meganoth

Guys, please be civil. Flaming someone is not the correct answer

Generally you have taken 7D2D alpha17 as example of a TD with one path and 3D builder mix and now argue you have proven that it isn't possible because alpha17 couldn't do it? But that is not conclusive, you have to show that ALL POSSIBLE implementation of such a genre-mix need to compromise, not just one. Just as a small counterexample, the one path is susceptible to exploder zombies. Who can say what the result would have been if TFP had added smaller version of exploders who spawn from day one? And if that isn't enough, what if they added some AI that makes exploder zombies acting different than other zombies? What if they made the changes that they actually did in A18? A small percentage of zombies that don't follow the one path was done exactly to combat the easy exploit and I don't see anyone argue that A17's AI was complete and free of cheese. Secondly your definition of a traditional TD is not the last word on that, especially since exact definitions are almost impossible with games where standards shift with every new game. According to wikipedia TD began with Dune II and gained popularity with Starcraft. I couldn't find any Dune II TD maps but a lot of Starcraft maps, and those have an arbitrary numbers of paths. Unless you define traditional to not even include the old Starcraft I your definition is just very very narrow. And if you exclude it we would have to call Starcraft I as modern !???? A17 was the very first version of the new AI and you are comparing it to a A16 AI which had at least a few iterations of fixes through the years to combat easy exploits. There is no question A17's AI was exploitable, but it was still more fun to a lot of people. The fun naturally depends on how fast someone stumbles on an easy exploit. My group for example did not and consequently even horde nights were interesting for us and for the first time in 7D2D it felt like tower defense and not just like a 3D Stronghold. I actually agree with you that A16s AI is generally and even as a matter of principle less susceptible to exploits/cheese! But the problem is that the principle of a successful Tower Defense game **is** to "exploit" the enemies strategy by some degree. Naturally not in a way that it becomes trivial. And that makes it much more difficult to get right, especially in a game without limits to building. It is no surprise that the first iteration did have some pronounced weaknesses. But on the other hand without the profound AI change in A17 we would not have real Tower Defense but just a gameplay reminiscent of Stronghold type games. And since you said it above I'm sure we agree that Stronghold is not traditional Tower Defense, no matter what "traditional" means.

I would say a recent example of the devs listening could be the focus on RWG in A20. Lots and lots of players critizised the vanilla RWG, wanted dense cities back and pointed to a popular mod as having a lot more features. I remember Madmole inquiring about this mod once and then, months later, A20's main focus was announced to be a substantial RWG upgrade. My guess is that RWG seemed generally good enough for them internally, i.e. they would have been content with Kinnjaju just working on it beside his other task until release. But when they noticed so many players were not content with it and they themselves had the idea of needing biome-specific difficulty settings they decided to devote a whole alpha to RWG.

Well then there is nothing to fear 😎

The game is susceptible to save game damage when the PC crashes. Long term you should think about doing backups of your save game. Short term you can try to substitute the originals with the corresponding .bak files in your current save game. In your case that would probably be players/********.ttp (if you lost stuff in your inventory) and vehicles.dat (for the vehicles obviously). If that doesn't help, just click F1, enter "cm" and use the new tab (called Creative Menue) to regain the lost items and vehicles.

How surprising, would you say, would it be if 7D2D being a racing game was listed as a goal in the kickstarter? 🤔

I heard a rumor about a newsstand with 1 shoe only 😉

I would say legally it is a grey area until tested in court. Between Valve and the developer there is no signed contract (AFAIK), just some rules that may or may not be enforcible (I'm sure lawyers will not be happy about the rather unspecific statements in these rules). One rule states that upon entering EA you should have a working game available for the players, not just a tech demo. This is maybe the only **hard** requirement you can read out of the rules. Quote: "Early Access titles must deliver a playable game or usable software to the customer at the time of purchase". A few other "must" rules are in a FAQ and read more like suggestions, I have my doubts they would hold up in court as hard rules. Besides that abandoning the game is acknowledged as a valid decision of the developer but steam warns it may reimburse players (and then probably try to get back that money from the developer, otherwise it wouldn't be a warning) Between valve and the customer there is a legal sale, but the game is obviously not sold as a finished game. Courts in different countries may give different legal guarantees depending on what they decide the product is, i.e. whether they judge it to be an investment, sale of a prototype, sale of a prototype plus development, sale of damaged good or sale of a product with typical guarantees (last one is very unlikely though). In Germany there is a legal concept of "no surprises" at least for private customers. Therefore whatever Valve promises for EA titles is actually binding, whatever can reasonably be expected as well is a grey area for the courts. One may suspect that further development effort may be expected in EA or not depending on what the judge had for breakfast that morning 😉 Disclaimer: No lawyer is me, obviously.

