meganoth
-
Posts
9,459 -
Joined
-
Days Won
56
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Articles
A20 Bugs
A21 Bugs
Bugs V1
Events
Posts posted by meganoth
-
-
On 5/19/2021 at 5:18 AM, Thordragon said:
I posted the ticket on 7 days to die website. The controller is wireless with the Xbox adaptor for windows. What I mean by modern is I own the Xbox One controller I bought from EB Games that can use with those Xbox one and one s consoles I just use it for my PC. I don't have much hooked up as I have to use my main speakers and I my Thrustmaster T150 plugged in for my other games. I don't know why would cause anything though
If you don't know then test it. Unplug your Thrustmaster (also the speakers if they are usb and not analog) and see if the problem goes away.
0 -
12 hours ago, Synaster Shred said:
I just started playing this game, and I’m really having a lot of fun, this game is incredible, but I feel like not having the ability to peek/lean around corners, is causing the experience to be incomplete. I was wondering if there were any plans to add this feature? Or if I could suggest adding this feature? Surely I’m not the only person to bring up this topic, but I cannot find any info on this topic. I believe that this would add a serious tactical element to this game, to be able to peek/lean around a corner, without your entire body being exposed, would be a great addition for this game in my humble opinion. Please add a peek/lean feature to this incredible game!
This has been asked for occasionally but by far not often enough to be considered a community favourite I would say.
As 7D2D isn't a pure shooter game there are a lot of other features that can expand the game as well and there is only time for a few.
From my (outside) view I would say it isn't likely that this will be implemented, but who knows?
0 -
Welcome to the forums.
I don't have any inside information, but I haven't seen this mentioned by devs as something they want to implement. Though you should never rely on MY memory 😉.
But there is a chance: If they think that bandits (in their camps) should be able to sit, they will put an animator to that task and what helps the bandits helps the player characters as well.
That gets me thinking: Asking for sitting bandits would be a sly way to ask for what you really want 😁
0 -
Can you explain what is bad about cp? Obviously at least the dev at TFP doesn't know because otherwise he wouldn't have chosen it
1 -
11 hours ago, Adam the Waster said:
ik but you didn't say that!
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
im going to take your job now!Done. I made you super moderator in place of Roland. You can access your super moderator menue by flying high with the gyrocopter in game and pressing 'E'
4 -
4 hours ago, Liesel Weppen said:
That's what i meant by try to name the classes and then see what not fits anymore. And no matter what name you choose, some of the skills do not fit anymore. And that's imho not about realism, it's about pure logic. A game doesn't need to be realistic, but i expect some logic in the mechanics. And the current logic can only be explained by the biasing between attributes and classes.
Please show me the logic deduction that doesn't depend on facts and assumptions you know and expect from reading or hearing about real world snipers.
2 -
4 hours ago, Liesel Weppen said:
Yes, massively better because i don't like predefined classes that force me into exactly 5 different playstiles. (to anticipate your answer, yes i know you can crossover classes, but the more you crossover, the more skill points need to be wasted in things you don't use)
The class tells me what weapon to use. The class tells me which ranged and melee weapon has to be combined, the class tells me what are my miscellaneous skills.
If i want to use a shotgun, i choose strength. With strength im forced to clubs for melee. I can cook and mine. But i want to use a shotgun and blades and i'm not interested in mining, i want to build.
You got the point: YOU. For me it is a massive disadvantage, because NO ONE of these 5 classes fits my playstyle. I want to choose myself what i can do and what is dispensable for me. Without being disadvantaged by combining two things that don't inflict each other but are divided to different classes, because someone else decided so. Skillpoints are limited, i can also not simply take everything, i still need to choose.
It's your personal problem if you play always the same way if nobody forces you to different playstyles. That contradicts an open game, where you are free on what to do and how to do it.
If you need to be forced to try different things, THAT is the special requirement. That should be answered with mods, but not the games default.
Sure I am talking about me as you are talking about you. Lots of other players are a bit like me or you, and I suspect a lot more players are rather imperfect like me.
