Roland

I know what he means. Sometimes in kitchen dining rooms I’ve seen a zombie that was lying on the floor try to crouch under the kitchen table between us instead of walk normally around it. It can’t get under the table but it keeps trying and the table isn’t one of the new shapes.

Well I didn't mean to imply it was all done. I meant to state for the record that the REASON zombies were given the ability to crouch was to improve their pathing and help them not get stuck in places they typically would get stuck. That the process isn't finished yet doesn't mean that TFP did to thwart certain strategies that they deemed "wrong". And nobody, least of all me, is trying to claim that the work is considered finished. One area where it is working much better is in attics where the sloped ceiling comes down to meet the floor. In A19, the zombies couldn't path in those areas and (at least in my games) they scuttle around in attics under those low sloped ceilings beautifully now. They also had problems with some of the irregular holes in walls and some of the broken windows which they now crab walk through (in my experience) without much problem. But they do get stuck still in some circumstances and sometimes choose to duck when they shouldn't because even ducked they wouldn't be able to get under the obstacle they are trying to. Area destruction is actively undergoing tuning according to faatal. There was a bug that prevented most zombies from going into destruction mode and now that bug is fixed and it is truly working for the first time. Faatal admitted that they will probably have to adjust the values on it and agrees it is happening way too often at the moment. "Improvement" in pathing as defined by the developers is making the pathing more versatile and able to help them traverse the complex landscape and interact with more of the world. So having a destruction mode option that turns them from their normal path to something else is an improvement over not having the option. Having an option where the zombies can interact with blocks above them and below them instead of simply whatever is straight in front of them on their horizontal plane is an improvement because it increases their interactivity with the world. Having both long paths and short paths available to zombies is an improvement over having only long paths because it adds a variety of behaviors and abilities randomly among zombies and their sense of exactly how to get to the player. "Improvement" in pathing is not defined by whether a given player likes the current pathing or not. You may not see the changes as improvements for your playstyle but that is subjective to your own experience. Objectively, all of these changes have been improvements and now the programmers simply need to adjust, debug, and tune things to get the behavior results THEY want which may or may not align with what we want.

It is always hilarious to me that people will come here or go on video and comment and postulate the motives of TFP and why things are happening the way they are as if TFP is some ancient civilization that completely died out 1000s of years ago and they are the archeologist using obscure clues to suss out what happened and report it all for the rest of us. I get why an influencer wants to set himself up as the go to oracle and expert on TFP doings-- the motive is absolutely clear. But we also get Joe Randos who come here and opine about this stuff like it is some unknowable mystery. It's not and anyone can come and ask questions and get the answers from TFP simply be being honestly inquisitive about the development process. It is simple to ask but the personalities that would rather set themselves up as THE ANSWER don't really want or care about the truth. They want subs and likes.

