Steam reviews - I kinda figured

[Dunkurtin]

Well, that is an ambiguous statement ("tower defense only" or "tower defense too", the latter being quite ok, this being a genre mix) and one that would astonish me. The direction for A18 is, to my knowledge, more contents, especially more mods, and polishing and balancing. For A17 they wanted to improve the AI because the tower defense didn't work because of the bad AI of the zombies.

 

 

 

No, and I would like to continue without assuming motives. It is fine if you can show I'm making wrong assumptions or false conclusions, no need for hostility.

 

I don't see a game banner as you describe on the steam page. I see the movie/picture space to the left and the text I cited to the right, above that "All Games > Action Games > 7 Days to Die" and in bigger letters "7 Days to Die" "Community Hub". Nothing more. I don't doubt your words that you can see such a banner, probably it depends on some configuration or the country from which you access steam, but not even with a text search in the web page do I find your text and it isn't in any picture I can see there.

 

But I also don't see why a necessarily short text in an game banner picture has to include a detailed description of every aspect of the game. Sure, if 7 days to die would change into a 100% tower defense game, you would be absolutely right, I just think you are probably misinterpreting some statements if you believe that.

 

Fun fact: If I search for the full name of "7 days to die", the game isn't in the short drop down list, a really bad search function IMHO.

 

Your last comment was taking two of my comments made about two very different things and saying they were contradictory when they were not, because you took them out of context. You'll have to forgive me if I took that as hostility because it is a common tactic that people use to undermine others instead of addressing points properly.

 

ON the Tower Defence topic. MM has made several posts in the last 24 hours defending changes such as the zombie damage against structures, raising of bedrock, and removing viablity of underground bases, by stating that the game is supposed to be a tower defence game. Seeming to imply that the classic notion of tower defence, leading a horde through a maze with several defense points that whittle the horde down, was what they were aiming for. Rather than a tower defence such as has been in the game up until now, that you build a "tower" with defence sturdy enough to withold the horde till they can all be killed, ideally without them breaking into your base. This is apparently why zombies now dig through all base materials at such high speeds, because you are meant to build a tower defence maze and not a tower you defend. If thats what they are aiming for, that is not something they have clearly stated in their description of the game or the gameplay videos.

 

 

As to where that game banner is, no it does seem it is no longer on the steam page, I am quite sure it used to be however. It is on the 7 Days to Die webpage though, the top of the forum, most advertisements I have seen outside of steam and most articles about the game. Its the games tagline. If the game is going to continue moving away from focusing on the survival and crafting aspects, I don't think its unreasonable to say they should change the tagline to one more representative of the game.

 

EDIT: Now I can't find the specific MM post I was thinkng of and am wondering if it was actually just someone else running with what he said in these two posts and it all spiralled from there.

https://7daystodie.com/forums/showthread.php?102411-Steam-reviews-I-kinda-figured&p=916881&viewfull=1#post916881

https://7daystodie.com/forums/showthread.php?101983-How-to-avoid-bad-reviews&p=916470&viewfull=1#post916470

[Guppycur]

Next up, "I know you are, but what am I?"!

[meganoth]

Your last comment was taking two of my comments made about two very different things and saying they were contradictory when they were not, because you took them out of context. You'll have to forgive me if I took that as hostility because it is a common tactic that people use to undermine others instead of addressing points properly.

 

Actually misread that about the banner and changed the post you are quoting, sorry.

 

ON the Tower Defence topic. MM has made several posts in the last 24 hours defending changes such as the zombie damage against structures, raising of bedrock, and removing viablity of underground bases, by stating that the game is supposed to be a tower defence game. Seeming to imply that the classic notion of tower defence, leading a horde through a maze with several defense points that whittle the horde down, was what they were aiming for. Rather than a tower defence such as has been in the game up until now, that you build a "tower" with defence sturdy enough to withold the horde till they can all be killed, ideally without them breaking into your base. This is apparently why zombies now dig through all base materials at such high speeds, because you are meant to build a tower defence maze and not a tower you defend. If thats what they are aiming for, that is not something they have clearly stated in their description of the game or the gameplay videos.

