Roland
-
Posts
14,144 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
393
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Articles
A20 Bugs
A21 Bugs
Events
Posts posted by Roland
-
-
1 hour ago, Aero said:
So, I just started playing A20 a few days ago.
I always liked the farm bit in this game, even tilling the soil with a hoe and the use of fertilizer a few alphas ago.
The Pimps simplified it a whole lot since then (like so many things).
But I don't understand what they did in this Alpha... They really made farming a whole lot more annoying.
- Why do we have to reseed everything again after you taken the grown plant. I thought this was a good decision to leave the seed in the ground. A real backwards step in the QoL.
- I understand it's done because there is a chance of not getting the seed back. How is this a sustainable way of farming?? I was happy to get some potatoes and corn going and now I have nothing again. I don't understand how this decision was made. Let's make farming as crap as we can, so people stay away from that.
But now I do get hundreds of bullets from day 1 and very good guns to make without a schematic etc. (The pipe guns are way overpowered to make from day 1, the blunderbuss was at least way less powerful).
So I can see where this is all going... let's go for a full FPS with some RPG elements and let's slowly remove all the other things. I wonder how long we can even farm. Removed by the next Alpha? or 2?
I said it before... It's always 2 steps forward with a new Alpha in some areas, but it's also always at least 1 step backwards in other areas.
With no perk points spent on farming you can still plant and grow food and have some ingredients for cooking randomly as you find seeds and get some back after harvesting.
In order to have a sustainable farm you need to spend at least one skill point on Living off the Land. If farming is an important part of your game then you should spend that single point.
2 -
On 12/24/2021 at 6:38 AM, RyanX said:
I actually do mean 30 players going at it....but not like Fortnite. I don't know where you get this characterization, like PvP didn't exist before Fortnite or something.
I’m talking about numbers more than I am gameplay style. As you have said, it isn’t even really about PVP or PVE. It is about the stability of servers for 30+ concurrent players however they might be interacting.
Without regard to any particular multiplayer style of gameplay, TFP is not actively working on supporting populations of more than 8 players. 30+ player servers is not a priority.
Sounds like they are going to look into the net code more in January but I wouldn’t get your hopes up that it will be to start supporting large populations. It will be to stabilize things better for 8 or less. But hopefully that will also help the larger unsupported servers be able to work better.
0 -
Hope springs eternal
0 -
On 12/23/2021 at 1:04 PM, nostalginator said:
I've already moved past that save
I’m calling it now that acid will be your next white whale…;)
1 -
3 hours ago, RipClaw said:
Actually, I expect zombies in a horde to come after me and not run away to beat up a tree.
Zombies randomly attacking blocks works well for players standing on a roof or tower shooting down at the zombies.
It does not work if you use electric traps or have a melee base. You have to rely on the zombies behaving in a somewhat predictable way.
I just meant that a random portion of them would go into area destruction or pick alt paths so that 100% of zombies wouldn’t line up to attack the one single best point of weakness. With hundreds of zombies you get a good share of them acting predictable but also some attacking unpredictably. But in a POI if the one or two zombies you encounter head for a window or won’t walk through an open door but beat on the wall next to it, it’s not so great. I don’t want all zombies acting erratically and hitting on trees during horde night.0 -
For a suggestion like this one you should definitely post in Pimp Dreams.
0 -
51 minutes ago, pApA^LeGBa said:
Afaik right now the zombies are smarter than they should be. But that´s intended as kind of a testrun for bandit and survivor AI. Not 100% sure but i think i remember a discussion about that a while back where they said they will get dumber again.
@Roland can maybe give some info on that?
That was the thought but faatal later posted that he’s not basing the bandit AI off of the current zombie AI foundation.
He also posted that he felt it a good idea to split zombie behavior to somewhat dumber for horde night but somewhat smarter normally since during POI exploration, really dumb behavior can be frustrating. You don’t expect a zombie you encounter in a house to go into area destruction mode when you’re standing 4 meters away but you do want hordes of zombies to randomly destroy the area.
We’ll get more info from the man himself as A21 gets underway and he shifts from debugging A20 to working on bandits and zombies for A21. He enjoys sharing what he’s currently working on.
0 -
5 minutes ago, hytalego said:
thanks, but what is better then? if it `s not a secret?
I don't understand your question. What is better than what? All I did was let you know that there is a subway station location sometimes in the downtown area if the tile that contains it spawns. It's not a secret now that A20 is out.
7 minutes ago, hytalego said:by the way, since I have not done modding in this game, I want to ask if I can create several templates and so that these templates then connect themselves and be generated in the generated map?
We were told that tiles could be created by users. I don't know how to do it, though. You could probably learn by asking in the modding forum.
0 -
44 minutes ago, hytalego said:
can someone please answer my question?