Saven: TFP CHANGED ZOMJERK PATHING SO THEY WOULD CROUCH AND CRAWL UNDER LOW SPACES THAT THEY SAW A FEW PEOPLE EXPLOITING ON HORDE NIGHT AND TFP GOTTA STOP!!!!! Truth: TFP changed zombie pathing so that zombies would no longer get stuck in attics and other low overhangs. TFP's goal was to improve zombie navigation particularly in POI's which are often complex areas. Saven: TFP CHANGED ZOMJERK PATHING SO THEY COULD WALK ON STEEP WEDGE SLOPES WHEN THEY SAW A FEW PEOPLE EXPLOITING IT ON HORDE NIGHT AND TFP GOTTA STOP Truth: TFP fixed a bug whereby zombies could not walk on nor damage blocks presenting the steep slope wedge side. This was never an intended behavior and once it was noticed it was fixed. It wasn't even the corridor setup that Saven showed that clued them in. It was all the pyramid bases and walls that were being built and videos showing that zombies could neither path up those slopes nor could they even connect to damage blocks when that facing was in front of them. It wasn't a vs player reaction at all even though it was a bug that was spotted thanks to early access play. Saven: TFP CHANGED ZOMBIE PATHING TO MAKE THEM DIG TO STOP PEOPLE BEING SAFE ON HORDE NIGHT WHEN UNDERGROUND AND TFP GOTTA STOP!!! Truth: Yes they did. But, the digging part of the pathing was not only about horde night. It was also to make their pathing options much more varied at all times. Saven failed to mention that TFP also changed zombie pathing to have them hit upward as well. So hatches over ladders are now at risk when they never were before. Zombie pathing as a whole is so much more improved than the past and zombies are able to path and destroy in true 3d space now whereas before A17 they were only able to destroy on a single plane. Critics of digging only target the digging instead of looking at all the changes as a whole. Critics like Saven only target the digging changes because it makes good click bait... Saven: TFP CHANGED THE HP OF POLES TO MAKE PLAYERS STOP USING THEM FOR HORDE BASES AND THEN THEY REVERSED THEIR DECISION WASTING SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH DEVELOPMENT TIME AND ALL JUST TO STOP A SMALL PORTION OF PLAYERS EXPLOITING POLES AND IT WAS WASTE OF TIME SO STOP!!! Truth: TFP has been talking internally about variable HP for blocks based on their size for a loooong time. This was not a sudden decision based on watching exploits. With the new shape menu they finally felt it was time to try it but were not happy with their inability to be able to communicate to the player easily which shapes had less HP and which had more. They also want HP and upgrade costs and building costs to be tied together which they weren't quite ready to do. There are some UI changes planned that may help them communicate better the costs and hp of blocks and then these changes will most likely be back again. I would not characterise the removal as "reversal". They certainly have NOT changed their mind that poles should be more easily smashed than full blocks. They just need to figure out the best way to implement it and based on the poor public reaction to testing it openly they will most likely go through some test iterations privately and roll it out in a later alpha more fully developed. Saven is wrong about why it was implemented, how much time it took to implement, how much time it took to remove, and that the feature has officially been reversed. Now Saven might exclaim, "WHAT?!?! But why do something nobody asked for?!?!?" The answer to that is somebody DID ask for it: two brothers by the name of Rick and Joel Huenink. Saven: STOP FOCUSING ON A SMALL ITTY BITTY MINISCULE MICROSCOPIC INFINITESIMAL PORTION OF THE PLAYER BASE AND START DEVELOPING THE GAME!!!!! Truth: Fixing pathing issues and bugged features that are not working as intended is part of development. You and people like you truly don't understand early access updates. You just want DLC expansions for an already finished game and when features go through multiple iterations you get upset thinking that it is because of some small other faction of the player base that somehow got influence over the developers. There is such an easier explanation that is the real truth. Rick and Joel are making the game they want and because this is the alpha phase of development, features are developed over time through iteration. The developers choose what they want and need to work on. Some features get punted because there are other priorities. If those other priorities aren't as exciting to you as water and bandits, too bad. Go back to console until the PC version is done. ------------- It really does show the wrong mentality playing an early access game when you have a former console gamer who played a finished version of 7 Days to Die and experienced DLC updates to that game on the Playstation. He has obviously crossed over to PC with the same mentality he had when on console-- that the game is really basically done and not really actually in development. For a console player whose entire platform gets a restart every 5-6 years its gotta be tough to enter the realm of 9-10 year development cycles. Honestly, guys-- his whole video is based on assumptions and guess about developer motivations and he is just flat out wrong. I'm sure he will get lots of views and clicks from people simultaneously adjusting the tinfoil hats on their heads...

That is exactly how the bosses see it as well. The amount of farming the game has currently is the limit of what they really want in their game. I, personally, could be pleased with some more hands-on "busywork" but for that I'm sure I'll have to play a mod that adds it in. Some people are perfectly happy replanting each harvest as they see it as hands on farming actions while others see it as still too much busywork and would rather have the auto replant mechanic return.

The game isn't in its final state. The current settings are just the first iteration. It will certainly be adjusted and when bandits are introduced the difficulty associated with the richer biomes will increase by a huge factor. People who rush into the wasteland to get better loot early will be risking a lot. But...this is an open world game so you will always be able to go wherever you want and if you feel going into the wasteland too early destroys your fun then don't do it. If you are playing PvP and really ARE competing then the arms race against other players is the challenge and difficulty of the game. Added because we have a ton of people to playtest and give feedback. Not added as what we thought should necessarily be the final complete state. Good feedback. Thanks. This is the sort of reaction we need to hear and we want you to know that we are continuing to fine tune and adjust. Bandits will change things for Wasteland Rushers. Of course. This is precisely what this alpha time is for and why we aren't out of early access yet. We never considered not tuning the mechanic. yeah, probably another area to tune in. Remember, though, that the philosophy of the developers is to offer players different avenues to get things like concrete blocks. You can purchase them, get them as rewards, mine and craft them, etc. You should choose to acquire them in the way that is the most fun for you.