I don't think unrestricted modes are typical for base games. Usually the base game is more limited to guide new players while advanced modes or mods remove limitations that might unbalance the game. If there are restrictions in advanced modes it is only for additional challenge and not as guidance or for balance.
QuoteThe massive difference is: With an open system YOU CAN still try different things, it's not the games fault if YOU don't have the neccessary willpower. But with the current restricted system I CAN NOT play, like i want to. And THAT is the game's fault.
There is no "can't" in this system. Did you ever calculate the perk costs? To crossover between two classes and to be able to learn any perks to 4 takes exactly as many points as learning one class up to perk level 5. And you don't want to tell me that the difference between say clubs learned to 4 or to 5 is so fundamental that playing with 4 is impossibly harder, especially when you can select the best perks of both classes as compensation. The only exception might be the turret perk where the difference between 4 and 5 is quite large.
QuoteOh, and in multiplayer we divide also. But not because of this classes. We would divide the perks among players anyway. There is no need 3 players skill for cooking or farming. But it's the same restriction. The player that wants to be a farmer has to use automatic weapons, no matter he likes to use them or not. Or the other way round, that player that wants to use automatics, has to do the farming, if he likes it or not. Imho in multiplayer it's even worse.
You got a point there, in co-op the task usually get divided anyway. But in my own experience playing with 3 other players, each one of them is like me and tends to gravitate to always use the same weapons and do the same tasks.
2 -
2 hours ago, Liesel Weppen said:
A class system is not inacceptable for me. And in this whole thread i was all the time talking about classes. So you could have noticed that i already understood that they are not considered to be attributes. But as i explained, the current state is messup between somehow classes and somehow attributes.
And i already answered to your concern, you even quoted it:
Yeah, and a motorcycle is exactly the same as a car, exept it only has 2 wheels. 🙄
Let me rephrase: "7D2D' skill system is exactly like diablo only there are no attributes. "
The equivalent would be "And a motorcycles wheels are exactly the same as a car". Which isn't true, but they can be compared without making a face
Sure, even in the case of 7D2D and Diablo, "exactly" is an overstatement. You pinpoint the difference quite well:
QuoteYou can't level up classes in Diablo, what you are leveling up are the attributes. The class is choosen once and then fixed. In 7d2d you level up the "classes"...
In Diablo WHAT perks you can choose depends on your class. IF you can "activate"/level them however depends on the state of your attributes (even multible attributes like "Requires 30str and 40dex").
As i said, in 7d2d this is somehow combined together/mixed up, and that is the problem. No matter if you call it "classes" or "attributes", WHAT they effect is half classes half attributes. It's neither a real class nor are they just attributes.
I can understand how it developed over time, but from the current state you can clearly see that perviously they have been just attributes. Now they are somehow considered to be classes, but this transition was only done half way.
One job of a skill system is to time or gate the progress of the player. In diablo the attributes take on that job. In 7D2D, in absence of attributes something else has to take over that job: the class. Similar to 7D2D in Pathfinder and AD&D the class does this job as well even though there are still attributes, just to point out that that is a common and successful way to do it and is NOT perceived as a fundamental problem or a generally faulty solution.
QuoteI'm fine with classes, but then either make classes or make no classes. And the current "classes" are @%$#. They are mostly arbitrary grouping of perks, completely besides the absolutely wrong naming if you want it to be considered as classes. How'd you describe the purpose of the class "strength"? How does this class differ from "fortitude"? And what reasons are the differnces?
How does master chef fit into "strength"? To bring in another term: What are the "roles" of these classes or lets call it "job" of the class?
The strength class I would call "The Miner". Yes, it has perks that are not really associated with a miner, but essentially this could be seen as the "Miner" class. Possibly TFP could even go further and make this a specific person, i.e. "Miner Bob" who just happens to be good at cooking. This is a method a lot of the newer fun-shooters like Overwatch employ to make a fixed character with fixed abilities.
