Jump to content

Diche_Bach

Members
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About Diche_Bach

  • Rank
    Refugee

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I have engaged in this and have mixed feelings about it. My only suggestion: IF a new system is implemented to deter/prevent/eliminate double looting, then it absolutely MUST! have an easy-to-use option toggle in the singleplayer game settings pane and of course for server config too. It is the DEPTH of bad business for a game developer to (a) Give a Reward in a game, then (b) Take that reward away. This has nothing to do with any particular philosophy of game design or "good user experience," it has to do with good COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT. Any time you "nerf" something which a segment of your user base regard as "canon" and which they have incorporated into their habitus for playing the game, they are going to whine about it like a Screamer at that time of month and avoiding that kind of thing is clearly a good motive. I wouldn't be surprised if this game (and EVERY game pretty much) is available on one or another "Pirate Bay" type of site, and I say that not to condone it, but simply to point out: it is IMPOSSIBLE to control the way the world uses your game. When you've given them a particular "exploity" method for using your game, it is best to never truly "take it away" and simply turn it off by default but allow them to turn it on with a ready line in a config file or even an option toggle . . . Option toggles shut up the drama queens . . .
  2. I think the game would be enriched if the programmers that handle the mob behaviors would turn their attention to the non-zombie canines and make them behave less like zombies, or at least make them behave less like zombies MORE OFTEN. As has been pointed out in more than one post in this thread already: if wolf/dog aggro behavior toward player is going to stay identical to zombie wolf/dog aggro behavior then why bother having the distinctive mob type at all? If they were to implement actual stalking and team hunting dynamics that would be fantastic, but also a much more ambitious rework.
  3. Fair enough and totally legitimate . . . In the interest or promoting more constructive discussion and perhaps promising ideas for a 'better' third take on the system(s), I quote myself from the other thread where this issue and related issues are being discussed. I have to say, the game is terrific! Apart from the fact eggs are so scarce and chicken domestication is not yet a thing, this issue with the "Stasis Zombies" inside POIs is really the first issue I've encountered with the game that struck me as rough around the edges. Even with that said it is just that it is "not polished" more than that it is horrifically bad design.
  4. If having sleepers inside structures is desirable for reasons which were obvious in past builds I can understand that. The most obvious "solution" would be that any and all sleepers ARE responsive to noise (however with caveats, see m ADDIT section below). It has to be noted that the present system DOES create breaches of immersion which look, at best comical. Check out my screen cap here: That type of thing is now going to become a very common experience for users who stop to consider how to survive with the least risk and most reward. I realize that, if ALL zombies respond to enough noise then players can "game" that system by making a bunch of noise while in safety either outside a POI structure or otherwise, but those are the breaks. Either the game is "open world" or it is "linear" and if it is one then the degree to which it can involve elements of the other while still retaining a high degree of fidelity, immersion, and fun is necessarily limited. ADDIT: one possible happy medium . . . set ALL zombies in the game to be sensitive to sensory inputs. Let us assume that the maximum level of sensory receptivity is "1000" for a wide awake monkey dude zombie roaming in the wilderness (or whichever one would represent "the most perceptive" and aware). In addition to a basic sensory receptivity threshold (1, or 10, or 50 to 1000 or whatever was appropriate) which would be compared to the level of light/noise/other the player creates, zombie "sensation" could have a second variable regulating it which would be something like "Repetition Threshold." This variable would represent how many sequential cycles the zombie would have to be exposed to a sensory signal that exceeded their threshold. 1 would be the "most alert," 10 would mean that, even if the zombies sensation threshold is "500" it needs to receive a player generated signal that is >=500 ten times in a row in order to be alerted -> this, if properly tuned, could conceivable achieve the intended purpose of the "Stasis Zombies" without making them totally insensitive to noise.
  5. Some zombies ("many" zombies? maybe "most" zombies"?) seem to have retained some of their sensory capacities from when they were alive. They seem to have something akin to vision, hearing, and perhaps smell and taste? Their reactions to being the recipient of violence also suggest they retain something akin to 'touch' and/or pain receptors. They ALSO seem to have something like hunger or longing (they seem to be looking for something when they shamble about quite often), and they also seem to experience anger or rage. Playing the game for 5 hours will present the player with COPIOUS game play and in-game tool-tip information which supports all of the above. Efforts to evade these facts by claiming that the "Zombies in Stasis Until the Player crosses a magical geographic threshold" are "the norm" are not going to dispel the inevitable user revulsion at the game mechanic. ADDIT: and it is perhaps salutary to point out that there are more than one type of "sleeper." There are sleepers standing inside a cupboard who will "behave congruently with prevailing game rules," i.e., they will "wake up" in response to noise. There are sleepers standing up on a perch in the attic space of a small building who will NOT behave congruently in the sense that you can approach them from above make as much noise as you want and until your toon touches the floor in the XYZ space that is defined by the level builder as the "auto aggro trigger" this type of "Stasis Zombie" will not wake up.
