Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

52 Shiny

About BobTheBard

  • Rank
  1. There's an easy reason for that, and that's because some recipes actually require murky water. Not only that, but murky water stacks a lot higher. So not only does it save a recipe in the XML files but it potentially saves fuel so you don't leave a fire going with full output slots.
  2. I tend to see it this way too, as an abstraction. Just because a box is sealed doesn't mean it contains things that are useful or fresh - A sealed box of food might have gone off, been infested by bugs, or had rats get into it, rendering it inedible or already eaten. A sealed box of medicine or untouched pill rack may contain medications that could be dangerous or may treat conditions you don't have, and besides, what regular person knows what a bottle of chlorthalidone pills even does without having to look it up? A box from a hardware store or auto shop might include such finds as plastic funnels or seat belt extenders.
  3. Gonna have to say it looks a little silly to turn loot all the way down then complain about not finding any loot. Plus, as Roland mentioned, emergencies do really strange things to supply and availability. Maybe panicky shoppers already cleaned out that pharmacy.
  4. Forest biome is my usual holdout spot on Navezgane, simply because it has the nicest average temperature. On random servers I tend to set up in the first nice-looking spot I find regardless of biome, though I tend to avoid setting up in snowy areas unless I can't find any water or luck into some really nice cold-weather gear early on.
  5. Correct. Shotgun turrets are technically traps. The junk turret is technically a personal weapon. You can tell this because of the skills you need to make and use them - The junk turret is Intellect's ranged personal weapon (every stat has one) and has its own stat to match, while the shotgun turret requires the same skill to build and use as dart traps and blade traps.. I also understand that you've put so much effort into this argument and stretched so many reasons up to and beyond the breaking point (while criticizing others for it, amusingly) that there's no way you will ever realize that you're not saving us from a giant, you're just tilting at windmills. Ride on, brave knight. Just don't get your lance stuck in the sails.
  6. I just hope they don't start to refine it, encounter a problem, and decide to change it again. So in that sense, I'm happy with them refining the perk system over bringing LBD back. Forward motion is forward motion. I'll even forgive them the AI debacle of A17, since I know that was testing AI for an upcoming enemy type. I just hope that the team is happy with the current underpinnings and direction and can start moving forward instead of taking steps sideways. Speaking of taking steps sideways, I think this debate (or at least my role in it) has run its course. Hopefully I've communicated my concern clearly enough, and further, that a concern is all it is. Something to think about and consider. The only action I'm insisting on is that the game keeps moving forward.
  7. Thank you. People are getting too hung up on the dead horse. This has nothing to do with LBD except as an example of a pattern of behavior that is worrisome. You're also missing the point. The point is really quite simple, it's worrying that if these major changes continue happening there will never be a finished product to pick up, or at the very least it will happen so far into the future that few of us will still be here to see it. To repeat myself: I'm worried about a cycle of making new systems, testing them, balancing them, then getting rid of them for something new, over and over again. That's the difference between forward development and sideways development, and the real core of my point. That's what I'm worrying about. As I've said many times, I don't particularly care about LBD or the perk system anymore. As for your last two lines, please. The 'If you don't like it then GTFO' attitude is terribly unprofessional coming from a community moderator. Criticism is going to happen, and attitudes like that only make the people who post it more argumentative and hostile. After all, if a mod does it, it must be okay, right?
  8. This confirms for me that Theory #2 is the correct one. As for LBD specifically, I'd argue that it was a major system whether or not the developers agree. They put three years of work into it then just got rid of it for a sidegrade rather than an upgrade. Them not considering it a major or important system and just tossing it aside casually when it was a significant part of the game for so long actually worries me a little more that the game will be in perpetual alpha, though I am encouraged by the steady progress we've been seeing since A18. Guess we'll see if the optimist or pessimist is right.
  9. Did you see my post where I did all the math showing that junk turrets are objectively bad weapons until you max them out, and that maxing them out only just brings them up to the same level as pistols? I've submitted facts into this argument now, so waving your arms and yelling about them being 'overpowered' isn't going to cut it anymore. You're going to need facts to back you up, too. Let's see 'em. I begin to suspect that your problem with junk turrets has nothing to do with them being 'overpowered' but with them not fitting your idea of a zombie game. And you know what? That's fine. It's a lot more reasonable than the way you're presenting your opinion now. If they don't fit with your idea of a zombie game and you think they diminish the experience, just don't use 'em. But don't try to cast them as some great exploit or cheat, because they're not - They're a fairly weak (mathematically speaking) weapon choice that's only situationally useful, albeit rather good in the situation they're meant to be good in. That's all, no more, no less.
  10. Given that the main reason I use mods is to see food, water, and temperature on the HUD, all I can say is 'This is definitely a step in the right direction.'
