meganoth
-
Posts
9,376 -
Joined
-
Days Won
56
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Articles
A20 Bugs
A21 Bugs
Events
Posts posted by meganoth
-
-
7 hours ago, 4sheetzngeegles said:
If it registers as a bug to them one of the mods will automatically
xfer the post to that directory for you.
Not that I know of, we mods are much too lazy to do stuff for you automatically 😉. If you want to report a bug, be sure to use the red button above and follow the instructions there.
0 -
Does the hit-circle count at the moment you release the arrow or when the arrow arrives at the target location?
0 -
Stop that. It's silly. Very silly indeed.
1 -
14 minutes ago, theFlu said:
Umm, no. Until you understand the OP, you can not understand why your tangents are unintentional derailment at best. Go and try to understand the OP. Moreover, I have now twice been kindly, implicitly, asked by a mod to stop derailing the thread, so I shall. Feel free to @ me about anything related to the OP, of course.
Damn, again needs a reply: I am not aware of a single word posted by any mod in this thread in his function as a mod. All words were "forum-user-words"(tm). Some could have been even created by an AI or a monkey randomly typing on a typewriter, but to my knowledge not a single word fizzled and crackled with any sort of mod-power
0 -
12 minutes ago, meilodasreh said:
Wouldn't the ultimate question rather be: Why do people play Valheim instead of 7D2D?
I can't tell, as I only know one of them. 🙂
Many people seem to have played 7D2D *and* Valheim. And the games have somewhat different "niches", because valheim is much more survival and less cross-genre than 7d2d, and much less moddable. And IMHO there is not much replayability in valheim. So a simple answer could be anyone who wants more survival in a game.
I play Valheim currently with 2 friends, but if I could only play one of the games it would be 7d2d without a question.
0 -
1 hour ago, theFlu said:
Why? Why would players of Valheim expect it to be a "correct" survival simulation as it never has been nor tried to be? For one, you won't die or suffer for not eating.
And how is that related to 7dtd first having a fundamental get-water-from-lake-and-clean-it -mechanic and then removing it? It's just a distraction from the OP's point about basic survival.
Valheim can do and be whatever they want; they seem to have done their work right for not having a silly discussion about icon realism. This thread here was not about icon realism until you started forcing it in. ("icon realism": the only place where Valheim refers to any "plates" is in the icons)
Damn. This still needs a reply.
Can't check right now, but probably the only place where 7 days to die currently refers to jars is in the name "jar of water" which they probably kept to reference the quantity, or forgot to change or most likely thought it totally unneccesary to change. And if that were the only problem TFP would probably have no qualms changing that to say "pint of water" or "water". Is that what you need for your realism? It would be the request most likely to succeed from all we discussed and may be even on their to-do list for further polishing, who knows?
While you are at it maybe give the Valheim devs the hint they should rename their "meat platter" as that might lead to discussions, not that I think it would.
Valheim players need food as much or even more as 7 days to die players need a weapon. Playing without is just a theoretical option for people who have finished a Mario Brothers game using only their nose or killed the end boss of skyrim in under 10 minutes, for bragging rights.
I have not played many survival games but any I have played had very different mechanics, there is no universal requirement for survival games to have a "find container, get water" mechanic.
And as we know TFP doesn't listen to "but this was once in the game but then they removed it" arguments and I don't care about past alphas and their rules as well. 7d2d had so many mechanics that were tried but are no more, if that disturbs you I can give you the old "Wait for the game to release, don't play alpha" treatment.
This brings us back to your question "Why would players of Valheim expect it to be a "correct" survival simulation as it never has been nor tried to be?" to which I ask back why do you expect 7d2d to be a correct survival simulation? Only if 7d2d tried to be a simulation would there be a need to simulate what a survivor had to do in real life as closely as possible. Neither valheim nor 7d2d claim to do that. Neither need empty jars nor empty platters or bowls to be survival games.
0 -
43 minutes ago, theFlu said:
fail to recall throwing insults at you. I called my own tactic "sleazy", but that's not At You.
Oh right. Sorry. Still a good time to drop the endless discussion
0 -
18 hours ago, theFlu said:
Valheim's forums don't have complaints about missing dinner plates.
