Burrfly
-
Posts
86 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Articles
A20 Bugs
A21 Bugs
Events
Posts posted by Burrfly
-
-
Well I'm sorry about posting these collages, however I did say in the first one that I was probably going to receive hate, which I really did get. That's okay. Was making them with good intentions, though 😔, but apparently it got received very bad. Said multiple times that I wasn't hating on you guys, but you did hate on me for trying to raise awareness. Cool.
0 -
~60% of the comments on a youtube video "all alpha 21 update news", look it up if you dont believe me. Just saying, still no hate
0 -
16 hours ago, Roland said:
And this is your and others’ big stumbling block to being able to enjoy early access. Cuts, removals, edits, and streamlining is always part of the creative process for unfinished works. Usually we don’t see those things as we only get games in their finished form.
Movies are a great parallel example for this. During the editing process after all the shooting is done, there is rarely any more additional footage shot. It is almost always a process of deleting and editing out footage deemed unnecessary.
The problem you have is that even though you understand that the game is not finished from an intellectual standpoint, you don’t want to believe it from an emotional standpoint. Updates during early access are not DLC expansions to a complete game. They are going to include removals that never make a return.
As you say, for those who never experienced previous versions there is no disappointment or feeling of loss. That will be even truer for those who purchase the final finished product.
After the game goes gold, any future updates are likely to be exactly what you want—pure content expansion. It’s very unlikely they will change or remove anything that already exists. Until that time, we are in the editing and streamlining phase and you either need to reconcile yourself to that or just put the game aside until the final product is presented.
All of those negative reviews are from people who are either ignorant or don’t want to face the fact that the game isn’t finished and updates aren’t simply expansionary. They shouldn’t have participated at this stage. Early access isn’t for them.
Thank you for your detailled answer. Of course it is difficult to comply to each and everyones wishes, I just hope that maybe some day an option or something is added whenever you create a world which you can choose from "build path: simple" or "build path: complex". The simple build path is what it is now since alpha 20, with 4 materials, and the complex build path is somewhat how it was in alpha 17 for example, with the 11 materials (including levels). Or even just an option "blocks requires frames: yes" or "blocks requires frames: no" (rebar, metal and wood frames how it was before). For sure 99% of people truly love the features like feral sense and the improved world generation in alpha 20 but as of now I think that on the other hand, quite some people, including me, are going to go to the "older version" options in steam and switch back to alpha 16, 17 or 18, (for the sake of building) it feeling more survivalish and actually like we are constructing something (rebar frames --> has to dry --> etc etc). Progression felt slower which was great (in my opinion). Thnx 4 reading
2 -
8 minutes ago, meganoth said:
What you want is a development model where only stuff is added and never changed. That is possible if developers know exactly what features they want and how each fature should work. This is the easier the less you need to provide playable versions in the interim (like in closed development) and the more the game is following established trends and genre conventions (like if you are just making the next installment of a series or a copy of a successful game).
If the developers want to create something new and need to experiment and also have to provide playable versions all the way because of EA then sorry, they have no choice.
They added a lot of gameplay features as placeholders so they could provide early adopters with a playable game. Change is inevitable when those placeholders are replaced. They also have to adhere to some limits imposed by the engine they are using or earlier programming choices. This sometimes makes it necessary to trade one feature for another because both features together would go past the limit.
I truly didn't say that ONLY things should be added and nothing ever has to be changed. I've said what I wanted to say to give all these reviews and people a voice.
1 -
9 hours ago, Riamus said:
Sure, you can find negative reviews. You can with any game. The vast majority are positive and that's what is important. Negative reviews for a game that is enjoyed by most players are typically either a) the player doesn't really like that type of game, or b) the player doesn't like a specific feature or features and/or doesn't like the implementation of a specific feature or features. You can see such reviews in your example. Such reviews are generally unimportant. You can't please everyone and shouldn't try to do so. If the vast majority enjoy the game, that's what it important. A small percentage of negative reviews doesn't matter. If the percentage is high, that is when you need to be concerned about them.
