Roland
-
Posts
14,272 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
393
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Articles
A20 Bugs
A21 Bugs
Bugs V1
Events
Posts posted by Roland
-
-
1 minute ago, VestedStorm6108 said:
I understand that they will still be able to haul back the magazines to a base. But reading the confirmed features makes it sound like if the looters do not put perk points into what the crafter would need (tools, weapons, armor class, or other) they have a much less chance of getting those magazines.
The confirmed features list does not say that you have much less chance of getting magazines you haven't perked into. The list says that you find more parts and magazines of what you perk into. You are letting your fear of what it might be like overwhelm you. The bonus your perk gives you is subtle and mainly designed to prevent you from never finding a magazine or part that you need for crafting. It guarantees that you will find some of that type and not that you will only find those and nothing else.
5 minutes ago, VestedStorm6108 said:Which would cripple the crafters ability to craft what was in those magazines and almost force that crafter to loot with others to have a better chance of finding the mags that they would need.
I'm not going to lie. Finding magazines is fun and most players are definitely going to feel an incentive to go out and find magazines. That being said I doubt anyone who is playing multiplayer as you described your group will feel forced to do it. Single Players will definitely need to loot magazines in order to progress their crafting recipes but the team you describe will be just fine with you not participating in the looting. Of course, it is random so there may be times when you feel like you aren't getting enough of a type you want and you may experience a moment of "If you want something done right you gotta do it yourself" and get to doing some looting.
9 minutes ago, VestedStorm6108 said:Relying on mods to do a game devs job should always be a last resort thing and typically for more qol features then entire core mechanics.
Reverting the new features to legacy features isn't the dev's job. The dev's job is to develop and many of the features in the game are still being developed and are subject to change. You bought an unfinished game so if a modder reverts something to the way it used to be, that is fantastic news for anyone who wants it the way it used to be. But don't mistake that with the modder doing the dev's job. It's not.
2 -
What we probably need is to better communicate that the LCB is not meant stop Horde Night Spawns. It's main purpose is to protect your claimed area from non-friendly players and so that you can pick up your workstations. The idea that you should be able to build within your claimed zone and have no spawns within that zone is based on faulty assumptions. It is probably poorly communicated by the game and so causes confusion and people thinking it is buggy spawns.
0 -
7 minutes ago, VestedStorm6108 said:
This IS the issue. Those people don't WANT to craft. They want to be out in the world exploring, looting, or killing. Whereas I WANT to craft, mine, and build, but now am being forced to go out and loot for the magazines that scale with how many magazines I have. Especially since the magazines ONLY effect crafting and not how effective those tools, weapons, armor are.
Then they won't care about reading any of the magazines. The magazines are only for unlocking crafting recipes. They will bring them all back for you to read or they should if they understand how they work. You admitted yourself that some people in your group love being the mules who bring back all the loot for the homebodies to use. In A21 that will be magazines just like it is other stuff now. Really, not much of a change.
If your buddies really don't care about crafting as you say then they will have zero incentive to read any of the magazines. Those will be brought home by your other buddies the mules and read by you so that you can do what you love---crafting.
But...since you're just going to wait until it all gets reverted it doesn't matter anyway. Just wait for the mod and keep playing A20. It really isn't a problem if you do that.
1 -
2 minutes ago, VestedStorm6108 said:
Most of the time when at least I play in a group each player has certain tasks or jobs. Some people are looters who speedrun through quests and pois to get as much stuff as they can fit in their pockets. Some people are fighters who typically would tag along the speedrunners and just kill anything in that said speedrunners way (or being a mule for things they can't carry). Some people like to avoid looting and fighting all together and mine resources. Some people like to build epic mansions or underground bunkers. And some people like to craft. Having this new mag system completely removes MULTIPLE ways of playing the game. Crafting, building, and mining will be almost completely irrelevant if I need to not only find magazines, but have to go out of my way to loot to find MORE of those said magazines. Instead of having a dedicated looter have a (smaller) chance of finding ANY book, recipe, schematic, but lets ME play how I want to play. Not forcing me to play how YOU may play the game. Now the only way ANOYONE will be able to play is to loot for yourself...
