Jump to content

Liesel Weppen

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Liesel Weppen last won the day on September 18 2020

Liesel Weppen had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Liesel Weppen's Achievements

Colony Founder

Colony Founder (11/15)



  1. No, you didn't get it, and your answer proofed that again. There is a huge difference between "making equal" and make something "not feeling wasted". Combining sniper with farming is still more expensive as combining sniper with looting, because you still need to skill fortitude in addition. BUT those points needed to spent in fortitude have at least an effect for everybody then, even if they didn't intended to directly use that. You just don't like what i suggest. But ok, this disussion is over here for me. Since people ignore half posts, ignore development of the discussion and just blame "but you wrote that (and i ignore all the rest)" and in the end everybody just ended up with saying "i understand everything but you just don't like that", it makes no sense to keep going. Basically it would have been better if i dropped it once i read a restriction was seen as a feature. Over and out.
  2. *sigh* I didn't bring up "snipers". It was meganoth that led the discussion to whether those things are attributes or classes. I in opposite said, that are also not really classes. And it was meganoth that said "perception" has to be seen as the sniper class. I argued against it, that there are perks in that "class" that do absolutely not fit to a sniper. So i still have no idea what it should be, but it is not "sniper". Has nothing to do with my solution, that have been meganoth arguments to explain to my, why it is "good" as it is. I just tried to explain why this doesn't solve the issues i see and they can't be discussed away. From the ongoing discussion i'd say i want to make those "things" attributes (again) instead of classes. And remove the hardcore binding of weapons to those squrbelburp. I call these things from now on squrbelburp, because there is no word existing that can describe what they really are (in a german forum i would call them "wolpertinger"). They are not classes, they are not attributes, call them whatever you want, it is wrong anyway, because they are completely arbitrary. My problem is not that i can not cross skill. I can but it feels like wasting points, because of the design i need to spend points on squrbelburps that have absolutely no effect for me and my playstyle. I spec into e.g. strength because i want to play a shotgun, because the squrbelburp "strength" buffs shotguns directly. Now i want living of the land 4 and for that i need to level fortitude. The points put into fortitude for me are completely wasted. There is absolutely no effect i have from this points, because i don't use automatics, nor fists, and it doesn't effect my shotgun and my stun baton at all. Now if fortitude (and the other 4 squrbelburps) wouldn't buff specific weapons but give generic fortitudioic buffs like... less stamina use for weapons... or reduce recoil or whatever, these points would have and effect and not feel completely wasted (because for me it's only a skill point gate). The dead eye perk can stay under perception and also depend on the level of perception. Imho totally plausible that the perk that buffs rifles depends on perception. It's fine that you need to skill a specific attribute to get full access to a weapon specific perk and finally max it with this perk. And that still keeps your holy "archetypes". The trees would stay exactly the same, you can still try using only one branch like it is now if you are happier with others telling you how to play. I really don't get what's so hard to understand with that.
  3. Yeah, because nobody seems to understand what i'm talking about. I do not want to make them absolutely equal. See, nobody understands what i'm talking about. Also you. To answer that, read my first answers in this thread again. As we begin running in circles and it's still not understood what i'm talking about, it won't help if i repeat the same another time.
  4. A Sniper can track animals better than others? A Sniper can find better loot? A Sniper can find burried supplies easier? A Sniper can not be a good cook? A Sniper can not be a better farmer? A Sniper can not craft faster? A Sniper can not be better insulated? A Sniper can not have an iron gut? Should i continue?
  5. 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.
  6. 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. The 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. Oh, 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.
  7. 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. 🙄 You 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. I'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? For 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... You 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. Edit: "noun" is the wrong word here. "Thing" would be better. A thing is a thing. An attribute is an attribute of a thing. Not my native language but i hope you can get what i mean. 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.
  8. And that would change exactly what?
  9. I'd say you try to distract from what i'm talking about by nitpicking on slightly wrong numbers. I 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. ... I 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". Even 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... Either 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. Or 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? I 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
  10. I'd be happy if people try to understand what i'm trying to tell instead of nitpicking on some random numbers. And 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. Nope, 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.
  11. Probably not during cleaning a poi, but very relevant during bloodmoon... which as i heard is a central aspect of the game? My suggestion doesn't skill every weapon "equally". You skill for certain aspects of a weapon. It still doesn't make much sense to skill a hunting rifle for firerate. Or a shotgun for accuracy. And since many people are arguing it doesn't the effect of skilled VS non-skilled isn't that huge anyway (but it is with the current system), i'm not talking about e.g. fortitude giving a massive 50% less recoil per level, but maybe 5% or 10%... has to be balanced of course. But it affects EVERY weapon. If your prefered weapon is a shotgun, recoil might be irrelevant for you. But if you want your pistols more stable, this would be the way to go. And if you are a spray and pray player anyway, and therfore use a M60 you are probably not interested in perception which might give you headshot bonus. But you are not forced into skilling fortitude to max it.
  12. Yep, i didn't realize that you answered to NukemDed and not my post. Sorry.
  13. Only for low HP enemies. With higher level enemies and thus more HP it becomes even worse. 500hp -> no skills, 50dmg -> 10 shots 500hp -> skills, 90dmg -> 6 shots And if it is a radiated which heals himself, 10 shots with no skill might not even be enough, you most likely need 11. With the skilled weapon, there is still an overdue of 40hp damage, so 6 shots might be still enough. It's also not about ammo consumption only, it's also about time. Homeing 6 hits takes less time then 10 or 11 hits. You will not only safe ammo, but also kill faster. The difference between skilled and not skilled is MASSIVE. That's not just a slight improvement that can be easily waived in mid to endgame.
  14. 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.
  15. You're right, but that sounds little like you missunderstood my post. It's not about the exact numbers, but that the base attributes affect specific weapons, instead of giving generic buffs.
  • Create New...