meganoth

This is known behaviour that will likely not be changed or fixed. There are so many POIs available, finding unlooted ones is usually no problem, so you hardly get loot that you couldn't get next door as well.

Ah, you could be right. We have something similar with armor values approaching 100%. A reduction of buy prices by 25% is equivalent to an increase in sell prices by 33% A reduction of buy prices by 50% is equivalent to an increase in sell prices by 100% And 75% is equivalent to 200% and so on.

You are really late to the party, we already discussed the effects of those items. And you are also partly wrong (if I understand your statement correctly), since all those items are available to everyone they tend to diminish the relative effect BB has.

My group plays with default distance rules and I don't remember the others ever asking for a change of that. Often someone is a bit behind or ahead in levels but the usual reaction is that the others suggest upgrading of blocks or drinking an xp potion on horde night. If someone is lagging behind and gets into trouble with zombies just give him the best equipment. Problem solved, in a co-op game.

"1/2 + 1/2" and "0.5 + 0.5" are both mathematically accurate ways of saying the same thing, but sometimes one way has advantages over the other. In this case I was of the opinion that transforming the buy/sell bonus into the more common buy bonus all the other bonuses adhered to was an advantage. If we were writing a "Howto play 7D2D" then yes, going into details that much and converting numbers would be the wrong way and confusing to readers. But where is the danger of misinterpreting things when we were just discussing it and both knew what the numbers mean? At least in the wikipedia definition (for what its worth) of "straw man argument" I don't read anything about intent. But straw man is often used as an accusation of intentionally and unfair debating. Let me say again I didn't mean that you were doing it intentionally and I'll take it back. "I don't believe you" is not an insinuation, as well as "I disagree". Perfectly harmless. Notice both sentences are about what you think. But "And trying to cherry pick such an example just demonstrates how far you have to and are willing to reach to 'win' an argument." is a direct attack and interpreting motivations into statements I made. Notice how you claim to know what I thought. And that is not logical as you can not predict from a statement whether it was made with intent to deceive, or from error of judgement, or using wrong facts, and there is even the possibility that it is you who might be wrong. This was not a logical deduction from facts of the topic at hand. Now I'm not perfect as well, I sometimes use imprecise language in argument, especially in a language not my own. It might lead to misunderstandings like ours.

I see that the game protests that it can't connect to steam. Are you starting the game from the command line without starting steam? If yes, start the game directly from steam and see if it changes anything. I also see error messages about Direct3D. Maybe you should check if your D3D installation is working correctly and that you have a recent graphics driver installed. Did the game clear your inventory again when you played the game today and created this logfile ?

And again you need to post a logfile that shows the issue. And please use pastebin just like the pinned thread says.

It seems $MetabolismDuration is the value that is subtracted each second or tick from any buff durations like $buffRedTeaDuration in buffs.xml, this is why lower values are better. When you drink the tea, a line in items.xml for RedTea and Puremineralwater sets $buffRedTeaDuration to 303 (does that mean seconds aka 5 minutes? **The wiki says the duration should be 4 minutes!? Strange fact nr.1** Now each tick or second the value of $MetabolismDuration is substracted from $buffRedTeaDuration. With no Metabolism perk at all 1 would be substracted, making the duration 5 minutes. With fully perked Metabolism that value would be .5 which should double the duration to 10 minutes. In the display the duration is calculated as $buffRedTeaDuration divided by $MetabolismDuration. **The games description of fully perked Metabolism says it makes drugs last 50% longer, not 100% longer!? Strange fact nr.2** So probably I misinterpreted some details here and have to check in detail where I've gone wrong. But apart from those details I think I got the mechanism right. So just decrease those numbers in perkMetabolism further and the duration should go up.

Or renamed to "Why creative menue is called creative" 😁

You beat me to it. Don't trust CM. When I tried to test damage values and ranges in A19 I simply used a couple of workbenches (benches and materials through CM) and built the items. That way you can't test quality6 items unmodded, but for a distribution test it should suffice and it is totally vanilla.