There is a subway station with the outgoing and incoming tunnels all caved in. It is part of one of the tiles for the downtown area. There are not long underground tunnels to explore.
1 -
11 minutes ago, Khalagar said:
Because
I wasn't wondering how you got the idea that questing would be limited. That was pretty much the point of my suggestion. I was wondering how you got the idea that making such a suggestion was a de facto statement that doing many quests a day is a "wrong" playstyle. You could have simply stated why you felt it was a bad idea which you finally did, but only after you went straight to characterizing my suggestion as an attack against another playstyle that you think that I believe is the wrong way to play the game. I don't think its wrong. I was wondering how the game would change given a new limit and then decided that I would try it out voluntarily in my own game. Your playstyle (whatever it is) is perfectly safe.
Anyway...I'm not going to debate this on Christmas so I'm done.
I'm going to try it out for myself and if I like it well enough I'll think about how it could be modded in. I'm fine with it not being adopted officially. It can be just fine as a voluntary rule.
3 -
38 minutes ago, Khalagar said:
Honestly if a player wants to just spam quests all day then I don't see any reason to tell them their play style is wrong and say it's not allowed
How did you get that out of what I suggested? People are too eager to be offended these days. I am perfectly happy to let people spam quests all day. Even with this version they could eventually get to a point where they could spam quests all day. Maybe 1 quest per day is too few. Maybe 2 per day or a variable amount. A variable amount might feel more natural. It is pretty weird that there is an endless supply of jobs. But going in one day and there is nothing but then the next day there are three jobs and then the next day two jobs and the next day five jobs seems more dynamic and true.
Just something my fam was talking about as we played. Promise we didn't start the convo with "I wonder how we can end the evil gameplay style of quest spamming!!!!!"
3 -
I’m sure there could be more to it than my basic idea. I’m mainly here avoiding my family on Christmas Eve….
(until my wife glares at me)
2 -
3 minutes ago, Callum123456789 said:
if this change was to happen i feel like there should be traders closer to each other because early game i think it may be next to impossible with limiting factors for example the very limiting stamina you have and the access to no vehicles
You are gifted a bike when you finish the tier one quests. There’s your easier access to more jobs and once you have a motorized vehicle your ability to do more jobs a day will grow.
It definitely will slow things down and ruin the early game quest rush strategy and so wouldn’t be popular among that group.
2 -
Well I might feel the same after I try it. 😀
0 -
Not so much a nerf as a progression. Once you’ve found a few traders you can get enough work to do multiple jobs a day. Like I said, I’m going to try it out and see how it plays. It’s definitely a change that can be roleplayed voluntarily just like dead is dead.
It’s not a new idea. Plenty of RPGs have limits to the number of jobs an NPC will give during a period of time. “Come back and I might have more jobs later” is something I know I’ve read in other games.
3 -
Facepalm all you want @unholyjoe. I’m going to try it as a voluntary limitation in my solo game to see how it feels. 😁
1 -
The few of us who play together have talked about quests and whether it might be a good idea to have a 1-job limit per trader per day. It would slow down the questing a bit as well as encourage people to spread their work around to all the traders. Right now if you find a new trader they only offer T1 quests so you’d rather just work for your first trader. But if you can only do one job for your trader then you might feel better doing a T1 at the next trader as a bonus.
6 -
This is a self-described rant thread. Devs do much better with questions and detailed information including crash logs etc.
If you were truly serious about this you would be going about it in that way instead of spending your time calling them either uninformed due to my supposed interference, incompetent, or dishonest. You’re taking every worst case scenario as the facts which is per normal for a rant piece but not particularly helpful or conducive to being taken seriously.
2 -
1 hour ago, RyanX said:
No, it didn't start out as a PvP discussion. The OP clearly states that while he runs a PvP server, it affects PvE as well. You will find that MORE people want larger population PvE servers than they do PvP servers anyway. There used to be queus to get in the larger multiplayer servers but that's been worn away over the last couple of alphas. And it doesn't have to be 50 people. 40 can be good. Heck 30 can be good.
It's better for you to say this is about "PvP" and "50+" because it makes it easier for you to attack the validity of what's being said. In reality this is about server stability for a reasonable number of players to have a community on the server. That and us trying to see if we can get our message to the devs that this is something the community wants. I would seriously doubt that any moderator would relay that information to them based on the clear bias towards the MP community, especially since the argument is being consistently interpreted as "we want a 100 person Fortnite clone".
You’re way off base. I had already directed the devs to your other thread asking for dev feedback since mere moderators weren’t enough before you typed this particular conspiracy theory….lolIm not against 50+ servers or PvP. People should play the game as they like within the limitations it has. I have no problem with the devs “finding out” about your desires and feedback…lol
1 -
PvP is brought up because 50 people all cooperating isn’t likely. Sure, you may have competing teams but members of those teams are going to be PvPing with other team members. As soon as you start talking about large populations it really seems likely that we aren’t talking about purely cooperative gaming anymore.
