Jump to content

Sawth77

Members
  • Content Count

    124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About Sawth77

  • Rank
    Hunter

Personal Information

  • Biography
    Have 7 Days on consoles, but also on PC now. Feel free to hit me up if you're interested in playing.
  • Location
    Virginia, USA
  1. That is extreme, and by its very nature the answer would be no Would point out that if someone is looking for a more immersive experience, then finding such things in random backpacks, or even boxes, would be incredibly rare. I have 2 bugout bags, one in my house and a smaller version in my car. I can tell you that there's no axes, shotguns, body armor, forges, or other such crafting tools in the kit. There is, for disclosure, a folding shovel and a length of rope in the trunk, and i have a weapon i take with me, but that's it. I doubt a large percentage of people keep even those things in their car, by default. I don't see the lack of those things, as hypothetically pointed out by Kata, as "extreme". Walked past a lot of cars with shovels and axes in them, when you weren't near a tool store or work site? Stuck in traffic, and while looking at the car beside you go "wow, that's a GREAT workbench and 22 tons of cobblestone you've got there?" That's not "extreme". That's normal for us IRL. In the 7 Days world, maybe normal *is* carrying tools around like that. I pointed out elsewhere that the overwhelming majority of people have no idea how to craft modern tools...hell, the internet/power goes out for a few minutes and people start losing their minds. But cobbling together some flat stones with a solid branch and some bindings like vines or twine isn't some huge stretch, in the absence of other implements. Personally, I'd go a step farther and put making *any* tool behind a perk you needed to learn, for the very fact that people don't normally need to do that or have the know-how to pull it off with any level of precision. *That* would be more immersive. It's also something i'd be perfectly fine with (though i'm absolutely all for level gating perks like they were in A18, which isn't necessarily popular on this message board).
  2. I actually really like the new crawler, with regards to new zombies. Sylvia, the nurse, is still my favorite overall. Also, certainly not mad at the new trader Jen. Glad she has a proper voice-over now!
  3. Being able to control the biomes via ingame adjustment, rather than through addons or mods, would be an incredibly welcome addition.
  4. I don't have a problem with the stone age as a starting point, though if you're making a "realism" argument, anyone who has tools at their house has modern implements purchased from the local home/construction store. Realistically, the mass majority of people have zero idea how to actually construct a forge, or shape metal into tools, etc. Trying to cobble together stones and sticks to make basic implements seems, at least to me, as a natural progression in crafting before you can begin cranking out better things. However, making iron tools the default starting point wouldn't be the worst thing, but as presented just comes across as wanting something more efficient at the beginning rather than having to earn it. Maybe i'm interpreting that wrong. I'd be fine with a balance of having iron tools as a default, but early on having a better than average chance to find a rusted one that's complete crap and breaks easier.
  5. I think this is a great idea. Although I'm not a fan of the demolisher (on principle, having explosive zombies just seems off to me), something akin to the behemoth style monster would be a good counter for stronger material types. Though, i would think that you'd have to make crafting anything past wood more difficult in order to balance it out. As it is, crafting flag/cobble blocks are already super easy, and if you find a working mixer early on (or can buy it at the trader) concrete blocks are possible on day 1. In order to keep people from making nigh impenetrable bases up front, it'd require some balancing, but the concept is a good one. Also, like ginger was saying, larger towns and cities would be great. Even a new prefab map that's just one huge metropolis would be a great addition. Now, if we could just get rid of that ridiculous "I hit a zombie and he starts running at me, regardless of settings" problem, we'd be golden. I absolutely hate that addition. <_<
  6. While i think i'm being really obvious, if the problem of zombies battering down your walls is a problem....why not just turn down the block damage? I completely agree a zombie crushing concrete in a couple of hits is silly, so i reduce their block damage down to 50 (or sometimes 25) percent. This, of course, doesn't stop them from getting in if you don't deal with the situation, but toning down the crazy levels of damage they can do is a relatively easy thing to do.
