Roland
-
Posts
14,369 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
393
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Articles
A20 Bugs
A21 Bugs
Bugs V1
Events
Posts posted by Roland
-
-
15 minutes ago, theFlu said:
I appreciate the brainstorming; but "spawning zeds in" just isn't the same. Modifying the behaviour of the world feels a lot more natural and immersive, making the existing things more threatening based on your decisions.
What would happen to my game time with that.. well, I'd be carrying around meat just to maximize my spawn rate... or worse, depending on the implementation, single-split-stacks of meat...
For those who aren't looking to game the system in order to artificially increase the pace of their progression it is equally immersive. In scenario A there are zombies in state of dormancy standing around in the environs that are changed because they smell food and so they go into an aggro state and seek out the source of the food. The player sees zombies coming towards him from the surrounding area. In scenario B there are no zombies but the smell event is triggered so the game spawns zombies into the nearby environment and sends them towards the player.
From the player's perspective it is the same end result. Zombies from the nearby environs close in on him due to the smell of the food he is carrying. That is for a player who is unaware of the underlying mechanics and who is playing the game in a natural and organic fashion. Of course a player who has been following the development and understands the mechanics of what is happening and has the predilection to farm such mechanics for easy xp is going to see it all as artificial and non-immersive. Since they themselves are choosing to play the game in an artificial and non-immersive manner it serves them right.
The first guy is on his way to do a quest and farming xp isn't on his radar so as zombies start closing in on him from the surrounding area it feels like they were attracted to him because of what he is carrying. The second guy is standing still waiting for the xp delivery system to do its thing. The same is true of screamers. When I am focused on building or mining or crafting and I hear them show up it feels immersive because my focus was on natural game related activities. I didn't break "the fourth wall" of video gaming to take advantage of game mechanics that I know about but my character in the game couldn't know about. But when I stand in a defensive area with 25 campfires burning waiting for the screamers and all the xp bags to show up that is not immersive.
People can play how they want and complain about the results they get from their choices but it doesn't mean that mechanics like spawning in enemies for a random event doesn't feel natural and immersive to those who aren't gaming those mechanics for every ounce of xp they squeeze out of them all so they can get to level 300 weeks or months faster than a naturally playing player would reach it. People also talk about the game as a Mailman simulation as if spamming mailboxes for magazines is the only way the game can possibly be played. It's not. And I just disagree that spawning in zombies must result in gameplay that is non-immersive and superficial and contrived. It can definitely be stretched that way by determined players but it doesn't have to go that way.
1 -
Google Authenticator is required for admin accounts on the forum but not for normie accounts. I believe you can opt out of it like you can ignore the suggestions to use 2-factor authorization protections as regular user of the forum.
0 -
After playing with the modern feral sense setting for a while I did go back to an earlier alpha that had the old meat smell sense and I have to say that the feral sense works better in my opinion. I too had fond memories of the dangers of carrying meat but it turns out it was pretty easy to avoid carrying meat and then the feature was basically turned off. Feral sense is always on and requires more vigilance and constant environmental awareness. In addition, the modern feature of zombies running up to eat your animal kills is pretty awesome too. If they ever bring it back that would be fine but as far as replacements go, Feral Sense is not a bad alternative and I always play with it on.
Could also be that the future event manager system could be a way to bring something like smell back. It could be something like when you are carrying food, randomly the game could create an event much like a screamer where zombies spawn a distance away from you and then path towards you but that event can only be triggered when you have food in your inventory.
0 -
12 hours ago, Old Crow said:
We shouldn't have to rely on mods to improve the game, period.
I’ll call BS on that. TFP can’t possibly make a game that has features that appeals to every person nor can they put in every single feature that every single person wants. The player base can’t even decide among themselves what features and changes constitute an improvement or a backslide. Opinions range all over the place.
Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that for certain people with a particular set of preferences, they absolutely must, should, and will rely on mods to improve the game for them.