Fortitude would be "the Brute" or "The Heavy", perception "The Sniper", agility "The Assassin", intelligence "The Tinkerer". Sure, 3 of them are called after their weapon use, 2 after their civil profession, if that is important to someone he may have to look for different archetypes.
QuoteFor most perks i agree a relation to their "class" can be seen. Putting "Animal Tracker" to "Perception" makes sense. But if it placed there because tracking animals requires perception... we are back to perception being an attribute! Oh, but the hunter can still not cook well? Sounds somehow strange.
The penetrator however absolutely does not fit there, it just is there, because this strange "perception class" has the sniper rifle.
For real classes i'd expect even completely separating melee and ranged fight. But this system here does the opposite. All "classes" can do melee and ranged, but only with specific weapons... WTF...
I would rather say Animal tracker is the outlier in the sniper class. 😉
QuoteYou know from language what attributes are and what are nouns? Classes are supposed to be nouns, while attributes are... well... attributes? No, im still not refering on how it is named in the game, but the reason what perks are grouped refers to being, they require a specific ATTRIBUTE!
Other way round: Replace the current names of the "classes" with nouns. How would you name them? Do still all the perks fit into that class according to its name? If you can't find suitable names or perks don't fit there anymore, it is not really a class.
And no, i do not request it being like i just said, that are just suggestions on how it would be (much) better. Basically the current arrangement of "classes" (or whatever you call them) is the worst possible case except pure random distribution. I can absolutley not comprehend why it is like this... except there is some mixup of the understanding of classes and attributes and depending on what you are trying to explain, you either refer to an "attribute" or a "class".
And also just to make clear: I'm just argueing for my personal view. I absolutely know i can't deceide anything. And if it stays like this it will still not stop me from playing the game. But that is ... i'd even say: what annoys me most from the current version.
What you suggest would probably be a lot better in terms of believability and realism. Why does animal tracker not fit the sniper class? Because realism. Yes, without doubt.
Would it be better to play? THAT is the more important question and the answer to that is rather open. Whenever you constrain your choices to better suit reality you as a designer also constrain you choices for game play. It might work, or realism and gameplay might clash.
7D2D is quite shamelessly optimized for gameplay (as TFP sees the optimum, any players mileage may vary), and realism or believability is merely an afterthought. Madmole (I assume) designed 5 classes that are supposed to deliver variability and fun for at least 5 playthroughs through suggesting class builds and because of class permeability a few more. And for me it works, in A15 and A16 I always played the same character, now I cycle through the classes. And not to forget, in co-op it works as well as it is usual that everyone picks a different class and takes over different jobs.
If the class system went your way I would fall back to a mode where I just take my prefered melee weapon and my prefered gun. Sure I still would have fun with other variable elements of the game (lets not assume the skill system is everything) but I have my suspicion that replayability would be hurt in the long run.
2 -
4 hours ago, Aldranon said:
Builds/Classes are throwbacks of the "paper and dice" role playing games.
Is diablo a throwback or a "paper and dice" game? 😁
4 hours ago, Aldranon said:The GM only had a few charts to resolve combat with. Can you imagine the nightmare it would be if he had to calculate all the nuances that computer games now have?
With Intelligence, if I don't want to keep two sledge turrets for horde nights (If you set things up just right, its so funny it really is worth it!) I then just make a few copies of everything I need then drink some Grampa's "forget this".
aaaand done!
Thats one way to deal with it. In SP I never had much problem getting all necessary recipes (including the steel thingy, if not as loot then by buying it from the trader), but I always spent the point(s) for getting the forge (just like I always put one point into Living of the land)
0 -
3 hours ago, Liesel Weppen said:
I'd say you try to distract from what i'm talking about by nitpicking on slightly wrong numbers.
If numbers are irrelevant to you, don't post them. At least two users here think if you post numbers they should be at least somewhat correct. You should realize that you are nitpicking about this correction now as much as I do about the numbers. Just accept the correction and go on.
QuoteI want the same skill to buff ONE aspect but for ALL weapons, because... like theFlu already explained.
Better perception gives you better headshots with ALL weapons.
Higher strength gives higher melee damage no matter you us a club or a spear.