This game is not in its final form and has been available for play for around 10 years now. Things are going to change. Some players like a specific feature even if the majority don't like it. When that feature gets changed, those players will be upset. That's just how it goes. By playing the game now rather than waiting until gold, you are accepting that the game *will* change. You can't really complain that it's changing because it's a known fact that it will change. If that bothers you, you shouldn't be playing it before it goes gold.
Even comparing certain time frames isn't really a valid comparison. Different things determine how reviews will be at any given time. As long as the vast majority of reviews remain positive, that's what is important. You also have to keep in mind that few people who write reviews will edit the review at a later time. If people write a review before a new release or directly after the release and their assumption of some change is negative, they'll write a negative review and then it'll stay there even if they later realize that they like the change. The same is true, of course, for positive reviews made in the middle of an alpha with no changes in the air. However, people who decide later that they don't like a game are far more likely to change their review than those who initially wrote a negative review, so that will also cause inaccuracy in the reviews and is another reason you care about the overall reviews and not the relatively few negative reviews you hand-picked.
And it doesn't really matter if most reviews tend to be newer players who haven't played earlier alphas. In the end, they don't care about earlier alphas and so their reviews are just as valid. After all, it's not really any different from someone buying the gold version of a game that wasn't in early access. They don't know how the game changed during development and it really doesn't matter to them. All they care about is how the game is now. Will they be upset with some changes between now and gold? Maybe, maybe not. Either way, the reviews that will really matter in the end are those made after gold. And I expect those will be mostly positive.
The simple fact that this game has some of the highest hours played per person of any non-MMO game just goes to show that this is a very good game, regardless of anyone's opinions about any changes each alpha. Trying to drum up negativity by hand-picking negative reviews and posting them here is really just a waste of time. Your negativity about the game's path isn't going to change the path of the game any. And what you or any other person wants the game to be like isn't going to be the same as what others want the game to be like. Some like hardcore challenges, some like just regular challenge, some like it to be easy. Some like to build bases, some like to do quests and loot, some like to kill zombies, some like it all. Anything you do that pushes the game more towards one group than another will make one group happier and the other group unhappier. That's just how it is. In the end, you either like the game and play it or you do not. The choice is yours.
Btw, that review about time to generate a map shows that some reviews just really aren't much use (negative or positive). Considering map generation takes 10-15 minutes or so, even on a slower computer in A20, the person either is extremely impatient or is reviewing an older version of the game (or it wasn't updated in 2022 and that's from back in 2015 when they originally wrote the review). In A21, it'll be significantly faster. But even the current speed is far from slow, considering all that it has to do. If that feels like "55000 years" to someone, then they need to learn patience. And considering many people make maps with third party map generators that can take far longer to generate a map, it's really not that valid of a review.
I agree that it is more important that most people like it, of course. Change itself isn't a bad thing, but I'm just stating that quite some people, including me, worry/dislike the fact that things are being removed. Most of these reviews are not saying that this game is bad, but they're leaving this review as they notice that so many things get removed/changed for the worse and this trend is still continuing. These reviews all state that they would think this game would be in a better state if an update would have felt like great content was not being removed.
Now I know I have easy speaking as it must be difficult to comply to so many requests. However, I just hope that TFP are looking at these reviews/messages.
I'm just certain that there would have been less negative and more positive reviews if things that weren't broken didn't got "fixed". These reviews are just, as it may be called, concerned people that feel like something they really liked is heading into a wrong direction. Just like you would see a good friend of you take a wrong turn in life that would be bad for his/her own health - you would worry.
1 -
49 minutes ago, Laz Man said:
Alot of those comments sound like people who fell in love with a particular iteration in development that got upset when a particular mechanic / feature changed. I can empathize with the disappointment given how long the game has been in development. One guy was upset with how long it takes to generate a RWG map. Hopefully he comes back in A21, since map generation time has been significantly improved. Thankfully, most people think positively of the game and its development (at least based on steam reviews).