  11. I didn't forget it so much as I would consider it a different phrasing of #2. While it's definitely better to ditch a core system a dev doesn't like during Early Access than after release (looking at you Stellaris) at some point you have to look at it, consider it good enough, and move on. Continuously implementing, overhauling, and removing major systems leads to the same end result as not knowing what systems you want or need in the first place - The game is always changing in large, unpredictable ways and the development process is incredibly long. I misspoke, perhaps, what I should have called it was a core system. Whether the developers thought that about LBD or not, it was a core system and a central element of the game since it was the entire progression system, one of the key systems that filters and adjusts the player's interaction with every other system. To go back to Stellaris again, it's like saying that the transition from three selectable interstellar transportation options (Hyperlane, Wormhole, Jump) to just one, with elements of the other two (Hyperlane only, with static wormholes and expensive, unlockable, slow-charging jump drives) wasn't that big of a deal because it didn't change any of the broader ideas of the game. In practice though it was one of the biggest changes they've ever made to that game, and they have made a lot of them. Now I don't think the removal of the hybrid LBD system and its replacement by the perk system was as big of a change as the one I just mentioned, but it was still a pretty significant shift and caused major changes in how many people approached the game. Ultimately though, I don't have a horse in the LBD/Perk discussion anymore, just a preference. It was more an easy way to illustrate the concept I was talking about.
  12. As one of the more generally critical people, let me try to summarize the position with less name-calling and insults than are typically thrown around. I believe the fundamental difference here is progress. Are the developers making consistent, steady progress towards finishing the game? I can forgive a long development cycle as long as I'm seeing steady movement forward. So why am I critical when the game is still being routinely and regularly updated (after the long gap during A16)? That's because, not knowing the ultimate goals of the designers, I see a lot of the recent changes and updates as sideways movement rather than forward movement. The biggest example of this was, to point to a dead and well-beaten horse that we don't need to debate in this thread, the removal of LBD and addition of the stats-and-perks system. That was a huge change to the fundamental nature of the game, one that would have to be balanced, rebalanced, and re-rebalanced for a long time, and one that didn't ultimately make any progress towards getting the game any more finished. Changing such a core element of the game this late into development, alpha or not, makes some of us nervous as we might interpret it in a number of ways: 1) The developers don't really have a set vision for what they want the game to be. A vision that isn't well-defined means that the game is prone to changing at any time and will likely never be finished because there's literally no endpoint. You can't call a game finished unless you know what it's supposed to be when it's done. 2) The developers have a strong vision, but no solid outline for how they intend to achieve it. This leads to a perpetual alpha as new systems are designed, tried out, and discarded in a seemingly-endless cycle and ultimately concludes in the game being trapped in Development Purgatory. It's like building a house without blueprints. 3) The developers spent a large amount of time making and balancing a system that was ultimately just a placeholder for a simpler, more easily-designed system. This is a troublesome sign because it's incredibly wasteful and inefficient to design such an intricate, complicated system for something you never intended to be permanent. My personal opinion tends to sit with #2. I think the developers know what kind of game they want to make, but either aren't sure how to get there or had a collective change in design philosophy in the year-long gap between A16.3 and A17. I see a lot of new ideas being tried - the scent system of earlier alphas, the removal of LBD for skills and perks, the shift from wandering zombies to sleepers, the infamous homing architect zombie AI of A17, the segregation of playstyles, the addition, removal, and re-addition of schematics, the Behemoth and Demolishers, the dungeonization of POIs. All this speaks to me of a dev team that really cares about their game and has a solid idea what they want from it in a broad sense, but doesn't have a straight path from the current build to the final build. Whether that be because the path was never straight or because the final target moved, I can't say. That said, I think if a change did occur it happened during the gap between A16.3 and A17, since the dev team has made steady if staggered progress in a specific direction since the rocky launch of A17.
  13. This. The whole 'Early Access' craze, combined with crowdfunding and general overuse, has made the terms Alpha, Beta, and Release largely meaningless in the videogame industry since the definition of what is an alpha, what is a beta, and what is released vary from game to game, largely in accordance with whatever that developer happens to think of the terms. As an example, I remember RimWorld going from alpha to beta to release without changing in any significant way (visible to the player at least) beyond gaining more features and becoming more stable. I remember DOTA 2 staying in beta for a few months, changing little, then releasing before it was finished. I've seen Stellaris change more after being released than most alpha games do in their entire development cycle. To a jaded person like me those terms have become basically meaningless, especially when it comes to trying to dismiss complaints. Fact is, the game's been taking money from customers and giving them a product for six years now, which is longer than both RimWorld and Stellaris (DOTA 2 is technically free to play). I'm not gonna say the product is or is not worth it, but I am gonna say that people shouldn't try to use the development process as a shield against criticism when a developer has been selling their game for that long.