But, regardless, I do respect a good question and an honest attempt to understand a lot more than I do a rant so let’s tag a few people to this thread and see if they are willing to clarify for you.
Can any of you talk a bit about the net code and whether it will ever be improved so that large population servers will be able to run the game with decent performance and stability?
3 -
2 hours ago, RyanX said:
And stop focusing on the PvP arguments please, that's not what the main issue is...the main issue is server stability.
2 hours ago, giKoN said:This really shouldn't deteriorate into a discussion of PVP or not PVP, love towards PVP or not.
Sorry. PvP is easier to type than 50+ person servers- especially when I am certain that most if not all large population servers are going to be about more than everyone cooperating together against the environment. But it was an assumption, true.
Keeping the conversation focused purely on player population no matter what type of gameplay those 50 people are going to engage in, then it merely becomes a matter of priorities.
If the server code works well enough for 8 players or less to play and test the game and game breaking problems only occur once people start pushing past what is supported then working on that code is not going to be a priority.
They’ll probably get to it and stabilize servers further and might even extend the supported player count. But it isn’t a priority right now since it meets their stated needs even if it doesn’t meet your stated desires to have 50 people on a server together all at the same time doing whatever activity 50 people do all together.
1 -
14 minutes ago, JCrook1028 said:
Did you even read the post I responded to? Your post is totally off topic to mine, 100%. Don't quote to me if you want to address someone else's issue please.
Uh…yeah. It was Mega who said that if it was a cash grab by TFP they would have switched the game to the main branch before the sale and you let him know that the sale did in fact start the day after. Then I quoted you and posted what I did about what the stable branch actually is.
I went back and read and am not sure why you can’t make the connection between our three posts or even why you are even upset that quoted you. I even stated that I didn’t think you were making the mistake I was posting about.
<shrug>
0 -
There will always be some auto attack volumes since the designers of the POIs want them in certain places as part of their vision.
As for the rest, they are not auto but dependent upon passing your stealth check. Will need ongoing testing and feedback.
1 -
4 hours ago, Howlune said:
I don't know how anyone can defend them rushing stable just to meet the winter sale deadline while massive issues even they're aware of persist. Come on man....
"Stable" is really an unfortunate label that I wish they would not use. They should just call it the main branch and the experimental branch period. The main branch is what Steam pushes out automatically to everyon who has their settings put to auto update. The experimental branch is what players must choose to opt into. All of this is early access and therefore not stable in the way that you are expecting it to be.
Did they rush to get A20 switched over to the main branch in time for the Steam Winter Sale? Yes and no. It was a goal to get the update on the main branch before they closed for the Holidays and, of course, to be in a good position for the sale. When the game switches to the main branch everyone who has the game installed is going to get notified that it updated. There are going to be a good chunk of people who have loved the game but who have moved on and haven't been following and when they get the notification that 7 Days just did an update they are going to check in and play it and they may have friends who they will now want to get into it and with it being on sale it is the perfect time. So, yes, having an update in time for the sale is great for increasing the reach of the game. Nobody is denying that this was their goal.
However, rushing makes it sound like they were trying to get it done and bug free in order to move the game to main branch and that just isn't true and has never been true. In fact, the game used to not even make use of the experimental branch. Whenever the game updated it just went right onto the main branch. The experimental just gives a buffer so that if any glaring issues crop up they can get those handled and have fewer issues once it is on the main branch. So, what we have now is a series of gradually increasing pools of players that makes the updates a lot more smooth for the largest number of players-- but, and this is important, all of this is under the umbrella of "still in development". Even the main branch is still early access and the game is still in alpha and regardless of it being on the experimental branch or the main branch, there are going to be bugs and the devs are going to be working on getting them fixed.
For stability and polish the A20.0 is just not going to compare well to A19.6 but A20.6 will compare very favorably. But the game isn't going to be bug free during the journey to A20.6 and it isn't just going to remain in the experimental branch because some people think it isn't stable enough to leave it.
Honestly, they could have put A20 on the main branch back on December 6th and it would have been exactly like past alpha updates before they started using the experimental branch as a buffer. They still would have done the hotfixes they've done since December 6th but it would have affected everyone on the main branch. If they had done that you wouldn't have been accusing them of pulling a cash cow move by "rushing" some release right before a sale. But they did make use of the experimental branch but here we are at the exact same spot and because of the word "stable" and the fact that it happened the day before the sale you think they rushed something.
I thought we had thoroughly and completely come to understand over the past 8 years that this studio doesn't rush anything....
0
Robotic Sledge issues
in General Discussion
Posted
Known issue. Should be fixed for 20.1 as it is on their todo list with high priority.