With that said, the team is super focused on adding the remaining promised features (e.g. bandits, story, etc.) and polishing and optimizing to gold.
Edit: I would like to add that anyone who has been on these forums long enough knows that the forum moderation team here is very fair. The only time I would see a poster get moderated and/or banned is when they couldn't accept when other forum members not agreeing with their opinions and then would start to break forum rules left and right...
Yes, the user reviews are still very positive, but the newer reviews do include players that have not known this game as it was earlier. So, if I were to play 7 days to die knowing only 4 building materials, I wouldn't notice and I would give a positive review. It is however a difference if people were used to the 11 building materials (including different levels) which now have been reduced to 4. And again, not to hate, but comparitively speaking, jan2022-jan2023 has more negative reviews than jan2020-dec2021 (somewhere ~jan2022 alpha 20 released).
0 -
No hate, but these are just parts of a lot of reviews I found of players who have the same concerns as me. I maybe will get hate due to this, heck, I may even get banned.
(Each seperate image is from a seperate review)
0 -
Hey does anyone know a mod that re-adds rebar frames and old materials? Yeah I know I mentioned "rebar frames" for the 7000th time now, I'm just pretty upset about it. Thnx 4 reading
6 minutes ago, Burrfly said:Hey does anyone know a mod that re-adds rebar frames and old materials? Yeah I know I mentioned "rebar frames" for the 7000th time now, I'm just pretty upset about it. Thnx 4 reading
Btw I actually think I have some light form of autism (no joke), and I just cannot stand change in a way that REMOVES stuff that was just great to have and I "bonded" with
0 -
You will get 300 million players online if they re-add rebar frames
8 -
Alpha 21 is looking like a better update than a20 so far, just sad that you guys removed materials and rebar frames and aren't gonna add them back this update. I think it would be cool to ask your playerbase for a vote about this, maybe via Steam, 'cause I THINK that the majority liked the more materials we had back before alpha 20 more. Otherwise I'm just gonna play alpha 16 or 17. Btw no hate, just caring. Ps thnx 4 reading
2 -
On 2/11/2023 at 5:02 AM, faatal said:
It is not as I looked at it last week and the mixer is a single mesh, so you can't rotate the drum. I was thinking at least it should have a particle effect, but the code for that type of object did not support it and ten seconds later I was distracted by something else and several other things since then.
I know it of course is a lot harder than that small incorrect code I wrote, I know. It was a bad joke of me. But thank you faatal for reacting
0 -
On 1/28/2023 at 4:13 PM, Crater Creator said:
I was just asking about this as it happens, and I was told there is no plan for animations on stations due to the logistics involved.
if cementMixer == enabled then
animation.Rotate:Play()
else
animation.Rotate:Stop()
(I know it's not that simple)
0 -
I made a list with small things that could relatively easily be added (but I'm not a programmer so Idk):
- With all the new high-quality models why does a cement mixer still not visually rotate when doing stuff? That would be such a very small thing that could add a lot of livability if that even is a word.
- If gun racks or clothing racks are empty, remove the visual items (i.e. the clothing / guns) from the 3D-object. If the container is not empty, just make them visible again.
- Have a very simple animation play when someone is looting or using a storage container such as a chest or a cupboard. The chest or cupboard opens when in use and closes when players go out of the inventory. Such as the drawbridge does but then on a cupboard.
- For the electrical component - the alarm/speaker - make an option for different sounds to be used when activated. For example: "Alarm 1" that goes weewooweewoo and "Alarm 2" that goes waaweewaawee or "Air Raid Siren" that goes a lot slower and is more epic which for example can be used when something extremely dangerous is triggered. Or make an option for Volume of the alarm/speaker.
- Not so easy to add but would be so cool and add variety: a quad vehicle
2 -
Hi everyone I'm curious to see how this game will become. I just wanted to mention out one thing.
Don't make the same mistake as a lot of devs do which is focussing on graphics and visuals instead of mechanics and (new) interactive features. We don't care if something VISUAL is in detail or hyperrealistic. Btw I actually hate visual hyperrealism. We rather have cool new gameplay mechanics!