  14. Something to consider is that for a lot of things - weapons, tools, armor - you only ever need one of them at a high quality. It's pointless to craft any more than that. So the current crafting system as a perk tree is mainly for repetitive crafting, making things you're going to make a lot of, like ammunition, construction materials, traps, etc. While I feel this diminishes the use of crafting as a playstyle, it is how it is for a reason.
  15. Going to address your post a bit out of order here. I reckon most Tier 5 weapon skills are pretty effective. Also, 'From what I hear' suggests you don't actually have a lot of personal experience with this, yet you talk like you're an authority on it. So basically what you're saying is 'never innovate.' Also, how do you know 'everybody' is using them? This thread is full of people saying they either never use them or only use them situationally. Do you play a lot of multiplayer that you'd be able to see everyone using them? Or is this just more conjecture? For my part I can only speak for myself, but I don't really use them. More speculation. Let's not complain about things going in the game because of what they might do, yeah? We have the barest framework of a feature and you're already trying to use it to discredit current gameplay elements that are only tangentially related. Now the main meat of things. That seems more like an issue with the settings than with the turrets. On normal difficulty settings most weapons don't need to worry about knockdown chance because they just one-shot the zombie. This only gets more true as the difficulty gets lower. As for clearing POIs 100% safely, most players with any playtime in this game can do that already because it's not very hard. I've done Tier 5 POIs on default difficulty with a wooden club and primitive bow, looting new weapons as I go. The over-reliance on and predictability of sleepers and the power of some low-level perks, especially regenerating health, renders this task 'not very difficult.' It also costs less than using scrap iron to reload a turret. As for turrets themselves, let's have a peek. Disclaimer: I did not add in damage bonuses from mods or from the base attribute, as they are (if I remember correctly) the same across all weapons and therefore functionally irrelevant. First, their base damage. I went into an unmodded game and grabbed a few weapons for testing. All weapons are Q5, the highest craftable level. Turret: 15 damage, 109 rounds/min, Range 8 Pistol: 42 damage, 182 rounds/min, Range 21 M60: 58 damage, 455 rounds/'min, Range 59 So as a baseline, if we have two turrets (one held, one placed) then two junk turrets are weaker than a standard pistol (doing 15 damage at 218 rounds/min, for an average damage output of 52 DPS vs. a pistol's 42/182 = 127.4 DPS) at a range just longer than that of a pump shotgun. Considering the amount of 9mm ammo the average player is going to be drowning in if they're a busy scavenger and aren't incredibly wasteful, this is underwhelming. The M60 outright humiliates it, doing a blistering 58/455 = 440 DPS. But wait, what about with skills? Well, I'm glad you asked. Let's look at them. Turrets at Tier 5 gain 40% damage, 120% rate of fire, and 9 range, and you can use another one. Pistols at Tier 5 gain 50% damage and 25% rate of fire, and every third consecutive shot deals 100% more damage (which, for our purposes, will factor in as an extra 33% damage bonus). M60s at Tier 5 gain 50% damage and 25% rate of fire. The stamina recovery isn't important for our purposes. Modifying our previous numbers... Turret: (15*1.4)=21 damage, (109*2.2)=239.8 rounds/min, Range 17 Pistol: (42*(1.5+1.33))=76.86 damage, (182*1.25)=227.5 rounds/min, Range 21 M60: (58*1.5)=85 damage, (455*1.25)=568.75 rounds/min, Range 59. And now we re-do our math. Turrets now get multiplied by three (2 placed, 1 held) to get us 21 damage at a staggering 719.4 rounds/min, for 251.79 damage per second. An impressive boost! How does that compare to the pistol and the M60? Surprisingly, it's still losing to all of its counterparts. The pistol is now doing an aggregated damage of 76.86 damage at 227.5 rounds/min, which means it's doing 291.4 damage per second, and the M60? Hahahaha. The M60 is doing 805.7 damage per second. Not even a contest. So we've established mathematically that, of the three contenders, the junk turret is the weakest. It also requires the most effort to manage, since you're juggling three turrets, two of which can't move, that all have to be reloaded periodically. This, importantly, deprives the player of their mobility - Wherever they are, they're stuck there or they have to abandon their two placed turrets. The pistol and M60 are both completely mobile by contrast. So what's the junk turret's advantage? It's cheap. But here's the other interesting thing - The higher you level them the more expensive they get since the main increase in their damage is the volume of shots. It's still cheap by comparison, of course, but it's not a non-zero cost anymore. Something to keep in mind, eh? The numbers don't lie, turrets aren't as almighty as you seem to think they are. Yes, turrets knock targets down easily, but other weapons just kill them, and a dead enemy is better than a stunned one. Also to the point, you can't start taking bonuses to turrets until Intelligence 6, by which time you'd have level 3 of any other weapon perk. I'd say they're in line with other primary weapons.
  • Create New...