I see that choice as having even higher stakes now because of the gamble. Before there was zero risk to turning your crops into seeds because every seed you planted turned into a regrowing sprout. There was zero risk of loss. Now when you are choosing to turn those fruit into seeds the result of that decision is in question and so not at all a given no brainer. Yes, if you were hungry and starving and all you had was that corn the temptation to just eat it vs invest it was a tough choice but now it is even tougher because the deterministic nature of the choice has been replaced with uncertainty on top of the hunger now vs more food later choice. Yes, they went abstract rather than detailed. I'm with you that I would prefer less abstraction with farming and more concrete actions but farming is not a focus for these devs. They've already stated that they are not going to spend any time creating a deep farming sim-like for this portion of the game. So given that they are keeping things abstract, I still maintain that the A20 abstraction is better for progression and choice than the A19 progression was. When a farming mod comes out that adds depth to this part of the game that TFP feels much more casual about it will be better than either the A19 and A20 abstractions. Yes, in a way. There is no tool required for farming which is why it's hard to see the parallel but put a steel pickaxe or a steel axe in your hand on Day one and start mining and chopping and see how successfully your stamina bar lasts unperked. We DO see very similar complaints about mining and salvaging and harvesting from new players who don't take the right perks and are handed an iron pickaxe too early. "Its completely broken!" they say. "It takes so long to mine having to wait between every other swing for stamina to recover!!" they say. "You need to work your way up the progression with the right perks and get to be a higher level character with higher stamina levels before you can handle an iron or steel pickaxe", we say. As for crafting, that is a different species for sure in this game. 100% failure until you learn the recipe and then it is 100% success and some recipes are deterministically and others are randomly acquired. I agree that crafting doesn't follow the formula. Yes, it is fiction for A20. Just slight exaggeration for A19. It is a good reason why A20 is better than A19. You are correct that it isn't true for having your end state 100 plot farm. That would still take time in A19-- but it was guaranteed and every seed found and planted was instantaneously the end of that individual plot's journey. In A19 you quickly got to the point where you could care less if you found seeds out in the world whereas in A20 you are always glad to find seeds because if you have LOTL 3 you still know that a portion of your crop is going to be converted and the more you find the less you have to convert and the more you have to keep. So while the end of the entire farming game was not within 7 days it was over much sooner (and without any investment needed) than in A20. Not only that but desire to find seeds or receive seeds as a reward ended a lot sooner in A19 than it does in A20. I'm on day 56 in my own game with my family and whenever I announce that I found seeds in a container, the person who primarily tends the farm still cheers. In A19 on Day 56, I doubt I would get a cheer-- more like advice to dump them and keep room in my inventory for things that matter. Finally, let me be clear that I am simply talking about the farming game as a mini progression game unto itself because I think we can both agree that without farming at all we can reach an end state for eliminating food constraint. Getting to a place where food is not a concern is not what I am talking about. I am simply comparing the progression of farming itself. It's not just you. It's six years of reading similar complaints that all seem to have the same root cause. Since you say I have mistaken you then I will take you at your word. I only walked through the door you opened when you admitted to liking to play super-efficiently. That usually carries with it a propensity to rush the progression. I never claimed to be the real survival player. I'm not the one who referenced all the survival games I've played. I am simply stating that there are those who do not enjoy the new farming and it seems like one commonality between those who hate it is that it can't as easily be rushed because it is no longer deterministic. Most of the solutions that I've read have been to take out the 50% random seed return or have it get phased out as you go up LOTL 1, 2, and 3. I believe that it is because it messes with efficiency playstyles. Maybe I'm wrong but-- and this is the important part-- I would be against any "solution" that would make the farming progression return to a deterministic process. I am for any solution that involves moving away from abstract mechanics-- re-introducing the rake and fertilizer in rewarding ways. But to try and put farming back to a process that can be rushed easily by speed runners for the sake of being able to speed run the game is not something I'm interested in. No ego here.