Thank you for reading
5 -
6 hours ago, Selevan said:
Point is, i really liked the game, back in a15-16, and since the game was being developed that way since few updates, i thought this game had a huge potential, and that im excited.
Sadly, a17 was a complete failure, thats basically when the devs decided to completly change the game, and the 18-20 only continued that way. It keeps changing, but on the same way, it keeps getting simpler and less survivalish.
So yeah, im writing that, because im kinda frustrated at how the game completly wasted its enourmous potential
Considering the mess theyre doing with 7d2d, i wouldnt stay excited for any of their new game.
His/her way of wording might be a bit "mean", but I kinda agree with him/her. I don't think a17 was a complete failure, there were a lot of cool things added, but some of the latest alpha's just keep on removing things??? And they keep on simplifying this game which indeed, makes it less survivalish... Alpha 16 felt more a survival game than alpha 20 did for me...
That's literally what I was talking about with the simplification of the upgrade path. Come on Fun Pimps, don't remove or simplify already cool existing things! 😕 I hope TFP reads this
2 -
Hi everyone I've read some other forums and most people agree:
Bring back rebar frames and (re)add more block material (upgrades). Please. Thank you for reading.
0 -
Talking about community-feedback, I will try to sum up some things which I've read (and which I personally agree with) in the alpha 20 and 21 dev diary. Hopefully I'm correct. If I'm not, let me know.
- Learning by Doing coming back is epic, Learning by Looting not so much because it reduces unique playstyles
- The need of (way) more varieties of zombies because right now there are too many clones. Some people don't care about visuals like these which I wish I didn't myself either. Wether it be a random chance of them wearing a hat, a random color shirt or some more varieties in general would be greatly appreciated by the community. I personally think this small problem was not a problem back in alpha 16/17 because zombie models weren't as unique as they are now - making finding clones harder (especially from a distance)
- In earlier alpha 20 builds especially, I read a lot and also noticed myself about there being too much ammo in loot. They reduced it in a later alpha 20 update, which is very nice. There were still some people (including me) who found ammo (including for example pipe bombs) that could be received from trader quest rewards too much
- Some didn't mind, but I also read a lot of people (including me) not liking the reduction of building materials and their upgrade path. For example, the removal of wet and reinforced concrete, flagstone, and reinforced wood. I personally disliked this change the most because, well... this was another REDUCTION of variety which I personally think should not be the target. Simplification is often a mistake and, yeah, for new players it might be less confusing, but also the experience of learning that there are so many possibilities in this game as a new player is really fun. Well, this was for me the case absolutely when I started playing ~4 years ago in alpha 16
- Some people have also wrote about them not liking the change of another reduction, namely the reduction of player clothing slots coming in alpha 21 if I'm correct. I do have to agree again, because this is another reduction/simplification, which... again... reduces variety, playstyle uniqueness and eventually replayability.
Again, this was just what I've read and which I do think as well. But ofcourse this doesn't count for everyone0 -
Yes!!! Learning by doing will come back!!! That's amazing. I loved the update towards alpha 17 but missed the learning by doing in alpha 16.
Now my only wish left is that eventually some more building materials will be (re)added
0 -
Please bring back some old features, I'm missing them a lot since a20
Like the old upgrade path, it was better
I'm so sad that they're gone and I think I will go back to a19 and start a new playthrough
0 -
8 hours ago, doughphunghus said:
I'll give my experience, but its not much. I've only experienced this issue with a few blocks:
Using "boards over windows" as the example:
- For building/designing a POI the current system is amazing. I've seen some uses of blocks where just the material type or placement make it "unique and neat and pop". like using "boards nailed over windows" be on the floor or used for something other than nailing over windows. for this, having "cobblestone boards" is great.
- For in game building, it feels a little weird. because you add "wood boards to go over the windows" and it looks and feels great. When you upgrade they go to cobblestone. That looks weird. like "I nailed up a random 4 boards, all askew and made of .....coobblestone?, over this window?" It felt and looked much more "real" when they upgraded to "stronger wood, then "metal".