Valheim's forums don't have complaints about missing water jars.
Yes, that game never had either and never needed either and didn't break logic by removing either. My horrible "retaliation" is pointing out that the comparison to a different game, in a different situation, is pointless. Sure, it's a sleazy way to draw your attention to the problem, but at least you noticed ...
I disagree. To be a "correct" survival simulation Valheim would need plates and bowls for the food, and flask for the potions. It doesn't and leaves that to the imagination just like 7D2D does now for all containers. Maybe this doesn't create a problem in the same degree as with water for the average player, but the parallels are there and quite obvious. And you are intelligent enough to do that abstraction if you wanted. So I have proven that it is you doing the sleazy 😉. Now, since we are at the point to throw the first mild insults at each other it is also a good point to stop the discussion. I am sure you can agree to that at least.
0 -
14 hours ago, meilodasreh said:
Yes I get that.
But then again, there's no need to try and convince people that they're wrong when they say they don't like that change.
They had it, they liked it how it was, it was taken away from them, they don't like that change. That's it.
Maybe that's just what they wanted to express, nothing more. But take a look who is first to make a longgoing story of it.
Take this thread as a good example.
The OP titled it "fundamentals of survival" (well he wrote "survivor", but of course he meant survival)
He even emphazized his main point by using capital letters: "BUT removing bottles/cans etc means also removing the absolute BASIC FUNDAMENTAL ESSENCE of SURVIVAL."
So he explicitly was complaining about the fact he did like to follow intuitive survival logic (find empty container, get water), which is now gone.
This is actually answering my question in a roundabout way. If you see the complete process as one BASIC FUNDAMENTAL as you say then only going back to the old ways will fully satisfy you (which we know is unlikely to happen). Though the question remains if the ability to get water from a lake, even without jar, would help you with immersion or not. And the same question could be posed to the OP if he still were discussing here with us.
In other words, you described this as a two step process, "find container, get water". Now lets suppose that TFP were only willing to re-add one of the two steps and the other would be an absolute no-go. Wouldn't it then be interesting to know if people have a major problem with only one of those two steps or both? For TFP as well, since they probably won't change anything without being sure it would help.
All this further discussion was not with the OP by the way, but because theFlu and I have been discussing exactly these motivations, though in a way that didn't get us any step further. Even you seemed absolutely adament to not answer the simple question I posed to you about the "what if"
Was my reply to the OP helpful? I very much doubt in hindsight. But on the other hand I still believe that making people understand why some change happened and how it fits can help when that change likely won't go away.
15 hours ago, meilodasreh said:You didn't even acknowledge that point by one single word, but immediately took the discussion away by giving examples that there are not any other containers in the game too, e.g. for getting/storing fuel.
Neither did any of the other poster before me acknowledge that point or refer to it in a way the OP could understand. So what? This is a discussion forum and everyone can chime in and give him HIS opinion about the case, even theFlu could just give the OP a better answer than mine instead of endlessly discussing with me (which we know by now will lead to nothing as our views are just too different). I just talked about one specific issue that I see happening with the change where just the right perception might help.
In a game where there are no containers (and a player never playing it WITH containers) the absence of such containers even for water will feel natural. Not as natural as if you had containers for everthing, but natural enough that this isn't discussed in forums again and again. Hundreds of RPGs (I hope you have played a few of those at least) show that nobody will complain about missing empty potion bottles, unless they are suddenly removed from the game. The maximum is a video making fun of that. Is water the great exception? I doubt that.
15 hours ago, meilodasreh said:But again, that's not the topic people are complaining about. It's just about that basic survival thing (meaning "getting water, making fire, finding shelter"), that you can't do in the most basic/logic/intuitive way anymore.
Again suppose TFP changed the game so you could simply get water from a lake, but without any empty jars in the game. I say there is a good chance new users would find it very natural/intuitive to just go to a lake without any containers and get water from it. You maybe won't or only after a long time, as you are used to needing a jar from previous alphas. OP won't at the moment as he has played 700 hours with jars.
16 hours ago, meilodasreh said:You cannot discuss that away, especially not by ignoring the central/original point of discussion, but instead take it to other logic contexts that are not really comparable (or even to other games).