It’s unreasonable to think that one set of default game rules is going to be good enough for everyone and nobody should mod those rules for their own pleasure. Other games that can’t be modded are ignored and uninstalled by players that wind up disliking them but this game can be tailored into something enjoyable even if the vanilla experience is not something they like. So should they just ditch the game since they supposedly shouldn’t have to improve it for their own preferences or is it actually a huge bonus to be able to find or create modified versions that someone might like better?
The truer statement is that more games in the industry should be modable to improve them for your tastes so that as a gamer you can rely on being able to find some version that really aligns with your sense of fun.
10 -
Jason: Carl had his newb protection turned on. What a noob!
Carl: What?! No I didn’t!!! Jason used the creative menu to build his base! What a poser!
Jason: SHUTUP NEWB PROT! I legit mined everything!!!
0 -
3 hours ago, InfiniteWarrior said:
I scuttled a few saves when alpha testing the game, one because I put up with an infection for 6 in-game days that I could only manage with the rare herbal antibiotic sold by traders I had to spend hours actively seeking out so I'd have a chance at getting some from them. RNG just wasn't at all helpful in the honey department for the most part during that particular test run, so I can see new players getting so fed up, they just put the game down and never pick it back up again. (No idea how long it was until I realized honey could cure the infection in the first place when new to the game, which doesn't make a lot of sense, but okay.)
An option would be good, but is it really such a bother to have that status effect protection for the same amount of time as you have XP loss protection or maybe even less? If no status protection, then why should you have XP loss protection? If not one, then eliminate the other. Those who are saying it "teaches" you.... Well, I don't think so myself. What teaches you is learning the zombies are always moving forward, even when staggered, so hit and runs moving backward youself keeps you relative safe from getting hit. That sort of thing. Whereas breaking a leg and having RNG absolutely refuse to offer up a cast or a splint is quite a different story. I've had seriously bad RNG rolls in my alpha testing runs of this game.
There's a lot to learn about 7DTD. Veterans have already learned it, so I can see why they'd want an option instead, but if you get that option, then you should lose that early game XP protection.
The beginning of the game is the most interesting to me. As a veteran player I appreciate the variety of starts that can alter how the first few days plays out.
The newb protection should be disabled by default and only enabled if checked by a new player. Especially once weather survival is reintroduced I think that heat and cold should affect us from the very beginning.
Having protections for weather, critical injuries, xp death penalties just work together to make every restart of the game play out exactly the same. Obviously, people who keep restarting until they get what they consider a good start are going to be the type of people who only ever want good starts. But I like a variety of experiences which is why I’m against any newb protection for anything except as an option that must be toggled on.
0 -
Restarting because of exhaustion? Are vitamins really that rare? As an option it would be fine but hard pass on making it the default feature setting.
2 -
2 hours ago, 7 days to die fan said:
but the process they have made on this game is trash at the least.
You meant "at best" but what you actually wrote was the truer statement...heheh
3 -
Having such a marketing scheme work with something like Cheetos is believable. But would it work with something like Vegemite? Doubtful....
0 -
5 hours ago, khzmusik said:
Won't be happening in vanilla. I can guarantee that seasons will be moded in, since I am determined to do it in myself if nobody else does it.
The catch is that we will all will have to wait until the "weather" update happens, which is at least two releases away on the TFP roadmap. That's the point at which modders (such as my humble self) can be relatively certain that the weather system won't change radically, again.
But, eventually, it will be something that is available, it just won't be coming from TFP.
So, have hope. The fact that TFP made this game really easy to modify, means that eventually someone will make the game behave exactly as you want.
I believe I said exactly that already two posts after my first one. But thanks for the confirmation and glad to know you are set and ready to step up and do it.
0 -
17 hours ago, beerfly said:
And @Roland is dragging his personal wrench behind him if something feels shady 😄
Say what? Did somebody find a mine that needs wrenching?
4 -
No worries. Even if the devs won't do seasons, an inspired modder might do just that and might look at this thread for ideas on how to implement it. So it is still worthwhile to share ideas as you might be able to download them later.