 

I don't think they are at a state where they can really fine-tune how the actual defense has to work. The previous AI was a very limited bandaid and not even able to destroy simple stilt bases. They have to work with some limitations, for example not too many zombies at the same time. For few zombies to be a threat they either have to be HP monsters (which isn't what anyone wants), have more "magic" abilities (I would like that, TFP and a lot of players don't) or be strong offensively.

 

One of the purposes of A17 experimental (AFAIK) was to see what defense methods players would come up with and then decide which ones the developers would be ok with and which need further AI polishing. I think they would be very happy about a state where methods that work in reality (like castles) also work in the game OR at least "fun" methods work in the game.

 

Whether that is possible in the constraints of this genre mix is debatable. For example a builder is able to build a lot of walls around himself. Make wall building much slower and builders can't build palaces anymore in a sensible time frame. So zombies have to be able to get through those walls if the player doesn't at least add additional stuff like spikes... Otherwise the zombie as a thread on horde night isn't there anymore.

 

What I expect and what also is announced by the AI developer is that zombies will get random behaviour eventually. That makes it necessary for the player to safeguard the base from all sides again and limits the effect of what you can achieve with a maze. It will also mean that block damage can be reduced and the zombies be still effective because you can't expect mazes or funnels to take on ALL zombies. So I expect the best strategy eventually will be sturdy walls AND traps/spikes and funnels to lead them to your flint or to a shotgun turret.

 

Not that the maze strategy works that good. I tried twice now to change the post office building to have a maze/funnel I could lead the zombies through and because of my mistakes they just ignored the funnel. A lot can go wrong.

 

As to where that game banner is, no it does seem it is no longer on the steam page, I am quite sure it used to be however. It is on the 7 Days to Die webpage though, the top of the forum, most advertisements I have seen outside of steam and most articles about the game. Its the games tagline. If the game is going to continue moving away from focusing on the survival and crafting aspects, I don't think its unreasonable to say they should change the tagline to one more representative of the game.

 

If the game were reduced to tower defense I would agree.

[Dunkurtin]

I was super excited about the new zombie AI when it was first teased, the new pathing and jumping looked like a huge improvement. My understanding was always that zombie hordes would act 'instinctively' and spread out and pummel all sides of your base eventually, meaning you can't have only one strong side unless you have a really good system for directing hordes too it. Ideally zombies faced with no way forward should just bash on the closest thing, unless there is a noise or smell to draw them away. I get that they may not be there yet in making zombies unpredictable enough to be a challenge if theyre spread out, but the decisions they chose to stack don't make much sense. why make zombies know exactly where you are, know which block is the weakest and all attack that point, and also do increased damage to blocks! Unless your intention is that you don't actually block the zombies passage and instead create a tower defence esque maze... That's the only explanation that makes sense to me, and it lines up with some of the things the devs have said.

 

Now having zombies naturally gravitate to each other as they approach a wall another zombie is already bashing on makes sense. That zombie is making noise. Should it draw every zombie to that exact spot, no, but it should draw the closest ones closer.

Having an additional damage multiplier for multiple zombies hitting the same block, that also makes sense. As a larger mass of zombies piles against a single point in the defense it is going to be more strained and give out quicker.

 

Maybe those things would be more difficult to implement. Maybe thats why they went a different direction. But it doesn't mean that going in a direction that has everyone questioning how they intend the game to be played going forward was a good decision. Or that isn't a reason for people to be worried.

[meganoth]

I was super excited about the new zombie AI when it was first teased, the new pathing and jumping looked like a huge improvement. My understanding was always that zombie hordes would act 'instinctively' and spread out and pummel all sides of your base eventually, meaning you can't have only one strong side unless you have a really good system for directing hordes too it. Ideally zombies faced with no way forward should just bash on the closest thing, unless there is a noise or smell to draw them away. I get that they may not be there yet in making zombies unpredictable enough to be a challenge if theyre spread out, but the decisions they chose to stack don't make much sense. why make zombies know exactly where you are, know which block is the weakest and all attack that point, and also do increased damage to blocks! Unless your intention is that you don't actually block the zombies passage and instead create a tower defence esque maze... That's the only explanation that makes sense to me, and it lines up with some of the things the devs have said.