Using a "door" as an example:
- The game allows crafting a simple wooden door ( can open and close, lock it). when upgraded, it gets "reinforced" with wood, then metal over the wood, then finally going up to metal. It feels natural and looks great because its what you would likely do if trying to reinforce a door. Imagine now that door upgrade path was wood -> cobblestone -> whatever. A cobblestone door? umm, no. it would look weird and feel even weirder, because no one makes cobblestone doors. Same with hatches. wood -> reinforced -> metal is a natural progression.
Generally arguing for more block types for certain things like the above:
- Cobblestone may be a natural upgrade (when playing the game) from wood for "structural" things, but for certain "decor" or delicate blocks it looks and feels unnatural. This is why stairs (ONLY with thin railings) and catwalks (also thin railings) are weird. it sticks out too much as a "WTF", visually.
Summary:
I think for any block that is "weird" because of the new upgrade path, they need separate, unique blocks for them. There aren't a lot, and its only for player upgrading in game and not POI building. Almost all of the examples I can think of involve thin railings or "haphazard" things like wood planks over windows. For all of these cases I would feel wither going directly to metal (skip cobble as upgrade path) or have a separate "metal scrap reinforced" version, which the game already uses and looks/feels good, if a "standard x number of steps is what we're going for when upgrading" is needed.
Also: why we're here... I personally liked the "smaller blocks have less HP" change that was pulled. I felt it was "more real for building". sure, it may have been unbalanced in some ways but if you want a "nice base" you need to put down a solid foundation/defense. Using little blocks for decor and/or "cheesing" things to protect openings... well, those blocks need less hit points unless they are upgraded a lot. I bring this up because the look/feel of this change is similar to the "no cobblestone for certain blocks idea": its more realistic gameplay, it looks more "real/normal" and its nice when some blocks are "special" or are not '1000 HP thin rails' or '1000 HP random cobblestone boards hastily nailed over a window". I made up the HP numbers just to make an example. I'd much rather have 1000 HP metal covered boards, or "1000 HP thin metal railings" even if its a harder upgrade path to do (in game)
I agree entirely
Sadly I couldn't react with a like because my reaction thing is bugged it says "There was a problem with adding this reaction" or something
2 -
6 hours ago, Tmodloader said:
- Current 10 armor/clothing slots reduced to 4 slots for outfits that will merge both clothing and armor values. No more clipping issues of wearing clothing under armor. Better balance on number of mod slots available to use with outfits.
It feels like the game is changing and not all the changes are good. There have been weird removals of items such as Grain alcohol , Hoe's for land tilling , smell mechanic , cave systems , blunderbuss , Hub City , snowberry , separate animal meat , moldy bread , wood cutting bench , zombie looting , log spike traps , sliding jail doors , barbed wire , and the simplification of building tiers used to be Wood --> Reinforced Wood --> Iron Reinforced Wood --> Flagstone --> Cobblestone --> Concrete --> Reinforced Concrete --> Steel --> Stainless Steel This was a great upgrade path it wasn't that complex and it was rewarding upgrade slowly towards stainless steel in the end it was replaced by the current path Wood --> Cobblestone -- Concrete --> Steel. even farming has been simplified before you could till the land with a Hoe to plant crops and you could create fertilizer to speed up the process. Now you just use a farm plot. Another thing the new clothing system we have to wear limiting outfits to increase stats and completely toss out character customization. Sorry dude you can't look the way you want to anymore because you have to wear this specific outfit that you might not like in order to boost harvest percentage or be able to harvest crops effectively. You said in your post that the new system would fix armor clipping through clothing. Well it really doesn't. Removing clothing all together isn't really a fix, its a removal. NOT A FIX a removal you didn't wanna take the time to fix it. So you you removed the system entirely removing diversity in character customization. You could probably just add additional armor sets for mining farming etc and try to fix the clipping issue. But instead your removing all of them POOF and substituting it with this limited armor system. I love this game and want to be a fun like in previous alpha's.