I LOVE the idea of going back to a "use to learn" based system. Rewarding ALL playstyles. Speedrunners get looting, lockpicking, storage, and athletics. Fighters get weapon and armor skills. Miners get tool based skills. Builders wouldn't get too much but maybe crafting and storage skills? And crafters would get, well, crafting skills. This implementation is absolutely atrocious and I will refuse to play it until mods revert it, or its changed back to at least a20 system.If you are playing in a group then you can absolutely continue to play as you have in A20. Those who find mags can craft you anything you need. Under the old system they probably brought you what you needed from their looting. You are making huge assumptions of how the game will play without having played it or even having the full picture in front of you. Go ahead and refuse to play at all until mods revert it. We definitely want you to have fun with the game your way.
1 -
4 minutes ago, Pyrrhrick said:
Ah I misunderstood how the LCB worked sorry. I thought it was supposed to prevent spawns inside its perimeter.
If it's not a bug and intended then really game systems should support that in an ideal world. Leaving players to guess when a base may or may not be an appropriate size isn't particularly great game design.
Maybe something that could be looked at before Gold (e.g. a blue line within the LCB which shows those limits)
I just hope that "game systems supporting that" doesn't translate to the devs preventing players from building past a certain radius because there are plenty of people who like to build large and don't use that large base for horde night. It would be a shame to have to be limited on how big we can build just because some people want to make sure nothing can be built that doesn't work for horde night.
1 -
1 hour ago, Fanatical_Meat said:
Dammit time to talk about when we will be able to play A21.
Don't be a @%$# and say “When it’s done/ready”
I can give some additional details.
It will be on a Monday... but not on an October Monday.
1 hour ago, Falcon197 said:I'm limiting my ask to ensuring that bases built within that established radius don't suffer from buggy spawns on horde night.
Also fair enough. I guess what my point is that what you are calling an established radius with buggy spawns might just actually be a case where you have built beyond the maximum radius the game can handle and the spawns are working properly. But I will slip a note to faatal and ask him to look at it if he has the time.
1 -
12 minutes ago, Pyrrhrick said:
I'm struggling a bit here.
If we're saying the LCB is too big and that causes issues with zombie spawns, isn't the problem that the LCB is too big? Not that players need to try and fix zombie spawns which they don't have agency over surely.
The LCB doesn't prevent Horde Night spawns so whatever the size of the LCB protection field it has nothing to do with this issue.
The agency that players have is to build a base that works. You can test the limits of how spread out your base is and not get any spawns inside. You can then resolve to build smaller than that and now the issue is completely fixed. For example, me: I have never had a single zombie spawn inside my horde night base during horde night. The size of my base is completely the reason and I chose to keep my base within the parameters that prevent that from happening. Could someone still build a 1:1 Enterprise? Sure, but don't sit in the captain's chair during horde night or expect Klingons to be beaming on board...
If you want to do a large epic build, that's fine. Either don't use it for Horde Night Defense or use it with the knowledge that you will get zombies spawning inside.
If the proposed fix works in the current case then that's great. But in general, there is going to be a limit of how big you can make a base if you don't want zombies spawning inside during Horde Night.
0 -
42 minutes ago, Falcon197 said:
Treating a bug like it's a feature or limitation doesn't negate the root issue here, which is that there is a viable fix that doesn't require an extension of the tech to support bigger bases so that people like me just raise the ante by building to the new max limit and then complaining it isn't enough. I'm not in that camp.
My base design happens to be aligned to the rough dimensions of a real structure and therefore doesn't offer much flexibility to downscale. Further, this issue also limits the types of POIs players can occupy based on size (and there are more POIs now that are far larger than bases like mine which would make for viable spots to set up, but for this issue). I made my base fit within the limits of a max radius land claim (71 blocks), and yet I am still penalized for compliance with this limit by having to deal with spawns inside my perimeter.
I see nothing unreasonable about adding a simple logic check for land claims to the existing setup, since the worst it would do is force spawns to drop along the same edge of an active land claim (if all players are clustered to where it can't drop spawns behind them without landing inside the land claim). But if the players are spread out along different edges, spawns would function quite normally sans the issue of the occasional spawn inside the land claim or base.