A few further tests: Start a command line and change into the dir of 7d2d. Start the game Start a command line but do not change into the dir of 7d2d. Start the game To test star69's hypothesis start the command line and start via the link

Totally possible. It is just my opinion that they would be wasted as normal enemies. Players would see and get used to them in the first hours of playing 7D2D. In the game nothing is happening outside the area a player is in. It is the most egocentric game possible, you **are** the center of the universe. And I don't see this changing. So stuff like bandits wandering in the cities and clearing them out would basically be a random roll on POIs whether they are already cleared out or not. Would you be okay with that? Sadly it is impossible for TFP to keep stuff like this really secret, all players will eventually find out how the game tricks them.

This is a problem that will be solved on TFPs side because they want to add steam workshop for mod installation as one of the last features before release of the game. Only geforce can solve the other part, by supporting steam workshop too.

I'm sure TFP themselves don't know what they can eventually do with the bandits. They surely have ideas and plans but they will have to see what is possible in a realistic time frame with their manpower. What I am 150% sure is that there won't be bandits who dig for resources and build horde bases block by block that you can then try to invade as if it was a KI-replacement of PvP players. Simply not possible. (Is that what you were thinking of with "building", VictoriusIII?) What is possible is faking it. I.e. a bandit base that gets an instant upgrade every week while the player isn't looking. Similar to a damaged quest poi being replaced with a pristine version of itself so could a bandit poi.tier1 get replaced by bandit poi.tier2 and later bandit poi.tier3. But I don't see why they should do that. Bandits are supposed to be end-game enemies. This upgrading would instead make a bandit camp something you could take on at any stage of the game. Instead of it being the carrot to make you get better armor and weapons and perks.

No, this is not what Guppycur said. The prefab would be sent to the client as part of the generated RWG world, i.e. as blocks in the RWG world data. Reseting for a quest is also done on the server and simply removes any changes stored in the save game, again no data needed in the client. The question is for what the prefab data is needed in the client at all. According to Guppycur only for distant terrian view. Possibly the debug information, like the info in which prefab you are standing at the moment, might also need the prefab data to be in the client ?

The interesting question will be if their AI will be good enough to launch attacks at your horde base. In that case they would have the advantage of being able to open doors and climb ladders like the player so they would be able to enter a base that can't be easily entered by zombies. Plus better sniping than the cop. If that works, they might even be added to late-game horde nights or only act as a late-game wandering horde At the moment independent NPC movement in the game is not recorded at all. So wandering bandits or a wandering friendly NPC will probably be simulated through spawning exactly like zombies. This will always be possible but they might confine that to snipers, i.e. bandits that don't move, just to make it easier for the KI Since stationary gun man is the easiest and least error prone task I assume their main use would be as guards in bandit camps with the camps being target of high-level quests or the main story in Navezgane. The only problem with that assumption is that a guard usually should be behind a cover. And if that guard doesn't move into a new cover when you go behind its back it would look silly. So TFP may be forced to give them movement AI even if it only is used to jump from cover to cover. Designating static "cover areas" would be possible but in a fully destructive world that can get silly when they try to duck behind a cover that doesn't exist anymore. In that case the bandit AI probably needs a sizable upgrade to the current zombie AI. A simpler solution would be bandits never going into cover, but I think TFP wants something better than the NPCs they had inactive in the game in A15.

I see an error message twice in your file Curl error 56: Receiving data failed with unitytls error code 1048578 (Filename: C:\\buildslave\\unity\\build\\Modules/UnityWebRequest/Implementations/TransportCurl.cpp Line: 799) This is just guesswork: It seems Unity is using curl for network connections with webservers. This showing up in the client log means your client fails to connect to some server and it must not necessarily be your 7D2D server. For example it could be a steam server or a telemetry server from TFP or Unity. If you are behind a proxy it could mean unity does not find your correct proxy settings. Turning off any telemetry setting might be a good idea as well.