...
You want attributes to be really attributes. Which they are not, they were once in A17, but now there is NOTHING "attributy" about them at all except for the name. Strength doesn not increase your strength in the least, fortitude does not increase your health the least bit, agility does not a jota to your agility, intelligence doesn't make you more intelligent. Only perception could be realistically argued as being an actual attribute that is improving your headshot damage.
If we want to be generous we could say that intelligence is actually increasing your intelligence behind the scenes because it enables you to learn the perks, but that's a rather farfetched argument.
And that is my argument. Attributes are not attributes, they are classes, pure and simple.
QuoteI remeber a discussion some months ago, iirc with roland also taking part into, where some claimed "there are no classes in 7d2d" where i said "well, they are not called classes, but base attributes, but in practice the effect of these things are exactly what classes are suppsed to be".
Exactly. In this we agree.
QuoteEven if i consider it being classes, the design of these classes is bad. They are not a whole thing and not a half. They have wrong names for what they are. They are centered about base attributes, probably because thats where they come from historically? But they are limited to specific weapon types...
For me this reads as "their names are wrong and their names are wrong" although you start with "Even if I consider it being classes".
And sure they are limited to specific weapon types, class systems often do this. Really consider them as classes, ignore the names and ping, there is nothing strange about them.
Sure, madmole made an effort to put perks in classes so they often look fitting to the attribute, but nobody would ever notice that if the classes were not named after attributes.
QuoteEither assemble real plausible classes like "Hunter" or "Fighter" or "Medic"... that might have benefits restricted to SOME weapons, maybe a hunter for rifles (also AK) but not short weapons. A Fighter maybe buffs for melee but almost non for ranged at all. And so on. Almost every larger mod does THIS, and they do it better than the vanilla game.
I agree that the class system in 7D2D is far from realistic and even a lot of RPG class systems do this better, but still far from realistic. For example a one handed hammer is almost always clearly separated from a two-handed hammer in most such systems, except for bonuses from attributes. BUT, 7d2D has NO attributes at all.
A17 had a class system with for example melee clustered in one class and it wasn't well liked. If you wanted to do melee in mid or late game you had to invest into that class. I don't think that system should be adopted again.
I don't know whether mods do it better, the only mod I played in A19 was Darkness Falls and there you can train with the club until you are the god of clubs but that helps you not one bit for the sledgehammer, so there is no melee buff for every melee weapon. But DF correctly dropped any mention of attributes, even outside the DF classes there are none. What mods are you talking about and how do they do it?
QuoteOr make it really base attributes, but then also treat it as attributes, but not "classes".
Correct me, but if your "argument" is: "But others did it also wrong", this is called whataboutism, right?
😀 If a class system is generally not acceptable to you, well, then we found the source of your problem (before you object: I talked about hundreds of systems and you practically said they all are doing it wrong. Not so serious reply to your not so serious reply) . I like class systems in any pen&paper or computer game when I want to play it more than once (or where I play a group).
QuoteI also did never put up a "rule", nor i said it should be universal for all games. As i said, for me it looks like you are actively trying to distract from my arguements by bringing in topics that are either completely irrelevant or thing i never said.
But to pick up other games: What i have in mind is diablo. They have classes and base attributes. The class defines what skills you skill tree contains with that limits buffs to weapons that suit your class. Archer has no skills that buffs swords, knights don't have skills that buff bows, however, both can us both. The base skills on the other hand give generic buffs, independent of your class. Strength increases weapon damage, no matter you are using a bow or a sword. Even if you are an archer with points put into strength, also a sword becomes stronger. Dexterity (in 7d2d that would probably be agility?) makes both faster, still independent of class.
It still doesn't fixate how to play. If you pick knight as a class, it's still on you if you spend your points into strength for building an offensive damage dealer using a double-handed broadsword dealing slow but massive damage, or if you put your points into dexterity and build a sneaky fast attacking guerillia fighter using a shield and just a dagger.