For Autumn, that is traditionally harvesting season so I'd say larger than normal harvest in Autumn and maybe a higher chance for honey in stumps. The challenging part could be more frequent bloodmoons. There could also be crops unique to each season so Autumn would be the only time to grow pumpkins for example.
3 -
Raiders taking over POIs is planned. In fact some POIs already have the hooks for becoming raider outposts already programmed in.
Seasons won't be happening. The devs have already said no to that.
I agree that screamers need a tweak. They could be showing up a bit more frequently.
0 -
At least most of the ads I see now are exactly the types of things I want to buy...
0 -
My family usually has a home base and a nearby horde base but since we recently moved to the wasteland we set our base at the top of a construction site and are creating a gauntlet of death where the zombies travel up through the guts of the building being killed as they go so for the first time in a long time our base is also our horde night defense area.
0 -
1 hour ago, theFlu said:
I’ll buy that, for now..
The only concern I have against that is that I think bandits and stories would actually deserve an alpha branch of their own. The track record with them is a little murky... Thanks for spelling that out
Im sure they’ll continue to utilize experimental builds and bandits will probably start there.1 -
TFP wants to make lots of money. They also want people to like their game. They also enjoy playing their own game. They also care about their reputation as they have games lined up for development in the future. They also are very excited to view and read player reactions to what they've crafted. They also want to be able to make their own decisions and not have to answer to anyone else.
TFP admitted that they had internally considered the game beyond the alpha stage for a long time even though they were sticking to the public alpha versioning system.
When TFP originally announced that the game would be released on console they said that it would be called Version 1 on console but Alpha 22 on Steam.
Later, when they posted their first press releases for the new console edition they referred to it as 7 Days to Die: Apocalypse Edition. This decision was to mainly differentiate the new console version from the old console version. However, there was a lot of feedback that they read after the announcement that pointed to even more confusion about the differences between the Steam version and the console version. There was a lot of team discussion about the best course of action.
Then, in the BIG announcement we, of course, all learned that the new version would be uniformly called 7 Days to Die 1.0. The developers stated that the game wasn't finished and released the roadmap of future features that would be added to the game.
I was not privy to whatever internal discussion helped them land on the final decision but I can tell you that their main concerns were a desire to differentiate the new console version from the past console version but to also show that the new version was unified with the Steam version. They also felt that the game had moved beyond the alpha stage. Calling it 1.0 was the perfect way to signify that their game was no longer an alpha product and that console and PC versions were the same and that the new console version was different than the old console version. The downside was player perception that 1.0 means finished and development complete so they published the roadmap and gave clear communication that the game was not finished and development would continue at the same time.
I have never once read an internal discussion where the team talked about being forced to call the game 1.0 in order to be able to release to console either for Microsoft or Playstation. It could still be true but TFP has never admitted to it publicly nor have I ever seen them talk about it or lament about it privately.
To me, I believe the developers honestly believe their game is worthy, as it is, of being a fully released game no longer needing the Early Access shelter or the Alpha excuse. I think their perspective is markedly different from that of those who are angry about and derisive of the current state of the game. But I don't believe TFP is being false in their claims about the game deserving to be fully released and simply going "profit first" by calling it 1.0. That is just way too one-dimensional. Making a profit is part of it. They definitely didn't bring the game to console just to feel happiness over even more people playing their game. They wanted it to make money. New outfits as paid DLC is definitely about making money. The higher price tag is about making money but not entirely about that. They really believe that the game has grown in value over the last 10 years. It was originally $35 on Steam when it first released. They are charging $10 more than that initial price for their full release. If the original early access release was worth $35 then what the game now offers comparatively is worth $45 to their view.
Happily, based on sales, the public largely agrees with them.
0 -
31 minutes ago, pApA^LeGBa said:
What is it with this black and white thinking? I can just not like something without being bitter and angry. Maybe try that sometimes?