 

Another explanation was actually given by Fataal, the AI programmer: Frames-per-second. Voxel cost a lot of CPU cycles, AI costs a lot of CPU cycles, to make the game still run with acceptable FPS you need to cut some corners.

 

Finding a path inside a voxel space (think of one of the POI dungeons for example) is a non-trivial problem, to do that perfectly (i.e. a zombie sees, hears and smells like it would in reality) would cost a lot of performance (and a lot of development time) which would mean less zombies that could be spawned. If they don't want to go below the 8 zombies per player and 8 players means a PC with minimum specs has to be able to do the AI for 64 zombies at the same time, each one finding its own way in a complex maze of voxel blocks and subblocks.

 

Now having zombies naturally gravitate to each other as they approach a wall another zombie is already bashing on makes sense. That zombie is making noise. Should it draw every zombie to that exact spot, no, but it should draw the closest ones closer.

Having an additional damage multiplier for multiple zombies hitting the same block, that also makes sense. As a larger mass of zombies piles against a single point in the defense it is going to be more strained and give out quicker.

 

Maybe those things would be more difficult to implement. Maybe thats why they went a different direction. But it doesn't mean that going in a direction that has everyone questioning how they intend the game to be played going forward was a good decision. Or that isn't a reason for people to be worried.

 

It is difficult talking about a direction when a completely new AI is inserted and thrown at players to see what they come up with.

 

Once in A16 I tried to make a cone-shaped path for the zombies where shotgun turrets were at the end. It was completely wasted time. With the new AI it actually is possible now to direct them, but probably too well. That needs further tuning, no question. But I think it is an improvement that you can use your brain now to predict paths they would take and how you can make that path "inconvenient" for them.

[lazerblade01]

I gave 7DTD a positive review in A15. I enjoyed it and played many hours with my girlfriend.

 

I just changed that review to negative because I no longer play the game, nor does my girlfriend. We barely played any A16, because we didn't like the direction things were going.

 

When I wrote the positive review, I felt that anyone buying into the game at that point, at least anyone looking at the game and considering whether to buy it, would likely enjoy it. I included why I enjoyed it.

 

When I changed the review to negative, it was to point out that anyone who didn't already own the game, but who may have been following it for a while, or who was looking for a game with specific features, could find something better.

 

And if we're being honest, that's how reviews should work. Not only that, but if you don't read reviews to help you decide whether or not to buy a game, or anything for that matter, then you probably shouldn't write them either. If you do, well, then you're narcissistic, because you value your own opinion so much above anyone else's that you think you ARE the only voice that matters, and all other opinions are useless.

 

Truth is, the only way to have any impact on someone else's purchasing decisions requires two things - you voicing your opinion and them taking your opinion into consideration.

 

What drove me to change my review wasn't just that I didn't agree with the changes or that they didn't make sense or felt like the wrong direction - it was the fact that I wasn't the only one. Most of the people I previously played with, or watched on Twitch, or talked to about the game, have been saying the same thing. They don't enjoy the game anymore. Even people who built their streaming channels on the foundation of 7DTD have walked away, because playing a game they no longer enjoy - one they used to love - is too high a price to pay just to get a piece of that viewer pie. Not to mention the loss in viewership when your audience can see that you clearly don't enjoy what you're doing.

 

So, yes, I changed my review, because my appreciation for the game, and the amount of enjoyment I was rewarded with while playing, changed. Significantly changed. I recommended the game to friends and colleagues in every Alpha stage except 13 (broken for me), 16 and now. I had modded A16 to be more like what I felt was fun, but this is a long and tedious process that not everyone is comfortable doing. And there are still some significant limitations to how far you can go with modding without knowing how to edit C# code and recompile. XML edits are fairly trivial, but there are still a lot of variables locked behind compiled code.