That's what I meant with my post, by saying "just tell them "yes, you're right, regarding that context the decision sucks". Then you at least acknowledge that you get their point. Instead immediately bringing up "no containers at all" and "water scarcity"...I think In the end you are contributing to a good extent that this whole topic keeps being so "wildly" discussed over long periods of time, no pun intended.
Ok, this is a culture clash problem as people in my country are used to more direct speech than US citizens. Saying "yes, you are ..." before starting my argument is essentially small talk that says "If you feel that way then you feel that way" and it in no way says anything about my understanding of his issue, but if it helps, ok, I can try to add this next time.
1 -
3 hours ago, meilodasreh said:
I have never played Valheim, so I don't have any feeling of how it does play, and what might feel weird, or what items seem to be abundant or scarce.
Also I don't read the forums of it, so I can't tell what is discussed there. And I also don't know what that game claims to be or not, or what aspects are dominant or faint.
And I definitely don't want to invest any time to gain all that knowledge/experience/info to prove that your point is even viable.
And really, to what end? It's a totally different game, so it might or might not be comparable at all, and who can claim to decide it is?
Anyway, if you claim that your "zero hit search" for "valheim forum missing containers" does mean that everybody is fine with how it works there,
then just repeat your search with "7D2D forum missing jars",...the number of applicable results is far above zero...which does tell you what?
Yeah sure, if you don't know Valheim then my question is moot. Since Valheim was often a topic for comparison with 7days and many people on the forum seem to have played it as well I thought it almost common knowledge.
To answer your question: I don't doubt that removing the jars combined with the other changes to water are a controversial issue and are talked about a lot. But the water changes are quite a few changes lumped together and it seems clear that many have objections to different parts of the change. While I completely understand why people have problems with the "can't get water from the lake" change, the other change to remove jars is simply about perception. There are hundreds of games out there that leave that part of reality completely to imagination and not simulate it. And nobody complains, maybe because they never experienced that that part was in the game once and then suddenly removed.
PS: One question you might be able to answer even if you don't know anything about valheim: If TFP changed the game so you would get filled water jars when scooping up water from a lake but you still never found nor could create empty jars, would then ALL of your immersion issues with the water changes be solved?
0 -
1 hour ago, theFlu said:
I actually do mean it exactly that way; in response to bringing in another game and the lack of random forum complaints related to a feature that isn't in that game, I felt that brute forcing the jars back in the conversation was fitting to the method of the argument. Unrelated at best.
I was bringing up and comparing to another game!!! A horrible crime it seems. Though there is someone on this forum who overuses this a bit in my opinion I hadn't thought that this was impossible and at best without any relevance at all. Or a shady method that allows any measures of retaliation.
0 -
54 minutes ago, theFlu said:
Indeed. I wonder how that would relate to them not complaining about missing water jars / dinner plates?
This is why I was not asking about water jars in valheim but about plates and bowls. See, you are almost fanatically determined to not let anyone differentiate between "missing containers" and "missing ability to get water from a lake". Like here were you add missing water jars as if that was part of the original question I posed.
Sure, you probably don't mean it that way, but from my viewpoint this looks like a rethorical manipulation.
54 minutes ago, theFlu said:You assume correctly. So, you see it as "more realistic" but "not better for you" AND "possibly better depending on the limits". I'll point out that there's a small discontinuity between the latter two, but let's skip that. The more interesting continuation is:
I assume the discontinuity you are refering to is that the second question can include the changes of the third question. I treated the second question as if without any further changes because that provides more information about my opinion. Otherwise they would simply be one combined question which I answered as well.
54 minutes ago, theFlu said:What kind of limits would you make/want so the "more realistic" version would be better "in total" than what we have currently?
For example that purifying station would need to be expensive enough or somehow limited so the player can't just build 10 of them. So that station can't be just the fire place, it could be something similar to the dew collector and surely would replace it. Though if it were expensive a player would not necessarily get it in the first days and then he would be cut off from making ANY water himself (no problem for veterans, but definitely for most new player). Possible solutions would be that the player finds clean water again or that there exist two types of murky water. Whatever solution is taken could also decrease realism again.
