work is pretty much against Madmole's whole "get off your ass" philosophy... No. That might be how you want to use them but that isn't the intention nor what they are balanced towards. They are balanced towards their owner also participating in the fight. If they were balanced the way you want then they would be massively OP whenever the player chose to also participate-- and I think most players do choose to participate with their turrets. Finally, IMO, not every build needs to be created equal. Assymetrical builds are way more exciting and good for replay value than builds that have weapons that have symmetrical DPS values and are just differently themed and skinned. There can be builds that are challenge builds and perhaps not quite as efficient or overtly powerful as others but rewarding in other ways. You talk a lot about efficiency and point cost and I think that that focus is what limits your ability to play intellect as its own build.