 

So while some die-hard fans may still enjoy the game, because they've owned it and played it enough to be comfortable and familiar with most of the mechanics, I can't in good conscience recommend the current state of the game to newcomers.

[Viktoriusiii]

And to give you the absolute proof of me trying to be as fair as possible:

Todays reviews were 50/50 which is a big increase in postive reviews, which might signal the return of positive reviews and all that I said about it beeing 30% positive is discredited.

 

Okay its 3:5 again (21:35)

so yeah... I still think my prophecy "reviews will tank and playernumbers will drop after a few weeks" will come true... which is pretty sad.

[leaderdog]

Is there a way to track that type of information?

 

As in alpha 17 was released Dec 23rd (I think) purchases after that date are likely playing alpha 17 not previous alphas. It would be a long term watch I guess. but if you can see who bought it and how long they play, it would be a pretty simple figuring to see if the game before this was more fun - players with 1000+ hours vs the alpha 17 purchase days that let's say will likely play way less than 1000 ish hours.

 

Again obviously, that's a tracking scale spanned over much time. But isn't that how it's done? And if not, why wouldn't it be? That's simply the easiest way to determine which alphas kept people around.

[lazerblade01]

Is there a way to track that type of information?

 

As in alpha 17 was released Dec 23rd (I think) purchases after that date are likely playing alpha 17 not previous alphas. It would be a long term watch I guess. but if you can see who bought it and how long they play, it would be a pretty simple figuring to see if the game before this was more fun - players with 1000+ hours vs the alpha 17 purchase days that let's say will likely play way less than 1000 ish hours.

 

Again obviously, that's a tracking scale spanned over much time. But isn't that how it's done? And if not, why wouldn't it be? That's simply the easiest way to determine which alphas kept people around.

 

Gonna be nearly impossible, at least from an outside standpoint, to see those numbers, since Steam changed what data and how much data they reveal to the public, most likely in response to GDPR regulations, which went into effect this year (2018).

 

So A17 is basically safe from information scrutiny. But you can see the overall trend from roughly launch to May 2018, and see that sales have been fairly steady, but actual playtime per game owner has been on a downward trend since somewhere between A15 and A16.

 

Looking at the actual numbers, it doesn't seem too bad, until you realize that it's about 12.5% and slowly getting worse. Which I suppose is better than the comparison of positive to negative reviews since A17 released.

[Greymantle]

The game is doing great over 20k people playing every day since 17 was launched. I'm sure TFP are quite happy with that stat.

[Thorne]

Actually it is Americans that can't spell defence correctly

Defence

 

[ dee-fens ]

 

verb

1. To remove or otherwise render without a fence. (See "demolition")

 

 

 

[Alpacko]

On the digging z's:

 

I think a 'scent trail' would be quite a bit more fun. And realistic

 

Rather than the two extremes; simple, 'can't dig' of A16, & current go to directly above player, dig straight down of A17.

 

Scent trail could allow you to build the old hatch out in the middle of nowhere protecting your mineshaft. Z's path to hatch and break through. Come down access shaft, at bottom, or whereever, you've built a defensive spot, or 2 or 3. The pathing would/could keep the z's on that course, providing player with the opportunity to defend, or retreat.

 

As it is currently you can achieve basically the same thing, but it takes a lot more work. If you're building a large underground bunker you can just dig out 3 more blocks for a 'catch basin' that the z's will fall into, then in that large 'attic' over your base, just have a spot they can path to, then defend from there.

 

For the mine access inside of base, a scent trail could/would lead the z's to breach the base defenses first. Consider that you may well be out of hearing range. So you'd likely need/want to rig up an alarm system so you'd know you needed to haul butt to defend.

 

Certainly I've no idea how feasible it is, but it seems to me like it could be more fun & more realistic at the same time.