It’s the tenor of your posts for the last couple of years. When you post negativity for years it comes off as pretty bitter. Leaving a bad review and moving on and just not liking something, I agree— not bitter. Hanging out in a forum for years to go on and on repeating the same complaints way past the point where changes are going to happen— bitter.
31 minutes ago, pApA^LeGBa said:The number of people not buying this kind of games anymore and rather waiting for a sale, best as a bundle with DLC`s, get´s more and more daily. Devs who act like that will be left with a crowd of early buyers that have the attention span of a gold fish and no patience at all after a while. That is surely your favorite type of poster as a mod. Am i right?
Bitter.
No worries Dude. We just disagree on how detrimental this shift is to the industry and how impactful consumers can be to prevent the shift from continuing. Maybe there will be a correction but if so it will be because the players in the industry determine that they need to change in order to be successful. It won’t be because some players of the games leave bad reviews.
1 -
7 hours ago, pApA^LeGBa said:
Or instead of just accepting to being bull@%$#ted, we could simply give those games negative reviews. Why do i as a customer now have to do research, if 1.0 really means 1.0 before buying? Technically we are being lied to. Why should i accept that?
Exactly that kind of behavior from developers makes people not buy new games anymore and buying all their games on sale once the game is like 2 years or older.
I never said you shouldn’t give bad reviews for devs putting out an unfinished game. I just said that it won’t change anything. People will still buy them in droves glad to have them sooner rather than later.
Nothing is going to stop this train—not even the supernatural power of bad reviews. You can spend your days being bitter and angry and boycotting games or you can go with it and either buy the rough early adopter version or the refined version a year later. Either way it’s going to continue.
0 -
1 hour ago, Riamus said:
Is there statistical data that shows that the majority, or even more than 25%, of video game developers are not using 1.0 as the finished release version (or something like 1.01 if a patch was needed after the 1.0 build)? You've mentioned this as fact, but it's there proof, or just what you think? I'm not saying you are wrong. I would just like to see statistics rather than assume what someone says online is correct. I've assumed things I've heard from multiple sources to be true only to find out those sources were all wrong, so I prefer to see the data.
I have no data which is why I said that I state what I believe to be true and did not state that I am stating hard facts. My perspective is that the industry is changing to a model of delivering unfinished games that are finished enough but still require patches. People have been complaining about this shift for years now so I don't believe it is just isolated cases but an actual shift in the industry. I believe it is a natural and logical shift due to the change in delivery system of more and more games and the greater ability to patch games online and fewer people actually owning physical copies of their games and instead simply licensing digital downloads of games.
1 hour ago, Riamus said:Also, you seem to want people not to argue against a change they don't like. It is partly due to people not standing against changes they don't like our think are wrong that many of the worst changes in history have occurred. I'll avoid getting deeper into that because it becomes borderline political, which isn't allowed. But I'm sure you can think of some. If people don't think a change is good, they *should* stand against it. In the same way that people who think change is needed should argue for it rather than sitting back and just accepting whatever happens it doesn't happen.
No, by all means, fight the good fight. I'm a realist in this regard and consider that all the people who are complaining aren't anyone with any power other than to withhold payment and not buy games but most of the complainers still want their new game sooner rather than later and so not even they withhold their money. They complain but they buy. The people with the power to hold the line against this change have zero incentive to do so. TFP got their money bump for releasing their 1.0 now instead of at the end of 2025. Who wants their money bump two years from now when you can have it now? And look at the reviews. Yes, there was a blip because of negative review bombing by people truly incensed by the unfinished 1.0 and so the recent reviews dropped to 78% approval but now the 30 days have passed and recent reviews are rising back up again. So studios get their income surge now and any anger is momentary and fades away as long as the game that has been delivered is decent enough to entertain people. 7 Days to Die is plenty decent enough to entertain people. Clearly.