No the next argument to come: But in 7d2d you are not fixed to one class, like in diablo... yes, you are not, but in comparision to diablo you have tied the classes and the base attributes together!!!!!111elf
7D2D is exactly like diablo only there are no attributes.
2 -
33 minutes ago, theFlu said:
I might not be Liesel, but... partly because they are. There's an attribute called Perception, and another called Agility. They're the same skill, except one applies to long barrels and long handles, while the other applies to short barrels and short handles.. it's not exactly the most intuitive design around those names.
I understand the process that lead us here, but the end result is still like pineapple on a pizza.
I myself twice suggested to TFP to change the names of the attributes to class names to no avail. So I agree on the names giving the wrong impression to newcomers. But we veterans should not be hoodwinked by names. And stealed against anything that sounds unrealistic, because gameplay trumps realism.
So perception generally is the class where you have great perception and know how to handle a sniper rifle. You can shoot a sniper rifle better (which leads to more effective headshots with that gun). But in this game this does not transfer to being better with pistols, doing great headshots (instead of merely pedestrain headshots) with pistols needs you to be agil, not perceptive.
No idea how that works in detail but I'm fine with it. I know RPGs where you can't even use a warhammer if you haven't learned the right skill or are the right class. Skills and perks are an approximation of abilities a character has. My real life personas rifle skill can't be adequately represented by a simple number.
2 -
9 hours ago, Liesel Weppen said:
I'd be happy if people try to understand what i'm trying to tell instead of nitpicking on some random numbers.
It automatically distracts from the issue. Without correct facts how can we make correct conclusions from the facts? Whether you get 170% more headshot damage for one weapon or only 35% is a hell of a difference.
QuoteAnd overall: You get 270% headshot damage for hunting rifle and 200% headsthot damage for an AK from ONE AND THE SAME skill? No? So you missed my point completely.
Seems I did. I was distracted by some issue 😁. Seriously, I don't get the point. Why is it important that it is ONE AND THE SAME skill?
QuoteNope, but i don't start the game or go through the xmls every time i write a meaningless number in a post here. For being not completely wrong, i look the skills up from an online skill calculator, which may use little outdated values...
What you call "characteristics", i call anoying predefined limitations.
I do MAKE the characteristics of a character by deciding where i spend the skillpoints. The characteristics should not be predefinied by someone else on how he thinks the game should be played.
Hundreds of RPG systems starting by the grandfather D&D have violated your rule and used class systems, and they are still popular.
It is a lot easier balancing skills/perks correctly in a class system than in a free choose-your-own-perks system. There are advantages and disadvantages for both.
2 -
1 hour ago, Ryuuga_Kun said:
I have a dedicated server running stable alpha 19.4 only mod is the smx hud mod.
When playing after a certain (randomised) amount of time my game will just stop allowing me to access loot and storage. I have to exit game a rejoin to fix and the time before it goes wrong is always random. Is this a known bug? I am using a RWG map. Any ideas?
Thanks ^_^
My idea would be to read the pinned thread that tells you to read it in this forum section and follow it, especially the part about posting a logfile 😉
0 -
47 minutes ago, Adam the Waster said:
make the zombies able to jump 30 feet and then see how long people last
jk
but maybe some other zombies could jump higher to get people. like feral zombies, spiders, etcI see spiders jump quite far and high already.
1 -
9 hours ago, dcsobral said:
If pathing was decent pre-A17, I'd agree. Pathing was bad, and zombies went more or less in a direct line (unless running in circles). Pathing to a player that can be seen or to a location a sound is coming from but only through blocks that are within LoS of the zombie is not something that was ever done.
Practically this is an impossible wish at the current time because line of sight is an expensive operation to calculate, too much to consider for release of 7D2D
Theoretically speaking though that would be a lot more realistical. Whether it would be more fun, who knows.
9 hours ago, dcsobral said:Regardless, this is a strawman argument. The AI was no more trivially gamed then than it is now, minus a few exploits that have been removed since. Furthermore, it doesn't matter how many exploit bases exist: if a single one exist within common knowledge, then any player who desires an exploit base will make one. The argument above boils down to "many exploit bases existed before, and now there's less exploit bases", to which I reply: who cares?