 

so basically bread crumbs - a feature that has been planned/discussed like 10 alphas ago

[Roland]

The game is doing great over 20k people playing every day since 17 was launched. I'm sure TFP are quite happy with that stat.

 

It’s almost like those 20K people haven’t been reading the forums or something...

[Anarath]

It’s almost like those 20K people haven’t been reading the forums or something...

 

I read the forum and play on a daily basis ... on A16.4.

So, just 19.999 possible A17 players ^^

 

Makes one wonder if theres a way to see how many people actually are playing A17

[SurvivalUK]

I read the forum and play on a daily basis ... on A16.4.

So, just 19.999 possible A17 players ^^

 

Makes one wonder if theres a way to see how many people actually are playing A17

Similar, play on a daily basis (as does the missus) but in a A17 modded that for us puts the fun back into the game vs the grind / fun sapping vanilla incarnation.

[Viktoriusiii]

It’s almost like those 20K people haven’t been reading the forums or something...

 

50k people are playing atlas... must be a really good game then!

 

Its on sale so a lot of new players who dont know that the game was better

A lot of casuals might enjoy it for a few hours

Streamers of the new alpha attract new players.

 

Peak players are STILL 4k below A16, but its rising so lets see how this alpha will fair in 2-3 weeks once tiredness sets in and steamsales are over.

 

 

Also:

roland IS there a way to check what version players are playing and if they play how much they play on average?

Because i think those numbers are mostly new guys, testing out the game and then leaving.

[SaintPhillip]

50k people are playing atlas... must be a really good game then!

 

Its on sale so a lot of new players who dont know that the game was better

A lot of casuals might enjoy it for a few hours

Streamers of the new alpha attract new players.

 

Peak players are STILL 4k below A16, but its rising so lets see how this alpha will fair in 2-3 weeks once tiredness sets in and steamsales are over.

 

 

Also:

roland IS there a way to check what version players are playing and if they play how much they play on average?

Because i think those numbers are mostly new guys, testing out the game and then leaving.

 

Some are looking at this as the glass being half full and the others as it being half empty but I would have expected with a year+ of additional sales and a sale a month ago when a17 went into experimental coupled with a huge sale now and the glass is still sitting at around half and that would probably give me some pause.

 

The numbers are a small piece of a larger picture but I sure wouldnt be happy about them right now even if all 28k were playing a17.

 

I honestly dont think the numbers hold much bearing but if they are going to be touted as if they do then the meaning wouldnt be looking too good for me...Time will tell.

 

-I'm not included in those numbers as I gave up but I still have probably 5-6 friends playing right now and 4 of thjem for sure are playing a16 -edit- And the only reasons theyre doing that is because they tried 17, hated it and decided to play a game on 16 to get their 'fix' but it'll be a one and done so they probably wont be in those numbers next week regardless.

[stupid]

Some are looking at this as the glass being half full and the others as it being half empty but I would have expected with a year+ of additional sales and a sale a month ago when a17 went into experimental coupled with a huge sale now and the glass is still sitting at around half and that would probably give me some pause.

 

Another factor could be that some of the playerbase has moved on to other games in the nearly two years it has taken to release this update to the public.

 

The 55% review score is what makes me see it as half empty. A17E had mixed reviews on these forums. What did they expect to happen when they published A17 to the public in its current form? Were they expecting everyone to love it? Were they expecting the public perception to be the same as the experimental crowd? Or was the whole plan to publish it and then write an apology update on steam a week later?

[Jost Amman]

Its a fictional game. Who says the virus or radiation can't make their bones stronger? And its proven on myth busters that a crowd of people can easily push down a big barn door where one guy can't no matter how hard he pushes. Everyone signed up for a tower defense crafting game, not hide behind your walls and laugh at them pounding on the door. Of course we can try to add options to help, but there is block damage 200%. We can bump that to 1000% for the people who want to sit behind their walls all night I guess. It takes away the thrill if you ask me.

Hi Joel, don't write much here, more on Steam but I follow your comments now and then to keep updated...