Don't take what I say as a wet blanket to suspend discussion. You're the one who told me to stop saying times are changing and to start feeding people a line that will misdirect them to Sony and Microsoft. I never told anyone to stop complaining. I just truthfully pointed out that our discussions are pointless and feed anger that acceptance and shifting your mindset can diminish.
1 hour ago, Riamus said:Let me ask you... Why is it a good change to not have 1.0 indicate a finished game? Ignore what anyone does or why they do it... Why do you personally like that change? What value of positive impact does it have? I'm really curious because I see no value in it. It makes sense to have a standard for a finished version of a game. To just say you can call it whatever you want doesn't make much sense. Can you convince me that there is a good reason to not have a standard for what is a finished game? Keeping in mind that service games, MMOs, etc. are an entirely different situation and that DLC and expansions are also different from having a finished base game.
I don't think it is good or bad. Communication is good. TFP communicated that they were changing the version numbering to 1.0 and also gave clear context of the state of the game and what that 1.0 meant and what it didn't mean. The positive impact of studios pushing out a game that still needs work done on it (for me) is getting to experience those changes. I have always been a fan of early access games. I'm not bothered by the ups and downs. I like experiencing changes. I also prefer downloading my games rather than buying a physical representation of them and I like that developers can so easily push out quick fixes and patches and add content.
I disagree that "1.0" by itself makes for a good standard. I much prefer a press release by the company explaining in detail the state of their game and their plans for the future. Sometime probably in 2026 or 2027, TFP will send out a press release to announce that they are finished with 7 Days to Die and that it now exists in its forever state. That version might end up being 1.7 or 2.5 or 3.8....whatever. Its just the version number. The standard for being finished will be the actual state of the game itself when TFP announces that they are done with 7 Days and are shifting all their resources to other projects. Then people will judge whether TFP achieved their goals and delivered on their promises. I actually hope that they version the Q4 2024 update as 2.0 and the Q2 2025 update as 3.0 and the Q4 2025 update as 4.0 just to really hit home that their versioning is their own.
When games were shipped as physical products, 1.0, was fine because it was self-evident. These days, game updating is more fluid and with early access programs the line is blurred even further and so I would actually hate it if just stamping 1.0 meant done and nothing was stated. I much prefer companies explaining their plans as TFP did.
0 -
14 minutes ago, theFlu said:
Flirpity flarbity fon "final". Flopper fer furts "1.0"?
The Nuns from Sound of Music want you to join them now.1 -
11 minutes ago, BFT2020 said:
If I released a software product stating it was version 1.0 but also told you I have on my schedule 3 additional major updates coming out over the next 1 1/2 years, I fail to see how I caused the confusion - as I provided the context to my release number.
I went back to their 1.0 announcement and they clearly provided context that showed 1.0 was not the final build of the game.
People refuse to understand that because the most important thing to them is to be right about their definition of 1.0. So they ignore all the context and pretend that it’s still 2004 and 1.0 means the finished game is coded upon the cartridge/disc that they just removed from the plastic box that they purchased at the mall….
I mean I joked about it earlier but it is consistent with the mindset of ignoring context in order to push a personal expectation for the OP to be calling 1.0 the “final build” weeks after 1.1 was released to experimental.1 -
1 hour ago, Riamus said:
Or look at it another way. Players are understandably expecting it to be finished when it is taken out of early access and set to version 1.0. I don't think that is in doubt. Now, there are two ways to handle such complaints.
First, you can basically blame the player for having that expectation by telling them they shouldn't expect that because "times, they are a-changin'", which is just going to upset them and had a good chance of leaving then to leave a bad review. Maybe bad reviews won't really affect the bottom line, but I'm sure there is at least some impact. You'd need a study to find that answer.
Second, you can be empathic with the layer and tell them that, yes, the expectation is valid and you agree that it created an incorrect expectation along players, but it is probably due to the console release requirements from Sony or Microsoft (go ahead and shift the blame to them unless you can't as a moderator) but that there is a short roadmap to completion. That has a decent chance of subduing the frustration enough to avoid a negative review. Again, how much those reviews hurt the bottom line, I don't know.