  6. The first part of this sounds very promising to me. Even leaving out the groan loudly, just the collapsing body might wake up other zombies and it would be a LOT more immersive and less incongruous than zombies up on perches that are impervious to all sensory feedback EXCEPT player stepping into an X,Y,Z space. I won't comment on the issues of 'resolving blood moon' as it isn't something about which I have a clear view.
  7. RIGHT! It seems there are two design motives coming into conflict here and the player sparks are a result of users finding and grinding on that zone of conflict! Linear games like Space Invaders or Ms. Pacman are NOT "open world." Open world games like Minecraft or even Skyrim are NOT "linear." Now then, it IS true that both "types" may include ELEMENTS which are typical of the other type. There are not infinite sequences of moves a user can engage in to evade the chompers in any given level of Ms. Pacman, but it must be a very, VERY large number. So, while you cannot do something like whip out your breaching shotgun and blast through the maze walls and burn all the chompers with a hail of molotovs in Ms. Pacman, you CAN choose a non-standard pathing sequence . . . Same for Minecraft or any "Open World" game, there will be elements where you have to stick to a fairly narrow linear path to accomplish an in game goal. A good example in Minecraft might be "capturing" a mob spawner, but even there, there are probably dozens or even many scores of specific methods to capture one (so you can turn it into an xp and loot farm). They key would seem to be: the "alternative design elements" need to be congruent with the prevailing design of the game. "Sleeping" zombies that are completely unresponsive to sound and light and ONLY responsive to player presence within a pre-defined X,Y,Z space are NOT congruent with the rest of the game "rules" and game play dynamics in Seven Days to Die.
  8. You may or may not have been responding to the inane list of 5 suggestions I offered, and it doesn't bother me in any event. But as is often the case with Internet-based communications, it appears that my efforts to be sarcastic have failed pitifully and my suggestions have been taken seriously. Let me take a step back and make my views clear: I. The current system (in which sleeping zombies are totally unphased by nearby noise, and only respond to player presence in an X,Y,Z volume) is dumb, clunky, crude, incongruous with the rest of the game and--in contrast with the game as a whole--textbook bad design. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of person hours were devoted to creating all the various game play dynamics which teach the player how the game functions and how they can survive. In this case, specifically: zombies react to noise and light -> be quiet and you can sneak up on them / evade them. Then the current sleeper mode system defies all that work by planting blind, and deaf sleeper zombies in hidey spots inside POIs which only respond to player presence in an X,Y,Z space, not noise, or light. II. My suggestions were meant to be equally stupid . . . with the exception of Number 5 which . . . I only came up with by thinking through the "equally dumb, crude, clunky, incongruous" examples and which it seems is a not too bad of prospect for how the devs could have their cake and eat it too?
  9. I won't say I "disagree" with their design decisions, but I will point out the incongruities and lapses of immersion those decisions produce. This is one of the gas station POIs on Navezgane map. I had never gone near it before, but having gone near plenty of other POIs I looked at it and immediately inferred I should enter from the roof. Well . . . ACTUALLY . . . scout it carefully from outside first (and shoot the zombie dog in the head while he was standing quietly) all the way round. Then climb up on roof, then chop into roof enough to see inside, then see this, one-shot sneak head-shot kill this guy with my prim bow and stone arrow and then scan around for other traps inside and go inside to loot it. All that chopping and he was just peacefully asleep, heh . . . Please do not take me the wrong way. It is a fantastic, visionary, extraordinary game with enormous long-term promise (Arma-esque mod for 7DTD anyone??). JUST the voxel landscape, building and crafting features and leaving out all zombies entirely would be a fine game. I also understand that development is not an easy craft, and that Unity has its limitations. I also empathize with the pressures and demands of developing, particularly for a small studio. But with all that said: the context presented in this image does not represent "good user experience." If we "testers" to this Early Access product do not point out these things then the prospects that these fine developer folks address them in one way or another are lower.