Whether that then is as good or better than now would have to be playtested. Whether I would want such a version depends on whether it is **noticable** better to warant all the redesign work (which might be more useful elsewhere). Since I don't care much for the realism part it would have to change the game to be more fun. I don't see yet where that fun should come from. Maybe from less micro-management in late game(!??).
1 -
31 minutes ago, theFlu said:
All right. Two direct questions:
Do You think the game would be more realistic if the player would be able to take a "free" amount of water from a lake and process it to obtain "clean water"?
Would the game be better for it? With possible limitations to processing speed, like a slow "purification station"?
I assume you are asking me here. Then "yes, if unlimited", "not for me personally", "depending on the limitations it could probably be worse, equal or better"
0 -
13 minutes ago, theFlu said:
I'll take your word for it, but if he complains about it often, shouldn't we already have his opinion somewhere...?
Nothing beats asking directly. This is why I am asking Meilodesrah instead of asking you to psychoanalyze him and be his speaker.
1 -
31 minutes ago, theFlu said:
There's a difference between ALL and "significant enough to whine about". Plus meilo wasn't even talking about his own opinion, at least by his phrasing he was talking about "people who complain about the break in logic"; so I doubt he can speak for everyone anyway.
But sure, I'd be curious about his own opinion as well. Not that it changes mine; mine is established from the facts of the situation, not a popular poll. Sure he might be able to provide a fact I haven't considered, which could change my mind, but such a thing is in the realm of unknown unknowns for me.
meilodasreh is often enough complaining or making digs at it so it is HIS issue as well.
0 -
Just now, theFlu said:
I can try: "In Valheim, players are able to get all the water they need from the nearby lake."
@meilodasreh could simply answer this question: "If TFP changed the game so you would get filled water jars when scooping up water from a lake but you still never found nor could create empty jars, would then ALL of your immersion issues with the water changes be solved?"
If he said yes, then you are right and meilodasreh's post is just (sort of) hitting on a bag of changes without being to careful what he hits. If no, this isn't the only thing meilodasreh thinks is wrong with water in 7d2d
0 -
In previous alphas that request came up from time to time. But TFP added an option to spawn near death location in A21, so at least for me 80% of the usefulness of your idea is already covered by that. And we safely can ignore any concerns of "if you don't make it back you lose all of it"
Another thing to consider is that bedrolls also prevent zombies from spawning, making it possible to use a POI as a home base. If you could have infinite bedrolls with that mechanic in place it would be quite OP.
1 -
18 hours ago, meilodasreh said:
Especially in an "urban postapocalyptic suvival situation" - which obviously is exactly the theme of 7D2D - there should be an overabundance of empty ( or reusable full) containers which could be found all over the place, and you'd have no problem to get these (emtpy bottles and alike) and use them to collect water, fuel, and whatever other fluids you want and take it with you.
That obvious break of logic is what bugs people.
If you really think this is true then you should also find dozens of threads in the Valheim forums where they complain about missing food containers like bowls or plates. See https://valheim.fandom.com/wiki/Food, you can see that the icons do have containers like cups and bowls. My search for "valheim forum missing containers" got zero applicable results though. And you probably won't claim that valheim is not survival, right?
Can you explain why there seems to be no discussion among valheim players about this?
0 -
Youtubers not only have to play for their own fun, they always need to entertain their audience. And that influences very much what they show.
Do youtubers show stealth clearing of POIs? Because that is a much slower way and is probably unpopular to be shown as well. Doesn't mean that there can't be lots of players (like me) who have fun playing a stealthy character.
0 -
6 hours ago, theFlu said:
understand it just fine, I'm trying to get through to you that the OP here wasn't complaining about 1), he's complaining about 2), in all caps no less. Your counterpoint of "bet you didn't notice gas cans aren't there either" is counterproductive and only served to confuse the discussion. At this stage it feels intentional.
No, he is complaining about both. And I could offer a few quotes but they stick out quite well, just reread his posts. Now would you please stop acting as his spokesperson, if he feels misrepresented he can and should speak for himself.
And I think we disected this issue enough, so I am out.