So, which would make the most sense? Blame the player for having that expectation or empathize with them? Regardless of your personal opinion on having such an expectation.
Im just sticking to what I believe to be truth, thank you. Times are changing and TFP is taking advantage of the newer meaning of 1.0. If someone wants to be offended by that then that’s their problem.
I know for sure that TFP is defining 1.0 as a milestone with more updates to come rather than a destination. I don’t know for a fact that they only did it to release on console. That’s a theory pushed by some players but it’s never been confirmed by TFP. Shifting blame to Sony and Microsoft wouldn’t be intellectually honest of me to do.
People who are in denial about what 1.0 means in 2024 and moving onward are going to be offended no matter who delivers the message all so they can avoid shifting their own expectations. They can leave a bad review for all I care. But I’m not going to massage their obsession for a dated and obsolete expectation by promulgating your conspiracy theory about why TFP “really” went 1.0. I haven’t seen any evidence coming from TFP of that theory publicly or behind closed doors whereas I have seen plenty of private and public communication that 1.0 simply signified their departure from early access and a significant milestone in the game’s development.
0 -
The definition of 1.0 is in flux and is definitely migrating. It’s confusing to a lot of people because we are still in the beginnings of that change. What 1.0 meant in the industry when games were published onto physical discs or cartridges is not going to be the same as we move further and further away from that model. There’s no going back to 1.0 is the finished version because it has to be.
During such times there are always people who are unwilling to accept the changes and obsess about the traditional way things have been done. Eventually, those people fade away and general acceptance of the new normal eliminates confusion.
I’ve got a few games in my library that were designated 1.0 but were not done and are still being worked on and developed. I made the mental adjustment regarding 1.0 way before TFP made their announcement so it was no big deal. People who refuse to make the adjustment and want to cling doggedly to old definitions will just continue to be angry about more and more releases in the industry.
0
Why was this feature removed?
in General Discussion
Posted
I see your point. But like I said, it is mostly in the mind of the player and that player's intentions for how they approach the game. I don't dislike YOU playing the game focused on exploiting its underlying mechanics. I would just dislike ME playing that way. I think a lot of the criticisms of min maxers are a tempest in a teacup because while it is possible to exploit "stupid" mechanics in "stupid" ways, at the same time it's just a choice and not forced.
As for plot holes and continuity problems like zombie falling out of sealed up spaces in the ceiling or showing up in places you already checked a moment before, I've always thought of those as B-Movie jump scare moments that you see in every slasher horror movie-- especially those that don't take themselves too seriously. This game definitely doesn't take itself too seriously and it is still fun to kill those zombies and occasionally still get jump scared. Lots of people obsess over how unrealistic it is and lots of other people pay it no mind and just roll with the B-movie vibe that it is.
I often intentionally break through walls and go off the intended path in POIs. I often come upon zombies with their backs to me oriented in the direction the devs intended me to go. I enjoy those moments greatly. I just see them as dormant zombies and don't really stop and get annoyed that they were set up to attack me from some other direction. I love it when I chop through a wall into the back of a wardrobe where a zombie is standing facing the doors ready to pop out later. I love putting an arrow in the back of its head.
I feel bad that there are those who can't enjoy the game the way it is and who make game play choices for themselves that lead to their dissatisfaction and yet will always make those same choices since they are allowed by the mechanics of the game. I'm glad the devs haven't restricted those mechanics so that everyone can still choose to play the way they want. There are those who min/max and play the underlying mechanics meta and love it. There are those who min/max and play the underlying mechanics meta and hate it but do it anyway and complain. And then there are a bunch of us who either don't know the underlying mechanics or ignore them and just play the game inefficiently and sloppily and are still progressing our skills and recipes on day 70 and like killing the zombies that come from wherever they do.
But...we don't get to come on the forums and flex that we played out the whole game by Day 20 so yeah....