I'm not necessarily talking about exploit bases even though stilts were a major problem. My problem with pre-A17 AI was that you could simply build anything and the zombies would not really react to it but just to you. This made almost everything possible but it also REMOVED the need to build anything else but simple blocks. Why bother with some path for the zombies when they ignore it anyway? Why add trap doors when you would have to surround your base completely with trap doors for them to work? Simply said before A17 I didn't bother with doing anything special because special was ignored anyway. THAT is my problem with pre-A17 AI
Since A17 the zombies can be "exploited" BUT now the exploits are similar to the "exploits" in other tower-defense games. Or said simply since A17 7D2D had a real tower-defense subgame making the exploits not exploits but a game feature.
9 hours ago, dcsobral said:What I do care about is that there were many more ways of making non-exploit bases before than now, but I am not advocating going back to pre-A17 AI. Go back and read again without the "he wants A16 AI" filter on your monitor. The current AI leads to a single optimal approach, and one which becomes quite boring since 7d2d isn't going the way of Night of the Dead with multiple traps with which to design a killing maze.
I never said you wanted to go back to it. But you implicitly compared the current AI to pre-A17 "This sophisticated path finding being used has reduced the diversity of effective bases a lot, ", i.e. you referenced how the previous AI was better in that regard, allowed more diversity, so it is only fair that I can compare with that as well. And denounce it as more arbitrary and very very low on tower defense mechanics
9 hours ago, dcsobral said:Side note about the trail thing: yeah, players could remove the path if it was ever implemented for horde night, just like players could remove the path in pre-A17 AI and like players can remove the path on current AI. Absence of a path is a problem common to all pathing approaches.
Well, you are correct that it would have made tower defense paths possible AND whatever AI goes into effect once the path is away, so I change my mind on this, it would have been a nice feature for horde night.
3 -
6 hours ago, dcsobral said:
On the feral sense thing, I'm sad that it is just about how easily zombies detect you. When I first heard of it on dev stream I thought it was about how zombies approach the player. This sophisticated path finding being used has reduced the diversity of effective bases a lot,
Or in other words, base building was trivial then. So you could build anything and it would work if it just had enough HP to occupy the zombies long enough or left the zombies running around without attack vector (stilt bases and underground bases were practically out of reach of zombies).
6 hours ago, dcsobral said:and it is a bit absurd -- not even google maps is that good!
The now-abandoned idea of player's making a "trail" would have been my favorite pathing solution,
Which doesn't work because players would simply "remove" the trail by using a drawbridge or wood frames that they remove after entering the base. The trail was never described as a blood moon feature to my knowledge, it was always about some zombies following you when you were moving about.
6 hours ago, dcsobral said:and my second favorite would be path to player through line of sight. I don't like how zombies will see you and then move away from you because they know how to path to you to avoid obstacles.
That is the old pre-A17 method. As I said above this AI can be trivially gamed.
3 -
3 hours ago, Liesel Weppen said:
I am not a min maxer... and it's not about preferring an AK over a hunting rifle, because you have only 1 point in fortitude but none in perception. But the skills kick in massively.
Yeah, but now assume the Z has 150hp.
Without skills 3 shots, with skills just 2. And that are just body hits.
Back to 100hp, but landing a headshot:
Without skills 2 shots, with just one point in base attribute X: one shot.
And there other dependencies i choose my weapon for. For clearing a poi a hunting rifle is very impractical. There i'd prefer an AK or a shotgun, even if it is weaker with my skills, but with further progression with ferrals and irradiateds an unskilled AK may be to weak soon. Assume having perception at "only" 8. That gives you freaking headshot damage of 270%, but absolutely nothing for an AK.
But the rifles from perception are not really efficient in most cases. Only because of that i dislike perception builds. Would be much better if it gives a headshot bonus to ALL weapons, but the other base attributes not.
Strange, I get a headshot damage of 270% for hunting rifle and 200% for an AK, both fairly freaking.