1 -
10 hours ago, Hellox said:
The issue with turrets and P.O.I's is having to pick up and reload to place back down in hopes the zombies do not run past the turrets or out of range.
its time consuming and forces inventory management in middle of fight. Its unfun.
I can only speak for myself, but I do feel both, the unfun of placing and recollecting the turrets and the fun of letting the turrets do the damage while I throw zombies around through the air.
The obvious solution of making the turrets follow is probably too OP and also has the pathfinding problem. The latter is why TFP opted for (flying) drones as companions. It also would remove a lot of what makes INT fighting distinct to fighting with guns.
One change I would be fine with would be increasing the ammo capacity as currently the ammo is so expensive that an unlimited ammo capacity would not make the turrets suddenly OP. Though that would make turrets in horde night even stronger, so uuuh, maybe not.
Maybe increasing ammo capacity OR decreasing ammo cost could be a perk bonus, so it really only works for the INT player and makes the robotic perk more valuable. One poster on this site is often complaining that it is too easy for non-INT players to use the turrets for additional damage and crowd control without any investment in INT.
0 -
2 hours ago, theFlu said:
And then you have to imagine that your character _just won't_, when it comes to lakes?
Filling a nonexistent jar from a toilet bowl is "fine and unrealistic", but filling a nonexistent jar from a lake would be "wrong", how?
I see I couldn't explain it for you to understand: For me the water changes we are talking about are two distinct changes with two distinct main reasons:
1) Removing jars from the game. Reason: TFP wanted all containers equally gone, no-shows, not simulated. A clean-up
2) Preventing the player from getting water from lakes except by drinking with heavy side effects. Reason: They wanted water to be scarce in early game and for the player to overcome this shortage over some time.
Note that each one of the changes is independent enough to be realized without the other:
1) You could have jars removed but using E on a lake would create say 10 units of water in your inventory. Just like E on a gasoline pump gives you a few units of gasoline.
2) Or the other way round you could have unlimited water jars like in A20 and just not be able to fill them from lakes or snow (in this case the dew collector would be slightly different, it would need you to insert empty jars to be filled).
I was talking about the first change and it clearly is not unrealistic but just leaving the details to your imagination. Many of you want to talk about the second change because it irks you, but then you pounce on the vanishing jars instead. That will only muddy the issues and not help you.
This is as if I wanted to have a broken thermometer fixed but complained about the bad weather.
1 -
11 hours ago, theFlu said:
Jar simulation type 1: "No simulation" == not realistic at all
Actually you are right, but that unrealism is the only reason you can run a game on a computer. Any game that is not the matrix is bound to have a lot of that type of unrealism. It also makes games fun. Think of a SF game where you have to fly months to a distant planet and it did actually simulate time.
For me that is a very different type of unrealism, the unrealism of you having to fill in the blanks. There is no jars, you have to imagine you are filling the water into containers.
This is similar to the unrealism of a book, which is as far from "your" realism as possible, where you have to fill in the blanks. But your imagination can be as realistic as you want.
This is different from an inconsistency to reality (not being able to get water from a lake is such an inconsistency, as would be a forced single jar) for example which makes it hard to imagine the realism.
1 -
5 hours ago, Rotor said:
Maybe the intent is not to make it harder but, once again, force you back to the trader.
Maybe that you find it easy is because you are a veteran?
All alphas at least since A17 had been much much harder in their 0 version and were dimmed down heavily. Just as if the developers had balanced the game for the testers, who naturally are veterans as well. Then the game gets the exposure to the general public where veterans are a minority and suddenly the game gets trimmed down for Joe Average who is say 80% novice and 20% veteran-like.
4 minutes ago, Rotor said:If you understand that there is no jar even before you drink a jar of water then you understand the non-simulation of jars in 7D2D 😉
1
Arrows/Archery issue or bug?
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by meganoth (see edit history)
Thanks. It means longer ranges are impossible to test. But we are talking about short range now anyway.
Another thought (untested, from memory): I have the impression that zombies standing up seem to be invulnerable to melee weapons as well. But one possibility would be that they are not, but there is simply no hit feedback as there is no animation for this available. So standing up has always to conclude before the zombie can show anything happening to him.