You can find the player NAME in the players.xml file: <player platform="EOS" userid="0002e6305738590395739af98e" playername="somenamehecalledhimself" lastlogin="2022-01-23 00:28:15"> The playername can also be found in the Player/EOS......ttp file near the start of the file. If you need a EOS->steam mapping you probably have to look inside the logfile. If you search for the string "PlayerName authorization successful" you get all 3 ids in one line

Arrgh, my fault. It seems I had completely turned off the part of my mind that can read a picture as sideways and not top down 🙄

So how do you do the repairing from 50 blocks away? 😉 Seriously, I assume you think of some secondary outer wall whose inside you might let zombies in and then clean with explosives? Then when cleared, repair again? If you use frag rocket ammo (which you really should if you want to harm zombies at all) it means 20 or perked and with a good weapon about 40 damage per rocket (and I don't know if that diminishes with distance?). At that time you would be using at least concrete blocks with 5000 HPs. Thats a lot of rockets. And if that block breaks the wall isn't even breached. The only danger mentioned by Bisc... is that you might need the SI of that block. But who would be staking the stability of his structures on an outer wall block easily in reach of approaching zombies? It might run counter to the expectation of players though.

I interpret White-Gandalfs post differently: He seems to say that whenever you start the game (not reload the same savegame from a backup) that it also uses the same starting seed for looting. I.e. in a continuous series of normally playing a game the seed is always the same when you start the game on the computer. That is unproblematic in normal use because people tend to start and stop the game at random in-game times. But assume a player who always stopped playing at nightfall or morning and as the first action on starting a new session would always visit the trader in the morning. He would suddenly always get the same stuff in the vending machine because of the same starting seed. Or someone usually logging off immediately at 4 am on a horde night and leaving the bag looting for the next session. He would get the same stuff in the loot bags until his lootstage crosses over to new loot tables. If it does happen that way it definitely is not a serious issue but could be considered a bug.

Opps, sorry, didn't see your reply. I don't know CentOS in detail, but it may be that you simply have to open ports in the machines firewall. to check if the ports are open you can install "nmap" on the centos or any other linux machine and execute nmap -p1-65536 <serverip> in the shell. It should show an open port 26900 if you didn't change the default port number

Thanks for the compliment. As to the cause of the crashes, it isn't anything simple. My friends and I myself did not need to do a reinstall for A20.1. Most people don't. And some other players do have crashes in A20.1 that can't be fixed by a reinstall.

Where are you standing in this picture? If inside the cage then why are you trying to detonate stuff there?

Very well, I'll try one more time. AFAIK straw man arguments do not assume intend by the way, so a misunderstanding is perfectly viable as the basis for a following straw man argumentation. One thing that happened is that I made a limited claim where you then assumed there were no limits. The 66% number is and always was just meant to mean the limited bonus for the case that someone sold and bought items with full BB, it was meant as the basis of a more accurate estimation of the bonus an INT player would get fully perked. I never said it was a general bonus an average player would see. Also that I disagreed with your 25% and said the bonus was more like 50% was me correcting a number I thought did not give the whole picture (more about that below), it did not automatically mean that INT was underpowered at 25% or overpowered at 50%. I got the impression that INT is OP mainly from playing myself and from other posters on the forum or friends who valued INT as good or better as STR, at least for experienced players. So what exactly did I claim: I made the initial claim that the full BB bonus is approximately 50% for an average player. This is actually not true (as I found out when we discussed it) as it needs Daring Adventurer as well. So the correct statement after I did some more accurate estimations I made, would be now that the full INT trade perks bonus would be approximately but definitely less than 50% for an average player. (And yes, I know that daring only gives 20% at full perk, but it also gives two rewards to sell which makes the total bonus more than 20%). Now you are correct that we could call the bonus of say 45% a buy/sell bonus of 22.5% and the game does exactly that with the expection of one pie. BUT a buy/sell bonus is uncommon in the real world where most trade is one-way, we always buy stuff and get a rebate of 3% for example, or some item costs 40% less in a sale. But even more importantly, other bonuses in the game are one way as well, the bonus on mining is say 5% on what you get out of the earth, you don't put stuff back into the earth with a 5% bonus. The bonus on farming is one-way, the bonus of perks on weapon damage or range is one way, ALL other perk advantages (if I haven't overlooked something) are one-way, all resource-getting bonuses especially are all one-way. The only percentage in the game beside BB that is really both ways is the difficulty setting which applies the bonus to both zombie and inversely to player damage. And this is why I made the point of translating the bonus BB gives so that the number is comparable to other bonuses in the game. And sure, a mining percentage bonus still can't be trivially compared to a buy percentage bonus, but it is a better foundation for comparison. This is no spin, no desperate attempt at getting higher numbers, this is my honest opinion, that this is the right way to view it in comparison to other perks. My current answer would be "I don't know". I think the trader generally is too central, important and OP in the game, but as I already acknowledged it is perfectly possible that the trade bonuses INT gives is overkill for utilizing the OP trader. And I myself always put my first point into DA, but seldom one in BB (but I tend to not play the "trader mini game", i.e. I usually don't put much effort in getting best prices and amass lots of money since I prefer to find useful stuff while scrouncing instead of buying). Yes. Too central and OP. For various reasons. I think I answered this above, hopefully. And you repeatedly insinuated lots of motivations to why I say this or that. Is insinuation/innuendo still passive aggressive or already aggressive? It's a bad discussion style at the least.