You may be right. I don't know whether that is possible or not. I tend to think that if it was possible then it would have been implemented but it is possible that they may not have tried your suggestion and that if they did it would be an easy fix for your base.
That doesn't negate the fact that there will always be a base size that is just too big to prevent spawns from occurring inside. Even if you are correct and they run your fix we will eventually get someone else who wants their base to work and at some point that is going to be impossible given the current tech.
So, I'm not treating a bug like it's a feature. I'm saying that there might not be a fix if what you are trying to do is beyond the limit of the tech. You say the fix is simple and reasonable. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. I'll make sure they hear about it if they don't come on and read it first and I hope it is simple and reasonable and just something that was missed. If so, we should be fine until the next guy with a base several meters larger than yours comes wondering why he gets spawns inside...
1 -
The issue here is that there are tech limitations for horde night spawning that people are exceeding by building such large bases. If there is a flaw, here, it is that the game allows players to build bases with a footprint larger than can be supported.
The fix would be to force a limit to how large of a base players can be built.
or….people can just self limit themselves so that the game works properly for horde night and then people who want to build epic large scale bases but not use them for horde nights (or accept that some spawns will happen in their interiors) can still do so.
My vote is that you’ll downscale your base to the point that it fits the parameters of horde night if you plan to use it for horde night. It’s not like it is critical for gameplay that you’ve overbuilt to the point that your base perimeter extends past the point where zombies spawn in.
Let’s say for a moment the devs are able to solve the tech limits that would allow your size of base to work. Tomorrow there would be the next guy who wants to build even bigger and would be on here complaining that zombies are spawning inside his base.
The spawn distances aren’t arbitrary. They are at the limits of what can be done. Therefore if players find zombies spawning inside it is their responsibility to reduce the footprint of their base until it works or not use the epic base for horde nights.
1 -
15 hours ago, DanLW said:
While I like the idea of not having all these jars, I think water should be trivial... past the first week or so. It shouldn't be so scarce that we are spending a significant amount of time on water acquisition all the way into late game. Rather it should be kept as it is, one of the first problems that players need to solve on their way to mid-game.
I mean, one could say that shelter is trivial. It doesn't take much to maintain a base once established, especially if one decides to do horde night on a throw-away structure away from the main base.
What I'm saying is that it isn't a problem if water becomes trivial after the first week or so. By then we should have solved the water problem and are instead working on the food problem or the antibiotics problem or the better tools problem or the raw materials problem. There are plenty of things to try to find mid to late game without having to constantly worry about water.
That is exactly what the A21 change accomplished. In A20 water was trivial and solved on Day 1. In A21 it will take about a week or two (depending on settings) to solve the water issue and make it trivial for the rest of the game. The process of getting the dew collectors going is interesting as well and adds to the "to do" list of early game tasks.
2 -
6 hours ago, Riamus said:
Ok, that sure make sense, though personally, I stick to level or near level terrain most of the time if I can. The vertical distance adds to your drive time so if there is easier terrain close, I'll use that instead of a lot of rough terrain. I also get tired of the motorcycle changing directions when it hits terrain wrong. But at least this makes sense. Though spoilage would also make sense. Considering a fridge is in the game, we could use that to prolong food life easily enough.
I would love spoilage but it is a divisive feature with lots of hate as well as love-- even on the dev team... Not going to happen at this point for this game.
0 -
11 hours ago, Xeraphim said:
The game itself is like a well made intro to a series, like book 1-2 of what could easily become 200, and this is why mods are so very important to keep the playability alive which is why i am super glad that we can mod this game without the devs getting upset
Here you seem to get it. I totally agree with this statement. Mods are further chapters in a great book series. I like that. You should stick with this.
0 -
40 minutes ago, Xeraphim said:
will just result in the mod community flipping them the bird
What if it results in the mod community giving them a friendly wave since most of the mod authors, themselves, usually express gratitude for the abilities TFP have made open and easy to access? Its only some players, like you, that imagine some kind of adversarial relationship between modders and the devs like they are at war or something or like TFP wishes the modders would stop modifying the vanilla game.
smh...
4 -
He went in the desert but thought he was going to get dessert. Common spelling confusion.