If you do decide to remove all clothing do you think there's a way you could keep the clothing models for the Modding community. There are people who will want make mod's to bring them back.
Sorry if a lot of this didn't make sense.
Thank you for addressing this. I think The Fun Pimps are making some mistakes regarding simplification. The old build path was perfect, and now it feels meh. Also because it doesn't make sense for some blocks to be a wood or cobblestone variant. In the past there were wood, iron and steel ladders and wood and iron catwalks and now we can have cobblestone ladders, cobblestone planks, or cobblestone railings. It was perfect before. Only thing I would have changed with the old building was the ADDING of new materials, not removing.
Also fear this will be the case indeed for the simplification of the clothing system for a21. Currently I'm playing with friends and everyone of us has a different outfit, which is a lot of fun to make ourselves. I'm pretty sure that will change to people wearing the same outfits (less variety etc) when the simplification hits, with maybe the exception of some dyes, but that's it.
@madmole, yes, 99% of us love the new RWG and the new POI's as well as for example feral sense, but on the other hand we are losing great mechanics.
I'm sure most of us also like the new building shapes, but I personally think that these should specifically be BUILDING shapes, not for example ladders or catwalks. Catwalks and ladders should be a seperate 'block', like it was before, with a seperate upgrade path.
I just hope that some old features will come back (for example concrete drying, etc) and there won't be any more simplification, because it makes things more boring 😕 Sorry for maybe this negativity but it's how I feel. Thank you very much for reading.
2 -
14 minutes ago, Noctoras said:
Traders and airdrops just feel like they don't belong in the game (hey, we outside have a fully working economy, sending you airdrops, but we don't bother to pick you up).
But that's why it's great that there is an option to disable airdrops. Personally I like airdrops every 3 days because when you hear the airplane flying over I'm instantly like 'airdrop!!!!' And I find it fun to then go there and I'm happy that airdrops don't have a very OP reward but I agree that traders give too much away, especially ammo, in their quest rewards
0 -
OMG STABLE IS OUT!!! I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS FOR SO LONG THANK YOU TFP NOW WE ARE GONNA PLAY FOR REAL :DDDDDDDD
0 -
4 hours ago, MechanicalLens said:
It would also probably be good to take the smelting process out of the game entirely, to eliminate confusion for new players. In Darkness Falls you craft forge-related recipes straight out like recipes from a workbench, and I honestly believe vanilla should implement a similar feature. Instead of putting the items in, you simply select what you want to craft and, if you have the appropriate materials, you punch in the number and click "craft".
What?!?! Nooooooooo... please keep it in. And btw, the reason for you saying this is probably not "to eliminate confusion for new players"... Not everything has to become 'easier' or faster, I think that thought sucks. Having to discover how things work as a new player with a little confusion is a good thing (well, personally I didn't understand how a forge worked in the very beginning but that would make things interesting to discover HOW they then would work, adding mysterious things which is very fun if you then discover it).
Not everything has to be easy to understand in the beginning, because it would be boring if you would understand everything when you first boot up the game. When I just discovered Minecraft like 6 years ago I didn't even know how to craft a pickaxe. But that doesn't mean it made me quit the game, it made me especially more excited to play the game to want to discover how it worked
1 hour ago, bdubyah said:There has been more than enough simplification over the years. They are new players, things are supposed to be confusing. Hell, we already have glowing symbols floating over rocks and nests. Why not just have the game autocraft what it thinks you need at that time as soon as you have the resources in your inventory. Why even have different resources? Just have everything scrap to "scrap material" and you can craft everything from frames to vehicles with this same resource. The game already progresses too fast as it is. If you don't even have to wait for things to smelt anymore, it just gets that much faster. I do not think that is a good thing.
Omg exactly!!! Thank you
9
Alpha 21 Dev Diary
in News & Announcements
Posted
Thank you for the answer. I'm sorry if I pushed on too much, I won't do it again. I need to learn how to try and convince or just tell something without pushing