Jump to content

Liesel Weppen

Members
  • Posts

    1,413
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Liesel Weppen

  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.
  16. Was discussed already dozens of times. I also dislike that both a specific single melee and a ranged weapon is tied to each "class" and so "forces" you to use this combinations or to be inefficient with the skill points. The main problem imho is, that the base attributes (str, for, agi, ....) give huge buffs to specific weapons, probably even more powerful than the weapon specific skill. E.g. strength gives %5 dismember chance and 200% headshot damage to shotguns while boomstike gives 10% more damage, 10% reload speed and 10% fire rate. My solution would be that the base attributes should give generic buffs. E.g. strenght 10% damage to ALL melee and ranged weapons, agility 10% firerate for also both melee and ranged, fortitude 10% reload speed to ranged and 10% less stamina usage to melee, perception 10% headshot damage, intelligenze reduce durability loss for all weapons/tools by 10%. The weapon specific skills are still tied to the base attributes and you still need to put points into them for accessing the specific weapon skill but they have a generic use then. When a player wants to combine clubs and automatic weapons both strength and fortitude will affect both clubs and automatics. Also for example agility is then (still) usefull for building a fast character that can use every weapon also faster but not forced to specific weapons in general. And i see the multiplayer aspect of dividing the skills among the players. We also did that all the time for the utility skills, because it is more efficient, BUT: The miner skills into strength, he also has to become the chef, no matter if he likes it or not. The looter skills into perception. The player that skills agility becomes the solo-multiplayer, because his skills are absolutely useless for a group, however he can do quests solo. The fortitude player is somehow a tank but mostly he has to care for raw food (farming and hunting), however he probably needs the perception-player for hunting, because he has the animal tracker. And finally the builder of the group skills into intelligence but with his stun batons and auto turrets, he can almost do nothing during bloodmoons. So, yeah, somehow "classes"... but badly organized classes. And the weapon binding makes it even worse. Why has the miner to use shotguns and clubs? Just because strength itself buffs shotguns and clubs directly... How do you want to remap the perks? Moving boomstick to perception doesn't really solve anything. What has to be changed are the base attributes. And of course this is modable. That's nice, but also the vanilla settings should contain some logic and the skill system as it is is just broken. (imho the result if one single person decides how it has to look like and bases that only on how he himself prefers to play the game 😇)
  17. I'm a software developer 🤣 This option is only relevant for the dedicated server, because an ingame host with no player "online" makes no sense at all. So basically, change the condition to (not) stop time, add to serverconfig.xml (hopefully you are using a generic XML-parser, then it is really not a big deal) and done. No need for any GUI changes and half of your reply can be dropped completely. Ok, there is further effort for testing... but this should really not be a big deal.
  18. I think you didn't understand my post completely. I'm a little ambivalent about this, because on the one hand i assume that would be an (technically) easy change and easy to add as an option and my general opinion is "if people want to "break" their game, let them do so". on the other hand the game IS completely unbalanced if time keeps running. So you are requesting a change that is completely against on how the game is supposed to work. But the devs understandably follow a plan on how the game should work and don't care for corner case settings like your request, especially if this change breaks basically everything. But because this should be a very little change, i assume one of the dev should be able to "implement" this easily in (far) less than 1 hour of work. Pretty sure it's just remove the check that stops the time if no player is online from the source... done... If my assumption is correct, for gods sake simply add that f*cking option. Wasted 3 hours of discussion and probably even more thinking about it for a change that takes only 10 minutes. Maybe someone can even disassemble the binary, find the correct jump instruction, hex-edit it to "jump not"... could probably work. 🤣
  19. I also like to have this option. If read several request like that over the last few years. However i somehow understand why it is not implemented. The balancing is aligned around the bloodmoon. At first, if time keeps running on a server, this would allow players to skip every bloodmoon. And it will screw "timing". With the default 60min day and horde every sunday a bloodmoon would occur every 7 hours, so even varying in time. So you might play several realtime days and not encounter a single bloodmoon by accident and next time you log on you will probably join directly into a bloodmoon, which might cause problems. The crafting times are also somehow a limit between bloodmoons. You should not be able to craft unlimited amounts of whatever between two bloodmoons. At least you need to scale by using more forges/workbenches/chems/etc. On the other hand, if everything is balanced around the bloodmoons, why is there an option to turn bloodmoons off. If a player intentionally wants to screw all balancing, let him do so. Imho letting time running with no player would require a complete rebalance of the game. With the current values, it would be massively overpowered and so you can indeed also use creative menu to cheat yourself 10 stacks directly of 7,62 instead of craft them with a 10 hour job and search for ways how to exploit these 10h.
  20. Since he initially said an update would preferably avoided, i guess he want to spend as few money as possible. In general i'd recommend going for at least 16GB too, but in that case i'd keep the invest into this crappy laptop to a minimum. That's why i suggested only adding another 4GB for just 20$ IF one slot is still free. If there are 2x2GB equipped.. yeah, either dump the laptop immediately or go for 2x8GB directly.
  21. Total: 42980.155900 ms (FindLiveObjects: 2418.240400 ms CreateObjectMapping: 15.972600 ms MarkObjects: 35638.488900 ms DeleteObjects: 4907.453400 ms) But the log says the client was busy for everlasting 43 seconds! If the client is unable to keep up connection during this, it's much more than just 2 seconds. No wonder there is a timeout then. I can not clearly see from the log, but it may also happen, that the client closes the connection due to timeout. If that's the case a setting on the server wouldn't even help. Sadly it's still not an explanation why it didn't happen on the old server. Maybe you can start the old host again and check the logs with this again?
  22. Only 4GB RAM is a huge issue for 7D2D. You can be happy that the game runs at all, even with just a 4K map. Even 8GB can be scarce. I'd estimate that your friends PC is already using the swap file massively. From the specs, this is most likely also just an HDD? If he's lucky, with just 4GB there is only one DIMM installed in his 2 slots (and unluckely so he's not even using dual channel). Adding another 4GB would be a huge improvement for just ~20-25$ and also allow to run dual channel. Of course still doesn't explain why it worked when connected to the other host. You could add the server log, and probably also the client log. Perhaps something can be seen in the logs.
  23. I guess your friend with the weak PC was not the host? Then i wonder why he wasn't disconnected when playing on an ingame-host... Did you check the ping times to the server... most likely for both the previous ingame host and the new dedicated server? If you explicitely mention a weak PC as reason for a problem, it would be always a good idea to name the specs of this system.
  24. Yes it is. If there is a sleeping bag or a lcb inside the poi-area, you can't start the quest, so it does not reset. Instead you get a message, that the quest can not be started, because there is a lcb or sleeping bag inside. You can easily test this yourself. Take a random quest, place an lcb at the poi, try to start the quest.
  25. No, essential difference: They support restarting SERVICES, not regular programs. As you said yourself: You need to run the program as a service, which is a pain in the ass for a regular app itself, too. (Probably less on Linux but a VERY big PITA on Windows, even the built in "runasservice" in Windows is pure @%$#) However it is in theory not complicated for regular apps to check if they are running and simply restart them if necessary. But for that case, there is no out-of-the-box solution.
×
×
  • Create New...