  7. I agree that the lower tier quests should give things relatively close, while the higher ones send you farther away (and presumably, send you into more dangerous areas). Personally, when i hit the trader, I take the quests that are closest to me first. I almost never take a quest that's 1km or farther away, until i have reliable transportation. It just takes too long to hoof it 1.8 miles and back, especially since I try to complete them in the same day they're given. Granted, that's a personal preference/limitation, but it at least makes sense to me. To piggyback on Roland's point about people just taking all short distance quests, the most immediate fix would be limiting people on the number of quests they can take per day, at least initially. Putting perks into Daring Adventurer, for a hypothetical example, could give the player additional quests they could complete per day, or see the rewards you can get before setting out. This gives you some incentive to choose a quest that would yield more useful loot, and add additional functionality to perks (or perks that could be added later on). If a player had a choice of 1 quest to undertake, it would make which one they pick all the more meaningful.
  8. Just here to echo the sentiment made not long ago about adding a toggle for the sprint function. Having to basically stop running altogether to get it to stop (and even then, sometimes when you start trying to walk, it's still in run mode for a few seconds) seems like a relatively easy fix? Otherwise, really loving 19. Thanks for a great update!
  9. On my current playthrough (map name Umbral Instability), i'm doing a str/fort build using the sledge. I keep an AK on my toolbar, and with just 1 point into LL, i find a decent amount of ammo. I typically don't buy ammo from the trader, and there's enough nodes in almost any game i've played where making ammo later on won't be a problem. Might come down to some RNG, but i've never really felt like i was at a disadvantage simply by searching for it in containers. Animals, or even wights, i'll shoot. Most other things get the hammer (unless i'm being lazy and just gun them down lol)
  10. Better have Addy Carver or i'll have to pass, just saying
  11. Gotcha, sorry if i misunderstood. Completely agree that stats should have some benefit across the board, like your arrow example. We'll see if they ever do something like that. Cheers!
  12. When you consider the basic point of stats vs weapons though, the point holds merit. While some weapons might have been more "forced" that others, I can't say that their placement doesn't make sense. Would also point out that balance can be tweaked, changed will likely be made, and so on. However, your second point is where we diverge a bit. Having strength only, for example, affect one weapon rather than all melee (or at least melee from a single weapon type, if you want to make that point) seems wrong. For example, you're working out and getting stronger, and you choose between a club and the machete. When you pick the machete up, after working with the club, you don't suddenly get weaker and can't swing as hard. You may not know it as well as the other weapon. or (in IRL terms) adjust for the weight of the weapon, but how hard you *can* swing isn't changed by switching weapons. Agility may give you faster swings, or a higher crit chance, or other perks, but switching weapons wouldn't diminish your current strength level. I agree that more than one stat could apply to weapons (see previous sentence), but having stats do an either/or wouldn't seem right (or even remotely realistic, even given the nature of the game).
  13. I completely agree. A decent setup would be letting players run through a basic tutorial about crafting, combat, and other mechanics with the end result being the "Duke of Navazgane" booting the player out of their enclave (which would give you a reason for having that note in your inventory at the start of the current game).
  14. Generally speaking, the weapon skills inside the specific trees make good sense to me. Clubs and heavy weapons use strength for better swings, etc. Personally, i'd like to see a more fluid integration of skills and weapons. This could be done more along an RPG element where weapons are their own skill tree, but you get bonuses from having the main stat associated with the weapon. You can get really good with a baseball bat, but your strength would determine how hard you can really hit something, or your fortitude would help conserve stamina per swing. Honestly, i'm still otherwise perfectly fine with the current skill tree setup. I know that's not necessarily the more popular view, but I have zero problems with skills being gated. I personally don't play an intelligence build, because i don't find it really fun. Most of the building/crafting can be found or bought through magazines, and things like concrete mix are easy enough to find and make (provided you find a functional mixer).
  15. Looks great, can't wait to see it in game!
×
×
  • Create New...