You must have some strange LBD version of the game 😁
2 -
3 hours ago, ricp said:
I would have thought (keyword, 'thought') that bandits were dealt with differently from sleepers.
The routines implemented into zombie AI can be tested now and can surely benefit any NPC later.
I think Faatal pointed out at some time that there is just one AI, and I assume that AI works slightly different depending on the NPC. Even if that were not the case, a lot of code (like pathfinding, sensing) is identical or at least similar for every NPC and it would be madness to not share behaviour and functions as much as possible
3 hours ago, ricp said:I'm not saying it's a bad idea in any way. I'm not sure if they will have the impact your comment suggests though. A wandering sleeper is just the same as a wandering outside (non sleeper) zombie isn't it? So it'll just be like the doors have been left open and they've come wandering into the house.
While sleepers don't really offer much of a challenge, it's obviously fun dispatching them with one shot, a wanderer that is stuck in a loop (presumably until disturbed) isn't going to offer much more of a challenge either.
Who knows, it might be one of those subtle changes that when added you'll wonder why it wasn't implemented before now.
Exactly. I can imagine that wandering zombies could be a nice challenge for bow-users and stealth players in general. No sitting duck and might wander near a stealthed player and notice him.
0 -
4 hours ago, ricp said:
Don't see the need for wandering sleepers, tbh. They will only impact on performance while providing very little in return. IMO, anyway.
If you don't have collision on, does that mean you can go into a house, build a set of new walls and have the zombies walking through them? Disabling the collision is sensible in terms of reducing the amount of processing they need to do but, on the flip side, to me it seems to be introducing more possible problems in regard to not much game play return (again, IMO).
Obvs, I have absolutely no insight into how the logic is working so perhaps it's an easier and less impactful addition than I am imagining it might be.
I think Faatal hinted a possible reason: "So enemies can wander around. Like bandits would move about. "
0 -
The logfile you show here has EAC enabled. Wrong logfile?
0 -
I moved this post to the right section, "General Support". You need to post some more information, especially the logfile:
0 -
10 hours ago, Juniperrose85 said:
Zero mods, classic and multiplayer.
So where did you get a hummer from? There is no such vehicle in the classic aka vanilla game
0 -
11 hours ago, warmer said:
for me its how subtle the difference is between item levels. a lvl 1 stone spear is very close to a lvl 3 stone spear damage wise. it doesn't give you incentive to upgrade until you have a fundamental material change. To me a lvl 1 anything is the most amateur "useable version" and a lvl 3 should be significantly better. a little more durability isn't worth it when repairs are as easy as they are.
Partly agree, but it is a not so subtle difference if you have two mods for the spear you want to use.
3 -
Right, there is no need for a GUI. That actually would increase the chance for this option greatly I would assume.
18 minutes ago, Kadigan KS-b said:1) unit tests
2) unit tests
3) can be a CLI switch instead (and not required for the listenserver at all, since it doesn't keep running when nobody is playing)
4) this one would actually require proper testing, to see if it at least doesn't actually break the game somehow
5) can technically be ignored, if defined as "unsupported configuration" (been done before)
Potentially doubling - yeah, okay. Actually doubling? Doubtful. This is a rolling alpha release; most stuff that isn't directly affected could be relegated to bug reports, assuming all that many people actually end up using the option. Consider: the game is expected to run just as if there's a player attached (so most issues are already tested for); if it doesn't in some way rely on client feedback to run, not all that many components should theoretically be affected (and if it does, this would be a sizeable changeset, which puts it outside of scope in a hurry).
Doubling is the upper limit, just 1 more is the lower. I also don't think devs want to add unsupported configurations even if they technically can wash their hands of it. Players tend to ignore such details when they complain.
In what way do unit tests help in writing the code? And unit tests have to be written as well. And considering the state of actual software development who knows whether TFP uses unit tests at all.
0
Help with sound effects
in Discussion and Requests
Posted
Did you check the game settings? There is an option for situational music that can be turned off. I would assume the piano sounds at least would be turned off with this