I'm sorry you took it that way, but it is only rude when you say something and I disregard it with "who cares!". It is not rude if I ASK the fundamental question who (of the typical players) would care if some NPC is called mayor and guess that it might not be very many. All that a typical player would probably care for is how much coin he would get for the quest, unless that NPC being "mayor" had some consequence outside the immediate quest. This is directly discussing how a specific feature in the game would be received by players and if it would have the hoped for result. An idea here would be that it increases reputation with some faction to save a mayor (if reputation ever gets into this game) or that some area is safer for a while if a mayor is saved (if a variable area safety mechanism were added to the game). If this thread didn't devolve into a "he said she said" argument someone possibly would have posted those or similar ideas. Now english isn't my mother language, I may be wrong about this. If some native english speaker wants to comment, this is what I said:

One thing is that they are painted as if lighted. To change that you would probably need to paint them dark and substitute their models (which needs more than xml). But if you can live with that small discrepancy there is also the actual light they emit and that seems to be changeable just with some xml edits. Just check out their xml and change values that seems to be about lighting. I just looked into Data/Config/blocks.xml and searched for "light". Found the block "porchLight01" and in there a line "<property name="Light" value="0.5"/>". My guess is that if you remove that line or change it to "0" in all porchlight blocks you will see a much darker world. Nice thing is that many other lighted blocks seem to inherit that value from the porchLight blocks (via "Extends" properties), so you even darkened a lot of POIs inside with a few small changes. I couldn't find more blocks with the Light property, changing these could possibly be all you need to do

I would suggest trying this with the vanilla pillcase and see if it works there. If yes, compare DFpillcase to vanilla pillcase and see if some setting is missing. Even if it looks like it has no connection with pickup it might be necessary. If not, you could check out the code of the mod "Undead Legacy", there all sorts of containers and much more is pickupable and you can check what that modder added to the pillcase to make it pickupable.

Since there is supposed to be a story in the final game involving the Duke (local warlord with friendly people called bandits working for him) and an opposing White River faction and you are able to choose which faction to support I'd say there is a moral choice there.

Oh, how come you know? I studied computer science and have been programming for decades, so I have a theoretical understanding of the problems. Also, this is a discussion forum and people like to discuss, whether they know a lot or just a little about some issue. You really shouldn't take it personal and go with the flow.

Next time please open a new thread. The symptoms may be similar, but not being able to loot just means that the client lost connection to the server. And that can have dozens of different reasons One thing I see is that Litenetlib connection failed and the client had to use steamnetworklib connection (and that often means that the server is a little difficult to reach). Does your friend host the game in his own home network or does he use a rented server? Does he operate a listed server or do you connect by IP? If you log into the other game that is working, does your client log have a line "NF NET: LiteNetLib: Connection failed: ConnectionFailed" as well? If not then this might be the difference that makes one game working and the other not. How does the other working server hosted compare to the faulty one, i.e. is it on the same machine with the same ports? Or on the same machine with different ports? Or on a different machine? You could also make a diff between the two serverconfig.xml files, remove any password lines and post it here, would show how they differ. Is the game a long running game that just started to have problems or does it not work from the start? Did your friend change anything at the router (if it is served from home) or server config just before the problems started? Please try to answer all questions and not only one (I say this because strangely 9 out of 10 people only answer 1 question when they are asked a few and think thats enough)

Strange. See also this recent thread: When I changed that value for the zombie handitem (and I am fairly sure that I really changed DamageEntity there) I not only observed the jump (which lead to a bug report by the way) but also did get about 30-40 damage per hit even though I had a full set of heavy armor on So I really did see DamageEntity make a difference there.

I'm not sure. Your idea seems to include that the drone or NPC is the one dictating the path. But in RWG there could be arbitrarily big objects in the way that could prevent the drone/NPC from finding a path.

Well, I don't like my words twisted so that they seem to say something different. "advanced" sounds, well, pretty advanced 😁 I don't have the power to discard any idea. That idea was proposed multiple times already, just like dozens of other common ideas, and the developers definitely know about that idea, probably had that idea years before it was ever posted in the forum. I'm just telling you that it came up in conversations and at least the last times the said something like "there were no plans at the moment" and I told you some of the reasons why. What I say here has not the slightest effect on anything the devs will do. I'm not a gatekeeper

Actually a mod in alpha15 had a jason. And he spawned only once ... but in regular intervalls, just like jason