1 -
33 minutes ago, Gamida said:
and a poop, don't forget a poop.
That happened in the pants during that moment when we hit the river bank and flew over the embankment.
1 -
38 minutes ago, Riamus said:
I'm not sure I agree. After all, why would you not want eating and drinking to scale? I don't expect a change and I don't really care either way, but it is strange.
And speaking of unrealistic... Accelerated vehicles use more food? That's even more unrealistic. I certainly don't use more food if I press down more on the gas pedal or twist the throttle more. Using more gas makes perfect sense. But not food (except on a bicycle).
I think I mentioned in a past post that one thing developers often forget is that even in a game not meant to be realistic (and this one is meant to be at least somewhat realistic, in a zombie post apocalyptic sense), you can only make things a certain amount unrealistic before you need to give a good reason why it is so unrealistic in the game. Without something in the game that explains why it is so unrealistic, players take notice and start taking developer time and support staff time by asking if it is supposed to be that way and why is it that way and why don't you change it and so on.
Think of it like this... I'll use world of warcraft as an example as most know the game of not played it, but you can substitute any other fantasy RPG. If they made the game such that paladins can't heal but fighters can, what would your reaction be? It isn't a "realistic" game, but there is a certain expectation. If they didn't make a good explanation in the game for that change, everyone would be asking about it and you'd see complaints even if it played well. But if they could put some kind of explanation in that made at least some sense, then you'd avoid all the unnecessary back and forth. They could say that the gods were destroyed so paladins can't heal but fighters can heal in a combat medic sort if way.
In here, you can easily explain away not being able to use snow for water by making it irradiated snow or tainted snow or having she gave intro that says that it isn't safe. But I would love to see how anyone can explain needing more food to drive faster in a motorized vehicle. This isn't the Flintstones.
Well it’s been this way for a couple of alphas now so there was a big discussion at the time when it was implemented. The game reason was that there needs to be an ongoing food drain into the late game since there is no spoilage. The thematic reason is that by driving crazy fast over the rough uneven terrain you actually would be using quite a bit of core strength to keep yourself stabilized in your vehicle. The world we drive in in the game world is quite a bit different than the world you drive in. I’m sure you don’t burn any stamina clicking on your cruise control. But try 4 wheeling in a river bed for a couple of hours and you might be ready for a big meal…and some Tylenol.0 -
1 hour ago, Cr0wst0rm said:
They are prolly also busy on that new title theyre working on...
Nobody working on 7 Days to Die is tied up with the new title. The new title is still mostly conceptual art and Unreal engine tests and meetings which involve people hired to do those things for that project. In addition, the 7 Days to Die team has grown as well for the final push to full release so.....prolly not.
3 -
Unofficially before the end of the year. That has been the goal. We'll see.
48 minutes ago, Pyrrhrick said:Just looking at 7DTD history, and we're at around 9 years with 21 Alphas (almost). As Alpha 21 seems to have been the longest Alpha in development, is it the case that this Alpha is shaping up to be one the biggest changes to the game we've seen?
I loved how much the new RWG / Tileset system breathed fresh air into the game. I was wondering whether A21 feels like a significant step up compared to A20, as A20 did to A19.
Or is it more that the development of things like character models / bandits / water are so complex that it's just taking a long time to get them out? (which would be completely understandable!)
I dunno, the length of time and the fact devs are being quiet makes me think there's more we don't know about....might just be wishful thinking though
Alpha 17 still holds the record for longest development time. A21 involves a lot of polishing and standardizing which takes a lot of time. There are some things not listed on the first page that will be in A21. As soon as a developer reveals something new it will be added.
3 -
7 hours ago, NekoPawtato said:
I might be overthinking this but I noticed in the pictures about learn by looting there is a section for "harvesting tools" and "blades"
A hunting knife is both a blade and used to harvest meat/corpses/etc so... do both trees increase crafting lvl of hunting knife?
Similarly I think steel knuckles can also harvest, so would that be both knuckles and harvest tool trees?
Or stone axe as both a repair tool and a harvest tool?