How would you know there is no strawman? For that you would need to understand my real position. And I have been talking about the same topic again and again because I tried to rectify your misconception about what I meant and said and failed and failed again. YOU inadvertedly prompted me to stay on that side topic. Now, if you want the last word, please tell me again what I think since you seem to know it better than myself 😉 You are not my customer because I'm just a player like you. All moderators on this forum are just volunteers doing a side job of removing spam and enforcing forum rules.

"all" is definitely wrong, I have been saying I like the unreliably food and I have been using LotL1 in 2 of my games in A20. In a third game I'm not the farmer and he is at LotL2 See, what you are claiming I said is far from what I really said or meant. You are attacking straw men. Whether it is my inability to confer what I mean or your inability to read what I mean doesn't really matter. It just means we are at an impasse and there is no use to continue.

My last post was almost exclusively talking about estimations how much of the duke generation is made from buying/selling. I don't fault you for not wanting to read or understand it, this discussion is having too many tangents and details now, but don't say it isn't there. And I never did. Where does that "+" for the bonus suddenly come from? At a minimum it shows our talk isn't constructive anymore.

1) Visit the link in the blue banner above and follow its advice if you didn't already do all that. 2) Post your logfile with the error, the procedure is explained in a pinned thread here in the support section that tells you to read it.

Did you also do the launcher tools cleaning described in the link in the blue banner above? A friend of mine had frequent random crashes, but yesterday, after cleaning all settings he didn't even crash once.