I don't think our views are that different. I completely agree that survival games should have a beginning middle and end that have a progression where the player begins weak and vulnerable to those random factors and eventually reach a point where they are no longer affected by them because of the gear they have found and the skills they have developed over time. I never said that players can't find or develop tools to mitigate the random effects-- just that the random effects must be present so that players can't simply predict and automate their actions. Like you described, I too find the fun in overcoming all the challenges and trivializing the threats to the point that I know I am practically unkillable. That is also when I usually decide to start over because, like you, I enjoy the journey and the stuggle to get to the point of having overcome and "winning" the survival aspect of the game. What I was talking about with the farming is not the end but the beginning and middle. The old farming was deterministic from the very beginning--even completely unperked. Once you planted a seed you had a forever food generator. The new farming is more in line with the rest of the game. It is uncertain and the threat of failure is real in the beginning and you have to struggle in order to succeed. There is a real progression where as an unperked character who wants to farm you are completely at the mercy of external random factors. But just like any other survival game such as Rimworld, ONI, Ark, Rust, Conan Exiles, The Forest, Subnautica, this, etc. you are given the tools to overcome those random factors. Those tools are LOTL 1, and 2, and 3 and there is finally a much more survival-like progression to it. The randomness is always there but by time you have LOTL 3 you are impervious to it and all but guaranteed to succeed as a farmer. The true disparity is time. You say "over time" but what does that mean really? Everyone is going to be different but on average min/maxers also tend to like to rush the progression and get to top of whatever ladders they are climbing as close to instantaneous as they can possibly manage it and the longer the "over time" part of it lasts the more inefficient they view the run. Nobody brags about getting their self-sustainable farm going after 3 weeks of game time. No...its more like, "I've got my 50 plot farm ready to harvest before my first blood moon XD I built my farm on the top of my base which is fully upgraded to cement XD!!" So....survival games must have random factors in order to not be predictable and force the player to react and adapt and survive the unforeseeable threats. In the beginning the player is mostly at the mercy of these forces but "over time" gains the skills and tools needed to mitigate those random factors and no longer be affected by them (even though they still exist). The old farming allowed an almost instantaneous transition from beginning to end state in this "progression" whereas the new farming actually does require the "over time" component for that progression to take place. I suspect that even though you say you like to progress over time-- if you are touting the old farm system rather than the new system-- you are much like the speed runner min/maxers who like to measure their time in minutes and seconds rather than hours and days. I enjoy actual progression over a moderate period of time which is why I like the new farming over the old which had basically zero progression to it. How do we know it had zero progression to it? Because most of the complaints are that the new system has ruined farming for unperked players. In other words, those players don't want to have to take time and effort to progress. They want the top position of the farming ladder available to them instantly.

I think this is the honest reason the new farming isn't going to gel with some players and there is not going to be any way to convince them otherwise through math or by talking averages. Min/Max playstyles rely on deterministic results. A gamble that results in a loss is going to feel like a lot of wasted time and effort and for the player who get's their Wheatleygasm from being efficient, a random failure is going to feel completely wrong and horrifying to them. The old farming was completely reliable and deterministic and so could easily be min/maxed. But the current model has too many random factors and too many parts that require active babysitting to be able to reliably and rapidly power through to self sustainable farm status. The old farming with its auto replanting was a min/maxer's wet dream because you can't get any more efficient than auto regrow with zero effort needed. So even with the chance of getting to a self sustainable farm under the new system, the fact that it doesn't automatically regrow itself without effort is already a huge backward step for fans of efficiency. What is interesting is that survival games rely on nondeterministic results because as soon as a player can completely 100% plan for and control all outcomes it is no longer survival. What makes a game survival is having unexpected and uncontrollable elements and forces trying to kill the player and the player adapts and adjusts and survives. But then it becomes impossible to be completely efficient-- at least in hindsight as downturns in fortune or random factors can mean that some player choices turned out to be futile or less effective than they were planned to be. 100% efficiency almost demands a game almost on rails so that plans and strategies always work out. 100% Survival almost demands a game completely dictated by random factors. Somewhere in between TFP must create a perfect storm...

faatal: The Retcon God

It’s still just entities. Every case you listed showed entities. A falling block is different than a placed block. Regular blocks are not falling off the world. Give them some time. ALL fixes are “supposed fixes” until they bear up under rigorous play. This is what experimental is for— to determine if the supposed fixes did in fact fix those things on a large scale. It’s not advised to just assume that if something is in the fixed section that it truly is forever fixed and done. It takes testing over time to determine that.