 

Just a suggestion: IMO builder-type people would only be frustrated to use a 1000% block damage setting, since it would also get 10 times more time to tear down something with (e.g.) a pickaxe.

 

If TFP could do it, it would be wonderful to have a separate setting for block resistance against zombies AND block resistance against player damage. I don't know if this can be added to the game the way it works now... but it would be the perfect solution and in line with what the builder players are really craving for.

 

A17 still needs more balancing, true, but what people don't understand IMO is that the real huge work that has been done by you devs is in the background. Whatever work is needed on the current version is now way easier to do than with A16.

 

I wish you TFP the best for 2019, may you earn all the recognition and money you deserve for your hard work.

[JaxTeller718]

Hi Joel, don't write much here, more on Steam but I follow your comments now and then to keep updated...

 

Just a suggestion: IMO builder-type people would only be frustrated to use a 1000% block damage setting, since it would also get 10 times more time to tear down something with (e.g.) a pickaxe.

 

If TFP could do it, it would be wonderful to have a separate setting for block resistance against zombies AND block resistance against player damage. I don't know if this can be added to the game the way it works now... but it would be the perfect solution and in line with what the builder players are really craving for.

 

Im not one to come in and criticize anyone's opinion but that would be a horrible idea, would be the definition of unbalanced and would throw the entire AI system completely off center.

 

If ever a case for "play creative" is suited this is the one.

[Bhaaltazar]

A17 turned away from a zombie game ( The walking Dead etc.. ) into Dying light - well after levels 70-80 ( Day 21 ). I am a big fan of 7d2d or 7d2d of what it was : building, mining, gathering, Looting zombie hunting. But now on new "midgame" it turned shooter hack and slash game, after lvls 80-ish and so.

 

Loot is crappy, repeatable low quality compared to the effort you put into just to clear one house ( which looses its purpose since you loose more than gain ) and xp requirement for a level exponentially increases - which contradicts itself IMO, since all of a sudden zombies gets godly buffs and I can't do shi*.. about it, since you get sort of stuck on a slow grind without new skills ( not to mention stupid "new gates" requirements of 5, 7 10 skill points to level basic perk alone to meet the gates for next skill. IMO A16 was liked and you should build on that instead of scrap it all and go into new direction - almost completely change the whole genre of a game.

 

And whats up with zombie respawning every 4-5 days in cleared POIs ( Buzz bar across the street )- cleared it 3 times already to day 19 - today I go by after returning home from loot run and 7 ferals and irradiated rushes me again...

I like many changes A17 brought, but all of the above kills it for me. Too grindy without any real challenge or goal. Implementation of all the new things is lacking and game lost too much from all the goodies of A16.

[WolfyBlah]

How is that a bad suggestion jax? Seperateing block durabilty gives more options and allows people to have blocks that aernt destoried in seconds by unbalanced zombies without it taking 20x the time to mine a block as the player.

 

Not sure telling that person to play creative is that helpful when what they are asking for isnt even that far out there, with a17s balance...lots of people are probably modding block damage back down to sane levels anyway.

[stupid]

IMO A16 was liked and you should build on that instead of scrap it all and go into new direction - almost completely change the whole genre of a game.

 

I agree.

7D2D is rated one of the best voxel games of all time on various lists throughout the internet. I imagine many people have discovered 7D because they were searching for a good voxel game. A17 basically nullifies both underground mining and underground base building, and for what? What is the payoff here? I don't see it. They bottleneck players into killing zombies with poor battle mechanics. Tail wagging the dog: "A minor or secondary part of something controlling or dominating the whole or the main part"

 

If someone dislikes the digging aspect and dislikes being able to hide in a bunker or impenetrable fortress, and places more value into shooting zombies, then there are a ton of non-voxel zombie games which do that better than 7D.

 

Why do the devs want to work against someone enjoying paramount features of the game? If I stay below ground or in a fortress doing other things then I miss out on xp and loot. That's a choice I have to make. Ultimately I'm playing it the way I want to play it.