I have a mathematical background, numbers are important, especially if they are facts that are the basis of later arguments. So for me it is important to say that a 25% bonus on buying and selling is effectively more than just a 25% bonus only on buying or selling. How much this influences total trade then can only be an estimation, something which we are both aware of. And for a long time I didn't even know if you were disagreeing on the BB bonus being effectively more for buying and selling or if you were only disagreeing on the (estimated) total bonus of the whole average money trade. Since I made the mistake of forgeting trader rewards I estimated other effects to be easily covered by the fact that the effective buy/sell bonus of this perk is actually more than just the sum. And now I would still say they are though it needs some help from perk points in Daring Adventurer to keep the effect somewhere in the area of 50%. Maybe 1/3rd of the income of quest rewards are in items you then sell so even in quest rewards the BB's bonus applies partly instead of the Daring bonus. And Daring gives you more choices for the most expensive item, so that should increase average bonus one gets out of Daring. And yes, I also thought about the barter bonuses from other sources, they decrease the bonus by a factor. But awesome sauce is a hard to come by end-game item (that you need highest master chef and super corn to cook them and the high bonus are indicators). The candy costs 100 coins per use so you have to pool stuff to sell and get the money later if you want to get near those 10%, and that time can be valuable as well if you can't afford an item you need or want (Your transaction volume has to be 1000 to even break even with the candy). Cheesecake only buffs buying, not selling. Without making an exact calculation I assessed (and still think) that their influence on the overall bonus you get from INT is not that big. All of them except magnum have per-use fixed costs, all except candy need recipes, books or items to use them regularily, most players won't have all bonuses available until late game. This doesn't apply to excellent min/maxers, but the typical player (including me) isn't even organized enough that he gets the theoretical limit of the bonuses of the boosters he actually has. I often just sell stuff immediately from quests while I really should put them into a chest in front of the trader and later sell with the best bonuses I can get. I don't know anyone who actually does that, i.e. save trader rewards But lets calculate the effect of those other bonus sources and see if I was totally wrong or something: Lets assume that a player can get on average 125% from boosters (with per-use costs and average availability all factored in). What does it mean for the 125% buff from the perk only the Int player gets? It is the difference between 125% and 150% and that difference (if I made no mistake) is 120% down from 125% (If we instead assumed boosters at 130% on average that difference would be 119% by the way). Recalculating the effective bonus of BB (with boosters in mind) would now land exactly on 150%. Assuming Daring being perked as well that leaves only coins you find in loot as the remaining factor, so I'd say my estimation of 150% is not too far from the truth. (And again, whether that number is too low, too high or just right for balance is another much much harder question and is highly subjective) I didn't do the math with error interval and statistical analysis, I just gave an estimation then. But neither did you do the math. We both have not the statistical data to get any somewhat dependable results for the bonus overall. And we already both talk too much even without exactly calculating every step of our estimations 😉, so we both have to rely on guesses and estimations. Me getting to different numbers than you does not mean I'm automatically wrong and you are right and we both have to do a massive glossing over the details as a neccesity. And mistakes do not show intent, except in insurance cases probably, are you by chance in that field? Would explain much 😎 Weeell, you assume yourself having higher authority because you analyse stuff for work, but it still doesn't mean that you are the arbiter of truth and especially of motives. For that you would actually have to do the work and analyse step by step, not handwave that you are right because you work in that field and I'm the culprit doing nefarious slanting. In this forum you have to reason like everyone else to make a point, which thankfully you do with a few exceptions. No, you assume, I don't remember my brain being dissected by you 😉. The effective bonus of BB for buying and selling being higher than 25% is a hard mathematical fact and it is important to me just like I have corrected everone who said that LotL1 is a net loss on average. Those are the basic facts and I'm actually astonished that a data analyst who's primary job IS to evaluate from facts to come to reliable conclusions values those facts so low. We could argue about the relative strength of attributes endlessly, lots of estimations and subjective views mostly derived from our personal play style and the few insights we get from playing with others. It would get too far from the topic of this thread as well. As you say there is also the question if it is just the trader itself that has become too central and powerful in the game with or without BB, we can agree on that. Since A18 I have never built my base more than a stones throw away from the trader and gameplay is usually very focused on doing quests and trading. Exploring the world outside of quest POIs is nearly irrelevant. I view that as detrimental to replayability, irrespective of the positive elements the trader brings to the game. It does not mean that I try to tell the devs every week this needs to change, it doesn't mean I do a campaign, post angry summaries or have a crusade running. I even sometimes appreciate that the game loop has become so easy that you don't need to remember what to do next time you start the game. One of my co-players already told me that he feels he doesn't need to mine anymore as enough materials to build a horde base and enough ammo to defend it on horde night are easily available from looting POIs and buying from the trader. No question this has a positive side compared to previous alphas where everyone had to do at least some mining and it put STR in a central position. The question is whether the pendulum swung too much in the other direction now. Agreed. Most importantly because of the exploit or trick, but also because it boosts multiplayer without need (as the same double-dipping can be done absolutely legal in MP). And sometimes it also leads to the INT player being punished for having a higher BetterBarter. It would be much better if the higher stashes simply extended lower stashes and I would guess this is probably already on TFPs to-do list somewhere, but pretty low.

Yeah that is extreme. You might make a bug report, but I'm not sure this will be changed. In your video it was dark and helmet light should not make it impossible to stealth as you otherwise can't really stealth in early game without night vision googles, which you usually only find later in the game. Players should not be forced to turn up gamma on the monitor. Maybe the immersive solution would be for TFP to implement a helmet light with color filter that isn't visible to zombies as well as white light But the main problem here probably is that you are still outside the room so the zombie is not alert. The zombie in the cubicle should (for unstealthed players) wake up when they open the door, therefore making the room and zombie alert before the door gets opened is also not a good solution. And I assume this is the reason you can break the desk without making noise because you are still outside the area where this room is made active. But don't take my word for it, only the tester and developers of TFP can really decide what is wanted or unwanted behaviour of the game. Also breaking doors