  10. Sneaky Sniper is my favorite build in FPS games, with shotgun leatherneck being a close second . . . I only have about 150 hours on 7DTD and have only reached Level 22 and still doing T1 quests, but noticed the "auto-wake up" zombies. I can agree with OP that the (apparent) inconsistency is annoying, but I can also agree with other points made in this thread (no I did not read all of it and I doubt anyone has or will) that the auto-aggro zombies (a) are not THAT common and (b) spice things up so that a sneaky type cannot go around never having any fears or surprises . . . My take on the game is: whatever you are having your character do that is not inside the double thick walled concrete bunker protected by auto-robbot flamethrower sentinels, assume that you could die at any moment, and play accordingly. Yeah, so you are a sneak, doesn't mean your perfect so expect that occasionally you'll screw up and your sneakiness will fail. To the developers / level designers: maybe try to be a little more . . . um . . . consistent? and/or creative in how you place those auto-aggro zeds. Right now, the trigger is nothing more than player entity location being within a particular X,Y,Z coordinate space in the game world, and THIS is what most who are irritated by the mechanic find irritating. It doesn't matter what the player was doing at the time their entity entered that space, it always works the same. Maybe if these spaces were less accessible? Maybe if these spaces had entry features which made it essentially IMPOSSIBLE to pass into them stealthily? If sneaky players were FORCED to be loud and un-sneaky in order to get inside the XYZ space where these auto-aggor things function then no one would have anything to complain about. So maybe now you are asking yourself: What mechanics should or could be used to "force" sneaky players to be unsneaky and thus account for how the auto-aggro zombies defy the prevailing rules of the game and respond to the player? Well lots of options, and all of them seem pretty cheesy and unappealing to me 1. Encase all the Zombie Auto-Aggro zones in impenetrable concrete and give one entrance, a wooden door that cannot be lockpicked and has to be chopped into: noisy, auto aggro makes perfect sense 2. Place the zombie auto-aggro zones at the bottom of an Indian Jones vault right on top of the bedrock and make the "entrance" a slide that the player activates at random while roaming the wastelands, player loses control of their toon, goes sliding down the Temple of Doom Sluice way, splash lands with great noise and un-sneakiness in the auto-aggro zombie chamber of doom. 3. Place invisible trip wires (only visible after the fact) that activate New Years noise makers. 4. Install spring loaded dart traps that cause the player to trip out and start blathering Linda Blair style = not sneaky enough to evade the auto-aggro zombie threshold. 5. Create a new zombie type, some kinda tin-foil hat nerd in past life who shambles around with his/hear hand up to their ear socket (bloody hole where their ear used to be). This Zombie you could call "Zombie_Radar" (heh, you could even give him the same look as that character from that old Korean War sit com!). This guy (or some variant of this guy) is always present in every one of the locations where an auto-aggro zone is laid down = he has super sensitive sensory apparatus and THAT is why there is no sneaking to be done in his/her midst. You see, there are LOTS of viable mechanics to make your auto-aggro zombie trigers "make sense." Now granted none of them (with the possible exception of Number 5, which is brilliant AF in my opinion) are any more fun than the existing mechanic, but at least then players could NOT legitimtely complain about the inconsistency in the game rules and mechanics.
  11. This is a great idea in theory and for a studio which could afford it it would be fantastic. But it would be a helluva lot of work so I have my doubts the Pimps can afford it.
  12. I created this account to make this request: implement in game save file creation functionality. I applaud the spirit of trying to force players to rely on one save. "Dead is Dead" Neurosis is on my medical charts. However . . . You CANNOT force end-users to do anything they do not really want to do, and by taking away the option for users to easily create save files you expose them to the vagaries of hardware/power/software-conflict disasters which can quite literally destroy a play session (in singleplayer). Point of note: I've been having some issues with my GPU. Eventually I'll get on with my hardware retailer and do another screen share and diagnose it and maybe they will just replace it. In any event, I haven't done that yet, so I have some hardware that is a bit questionable especially on higher settings. I monitor it and pamper it but occasionally it surprises. So there I was playing along in a singleplayer session of 7DaysToDie, probably roundabout Level 12 and maybe 30 hours invested into that session. I mainly play this when buddy who is in a different time zone is offline and playing on the 2 day horde server he runs isn't a good idea. After playing the singleplayer session for a while, I noticed my fan speed and GPU temp were building up and realized I'd been continuous for several hours and decided to shut down. Everything seemed to be fine. I put the PC to sleep went and did other things and came back hours later. Buddy was online so I said "Hey I want you to check out this base I built in my solo game." cool he says. So I fire it up (he already knew the name and pw) and when I attempt to join whole system crashes. Reboot, get back online with buddy and explain what just happened and attempt to fire it up the second time. Still says Day 8, but my character spawns in as a Level 0 at the starter spawn location. Foolishly attempted to fix it by relogging before buddy explained to me about the .bak files, so the combination of me taking a casual user stance, you guys not providing me with an easy option to create my own save files, and whatever problems caused the crash combined caused me to lose all those hours of play. It won't happen to me again because I create my own backups now, but boy does it feel stupid to have to write my own application to create backups of your games save directory when I know you guys could have included that in your game in the first place. Love your game. Appreciate the spirit of your design decision on the "one save" file, hate to tell you but, you CANNOT force end-users to play it the way you think it is best played, so you might as well provide them with the options to play it how THEY want to play it and maybe suggest trying to stick to one save file (short of IO disasters which corrupt the last file).
×
×
  • Create New...