There are no overlapping trees. Each tool or weapon is unique to a particular category. Just like any attempt to organize, there will be disputations about the appropriateness of assigning this or that to any particular category and some will be bothered that a tool is in this tree rather than that tree. But, regardless, everything is only in a single category and will only be advanced by reading one magazine type.2 -
5 hours ago, Pyrrhrick said:
Quick one - are cans being removed in A21? I saw some rationale about making the game uniform in how it returns items upon consumption. As far as I know wouldn't cans be the only outlier? Would make sense to get rid of them too if the goal is consistency.
Cans are gone too
0 -
2 hours ago, Riamus said:
That was my point. Being tied to real time means that if you play at 40 minute days versus 120 minute days, you are eating and drinking 1/3 the amount per day because your days go by faster without any change in how often you need to eat and drink in real time. This makes it easier in regards to eating and drinking on a faster (supposedly more challenging) game speed. So let's say you have to eat and drink once per 15 minutes real time. On a 40 minute day, you would need to eat and drink around 3 tires per day. On a 120 minute day, you'd need to eat and drink around 8 times per day. Less need or difficulty on a shorter day. Granted, you can say that trying to eat and drink so often on a shorter day would be too hard, but it would certainly help with the difficulty and survival aspects when playing a shorter day. Probably wouldn't want a linear progression for eating and drinking if tied to game time because it would definitely be much harder if you had to eat and drink 8 times a day on a 40 minute day. But a sliding scale based on game time would help balance it. This can even be fiyne based on real time by just adjusting the eating and drinking timer based on day length while still using real time for the timer.
If it is on realtime then everyone always eats and drinks at the same rate no matter how long their days are. It is neither harder or easier. The only weirdness is that you end up eating multiple times in a day which feels strange if you play 120 minute days. But that is just an illusion. Realtime timers affect everyone the same. If I have to eat every 2 hours of realtime play then so do you and whether that translates to 7pm for me or 11am for you is immaterial.
2 hours ago, Fanatical_Meat said:I thought hunger and at least some of thirst was controlled by how far you’ve moved/traveled.
Stamina use burns food as does cold weather. So yes running around or pushing the acceleration on vehicles burns food.
0 -
31 minutes ago, Riamus said:
Another thing I was thinking about...
What is the purpose of changing day speed? Faster days are generally more challenging and longer days are generally easier. So you change based on difficulty preferences for the most part. But the food and drink on a real life timer is backwards in terms of this difficulty change. If you shorten days to have a faster horde schedule and limited time each day to do things, you have an easier time with food and drink. If you lengthen days to give you more time to do things and slower for the horde nights, you have a more difficult time with food and drink. It works out backwards. Not that it is ever really difficult.
There are of course other ways to change difficulty and I'm sure people change day length for other reasons, but it's still interesting.
I could be wrong again but I think hunger and thirst are not connected to game time. So you have to eat and drink just as often no matter what setting you choose. Of course that is modified by whether you are burning stamina or suffering from a cold climate but the unmodified rate is the same.
1 hour ago, Prydonian said:You can overeat? What effect does that have?
Your fullness and hydration bars stick at 100% while a timer counts down from whatever value over 100 your food or drink raised your fullness or hydration. It means that you don't have to wait to eat a stew because you're afraid you'll lose the extra. Just eat it and you get credit for the extra.
1 -
8 hours ago, Jugom said:
@Roland if you roll back to when I first asked, schwanz said so. 😬
maybe it was changed since then?
Well I asked and you are 100% right and I was completely wrong. I have to say I am shocked. All of you 120 minute day players are going to have sloooooooooow collectors…lol.3 -
2 hours ago, RipClaw said:
And then there are those who eat only when their stamina is decreased, but they don't fill up, they only eat enough to get rid of the debuff. They also don't take advantage of the fact that they can overeat.
Yes, this too. Any time you are trying to hover the status bar at one point you are going to have to constantly maintain that hover.
6 hours ago, Jugom said:@Roland if you roll back to when I first asked, schwanz said so. 😬
maybe it was changed since then?hmmm...maybe I better look at the code or test 5 minute days.
0
Alpha 21 Discussion Overflow
in General Discussion
Posted
I hope it does or if not only slight changes in what you do are necessary or if not it turns out that the new way is at least as much fun or if not the modders come to your rescue.