Challenge accepted.... but on Warrior. Sorry, Insane is just not for me under any circumstances. #twominutesperzombieisntfun If Warrior is too easy I'll go up one more but more likely than not I'll have to reduce to Nomad after several attempts to stay alive. Also, I always just cancel the first quest and do things in my own way. I hate the first quest and I like finding the trader by fortune. Also, I'll do an underground base just to put some dirt in the eye of those who claim it ain't possible no mo.

No, ladders are different. They have their own coding. Being able to move on any vertical surface anywhere as part of their pathing is what was no longer supported. No other zombie has ever been able to move vertically but they were always able to climb ladders. Ladders will be getting some love in general either this round or next so perhaps there is a bug and it will get sorted once they focus on that area.

I don't recommend that you play experimental versions. You don't appear to have the temperament for it nor the understanding of their purpose. If you simply download experimental versions to play as a 7 Days hipster you are always going to be disappointed. If you wish to actually help, then an attitude-free report submitted in legible format in the bug report forum is the way to go. You posting in general discussions with a click bait title and incredulity dripping from your text that TFP could ever think it smart to implement something is really going about this the wrong way. If it updates with the intention of finding flaws and issues and reporting them and everyone who joins that server is helping to do that then it is very much appreciated but yeah, if someone loads up the experimental the day it drops cuz..."We only play the newest version, yo!" and expects to be able to have a flawless experience-- this person is the one killing his PvP community. Honestly, if I was running a PvP server and wasn't interested in testing and reporting-- just playing for entertainment-- I would stay on A19.6 until A20.6 goes stable since that version will be the absolute best and most stable version of Alpha 20. Going from final decimal of a version to final decimal of a version will always result in the least disruption. But the lure of playing new stuff that everyone else is playing is tough to resist.

I fixed it. Oh...you meant the experimental version of the game?

They changed in A17 when the the pathing system was overhauled. Moving on vertical surfaces was no longer supported and at that time faatal didn't have time to implement it and since then it hasn't been a priority-- and may never happen.

Alpha 20.0 will not show up in the beta opt-in list until Alpha 20.1 leaves experimental and goes stable.

lol..its all free stuff we never got before when finishing a full tier of quests. In A19 you never got any portion of a minibike or a nailgun as an extra reward above and beyond the individual quest rewards. Look how fast the traders corrupt us...

TFP wouldn't put out a DLC of just shields. They would be more likely to add shields plus a new bandit type that uses those shields and a new zombie type that is more easily handled by using shields, a couple of new T4 POIs hooked up for quests, and a new six series book set that gives random perks and extra abilities to shields.

Are you really still a new player by time you get to doing T5 quests? Seems like you should have the game sorted out pretty well by then. You will have done at least 40 quests by that time and probably a couple of horde nights. In my opinion, the only way a new player could be subjected to a T5 quest is if they are brand new and joining a team that is already at T5 quest level and their "initiation" is to bring him along....

#sorryithinkthisistotallyfine.

yeah but… Some people make decisions based on what is most efficient and some based on how they like to play. Stealth doesn’t have to compete with the efficiency of a machine gun in clearing POIs. It’s perfectly okay if there is only a small fringe group who plays stealth because they enjoy stealth.

Should we add a disclaimer that assures players that no sprites were actually harmed during the course of playing the game? 😂

If you can stealth 90% of it but must openly attack 10% of it, THAT’S masochistic?

I think the most interesting aspect of this thread is that we have people claiming that sleepers always wake up regardless of your stealth and other people claiming that they can’t complete clear quests easily because sleepers don’t wake up because of their stealth. Pretty crazy…lol In before the first raging demand that stealth should just be entirely removed if this is the official stance.