[JaxTeller718]

How is that a bad suggestion jax? Seperateing block durabilty gives more options and allows people to have blocks that aernt destoried in seconds by unbalanced zombies without it taking 20x the time to mine a block as the player.

 

Not sure telling that person to play creative is that helpful when what they are asking for isnt even that far out there, with a17s balance...lots of people are probably modding block damage back down to sane levels anyway.

 

I admit I was a bit abrupt in my response. Apologies for that. I won't argue that block damage overall needs a look at for sure. And builders are definitely at a disadvantage this Alpha. As a mod developer desiring to be more in the future I look at everything from a different perspective,

 

Like what would I design for a game, what are the pros and cons etc. The key thing you said was "with a17s balance" and that is the true issue. I would never offer a band aid setting that could potentially be abused. Let's face it if I spent a year implementing new ai in my zombies I wouldn't want my customers being able to flip a switch and have them be unable to reach a player, while the player could one shot the same material.

 

What I would do i better balance the blocks overall on both sides, save the base wrecking zombies for higher gamestages and offer stone tool mods that could be earned to help builders with their projects. Settings are great but the problem is more long term and requires overall attention.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

I agree.

7D2D is rated one of the best voxel games of all time on various lists throughout the internet. I imagine many people have discovered 7D because they were searching for a good voxel game. A17 basically nullifies both underground mining and underground base building, and for what? What is the payoff here? I don't see it. They bottleneck players into killing zombies with poor battle mechanics. Tail wagging the dog: "A minor or secondary part of something controlling or dominating the whole or the main part"

 

If someone dislikes the digging aspect and dislikes being able to hide in a bunker or impenetrable fortress, and places more value into shooting zombies, then there are a ton of non-voxel zombie games which do that better than 7D.

 

Why do the devs want to work against someone enjoying paramount features of the game? If I stay below ground or in a fortress doing other things then I miss out on xp and loot. That's a choice I have to make. Ultimately I'm playing it the way I want to play it.

 

The problem with your argument is that this is their game. Sure they can be cool and allow tons of options but they have 100 percent right to say "No i don't want a player to hide underground, if you don't like that YOU go play something else or design your own game".

 

Is it right? I don't know. As a mod developer you better believe the mod I put out is the one i WANT people to play as is. I can't stop them from modding it themselves but i sure as hell can decide WHAT is in my mod and WHAT the rules are. I can take feedback into account but ultimately you have NO say in what my mod becomes.

[WolfyBlah]

I admit I was a bit abrupt in my response. Apologies for that. I won't argue that block damage overall needs a look at for sure. And builders are definitely at a disadvantage this Alpha. As a mod developer desiring to be more in the future I look at everything from a different perspective,

 

Like what would I design for a game, what are the pros and cons etc. The key thing you said was "with a17s balance" and that is the true issue. I would never offer a band aid setting that could potentially be abused. Let's face it if I spent a year implementing new ai in my zombies I wouldn't want my customers being able to flip a switch and have them be unable to reach a player, while the player could one shot the same material.

 

What I would do i better balance the blocks overall on both sides, save the base wrecking zombies for higher gamestages and offer stone tool mods that could be earned to help builders with their projects. Settings are great but the problem is more long term and requires overall attention.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

 

 

The problem with your argument is that this is their game. Sure they can be cool and allow tons of options but they have 100 percent right to say "No i don't want a player to hide underground, if you don't like that YOU go play something else or design your own game".

 

Is it right? I don't know. As a mod developer you better believe the mod I put out is the one i WANT people to play as is. I can't stop them from modding it themselves but i sure as hell can decide WHAT is in my mod and WHAT the rules are. I can take feedback into account but ultimately you have NO say in what my mod becomes.

 

Zombie block damage and player block damage are not a band aid setting, they are a setting that allows mutliple people to tweak the game to thier preferences.

 

Not saying that all block damages shouldn't be looked at, they should... just not by gazz..