Feedback for The Fun Pimps on Alpha 17

[Roland]

In the current setting, in order to get a bigger backpack, better quality loot and better barter for selling that loot, I have to get mining abilities to do so... more block damage, making better quality tools etc. That does not make the least bit of sense.

 

It actually does make sense because you are NOT in fact getting a bigger backpack. Your backpack is always the same size and can always be filled to max from the beginning of the game. If putting points into strength was literally granting you a larger backpack you would be right that it was a whacky thing but...putting points into strength simply helps you carry a full backpack more easily with less slowdown and that does make sense.

[Ranzera]

It just feels bloated and too incremental in a17. If you want to be a builder you need builder perks, for builder perks you need intellect, for the resources you need better resource gathering perks, for those you need strength, to do that properly you need stamina gaining perks, to get that you need agility. Oh, and want different block types that have no defensive value? Yeah you need another perk for that too, and you need to build a saw table and run back and fourth to that. Each of these are tiny gains that don't individually feel like much until you get 2 or 3 levels from 4 or 5 different perks \ attributes. It's overly complicated and ineffectual. You end up purchasing literally almost 100 individual levels by the end.

 

In a16 you invested in tools, workbench, concrete, miner 69er, and sexual tyrannosaurus. It was simple, straightforward, and significant. Each unlock was major, and even levels of tools were significant as each quality level brought multiple bonuses instead of just durability.

 

10-20 perk\attribute levels per perk\attribute just feels like wayy too many to have gratifying gains from buying perks, I think 5 is a sweet spot for significant and noticable gains for players, and when possible just a single significant unlock is even more preferable.

 

The optimal resource gathering path requires zero investment into agility. It does require maximum investment into Sexy Trex, which for some unfathomable reason is in the strength tree.

[Ranzera]

It actually does make sense because you are NOT in fact getting a bigger backpack. Your backpack is always the same size and can always be filled to max from the beginning of the game. If putting points into strength was literally granting you a larger backpack you would be right that it was a whacky thing but...putting points into strength simply helps you carry a full backpack more easily with less slowdown and that does make sense.

 

That makes next to zero sense in context to storage picket mods. It's a very mixed message. Presumably you'd need that strength to lift that same ♥♥♥♥ in your pockets too but that's not how that works.

[Star69]

Okay I’ll concede the strength discussion, but the other 2 stand...everything is spread out. Why does making more durable tools get me better barter? Why does having better accuracy over long distances get me better loot? And speaking of spending points...we get 4 points for finishing the starting quest. Regardless of how you want to play, everyone needs to spend those pretty much the same way....pack mule, chef, cardio & health regen. Oh I’m sure there are people that will argue but to try to minimize encumbrance when collecting basic material day 1 then you need more spots in your backpack. If you want to cook bacon & eggs and bottled water then you need chef, the nerfed stamina means you need cardio and with medicated bandages gated and until you scavenge pills or a pill popper, you need your health to regen while killing zombies to get your xp. Yes, you still have a choice to pick other perks but as it is organized today, it feels like the game is saying ‘pick any perk you want, but if you want the best chance to survive, start by picking these 4 or 5 perks’. Maybe there is the same freedom as A16 but it feels like the game is pushing everyone the same way. I hope you understand what I’m getting at...sometimes I have difficulty getting my point across and I’m misunderstood but that’s a “me” problem.

[Ghostlight]

You act as though spending the points in attributes is solely for unlocking perks. This is not the case.

 

It absolutely is.... for the Intellect tree. That's the problem; those Int points are pre-ordained. Someone has to spend them. And if you are solo...it's YOU.

 

The optimal resource gathering path requires zero investment into agility. It does require maximum investment into Sexy Trex, which for some unfathomable reason is in the strength tree.

 

Resource gathering requires maximum investment in Strength anyway though, for Mother Lode. So thank Goodness Sexy Rex is in that tree. If we had to drift into Agi as well to be efficient resource gatherers, we'd be even more gimped early game.

[Ranzera]

It absolutely is.... for the Intellect tree. That's the problem; those Int points are pre-ordained. Someone has to spend them. And if you are solo...it's YOU.

 

It used to give you increased exp, but they decided that was too good of a thing to give because it would make that 52 million exp too easy to get.

[Noompsie]

There are way too many irradiateds in the game for me to really enjoy it any more. There is no more scavenging for upgraded guns, books etc, and the only thing i scavenge for now are bullets. Gone are my building dreams, I mean why bother when one wandering horde will wreck a building you've just spent many hours building. No more digging underground, that also is not worth getting wrecked. Now its boulder hopping.

 

There are some things I love in the new build, and I also love the new menu options, but all in all, I am really thinking that I need to give minecraft another whirl.

[Ranzera]

In fairness, wandering hordes have never had ferals or irradiated zeds in any version I've played.

[Roland]

<sigh>

 

You people with your absolutes. Lol. You can keep posting that the game is linear, you MUST do this or that, and that there is no choice— But mine and other’s play-styles is the proof that your claims aren’t the only reality. You are literally choosing to play the way you are playing. Rest In Pieces wants to let you be the victim saying that the incentives and rewards in the game are irresistible and that we can’t expect you to not race following one defined path.

 

I’ll let this go and stop pestering ya’ll. There’s nothing we can say to obtain a meeting of the minds. I’m having fun playing the way I do and am happy and really that’s all that matters for me. I’m also enjoying testing the changes I’ve made to the game and trying new things.

 

You guys can continue convincing yourselves of what is required, what is forced, what is impossible, and how linear you think it all is.

[Ranzera]

Well the Undead Legacy mod looks like it'll restore what the devs have abandoned. I'm holding out hope for that.

[Poojam]

You never replied in the discussion we were having about this in that other thread

You yourself have said that survival must dictate the player's actions and thought of a more intuitive concept (not system) than the current one that would allow that. And at some point you did recognize that lack of balance between leveling paths can create problems.

 

All the above only show that the game design molds the player's actions. Each player has his own pace, you can't ask them to pace themselves, you have to do it in a sublime way through the design.

 

Balancing xp sources is more of a band-aid but will help nonetheless. TFP have attempted to balance xp sources but from my experience not in a great way. They have to balance actions/time evenly imo, throughout the whole progression and in some cases (like zombie xp) without taking into account action cost (even if it seems like the right way to go).

 

Atm zombies are by far the most effective way to level early game and when specced into combat, whereas mining xp becomes super-effective when the player can do a lot of block damage since it is dependent on it (correct me if I am wrong). Conclusion - depending on the stage you are/spec, there is a single most effective way to progress, which makes progression seem very linear.

 

So, we established that the game rewards you for being effective - no matter one's "leveling speed", players *will* be inclined to choose the most effective method. And that itself will create a negative experience. The solution to this is certainly not players having to try to pace themselves ignoring their natural pace, in order to have a wholistic/non-grindy/whatever experience. Yes, I keep saying this and I've become tiring, but this debate about which system is less linear will continue ad nauseam without any resolution ever, because imo the comparison basis is off, as both were/are very flawed.

 

When all of the important skills and character development are locked up behind xp, it turns out players are inclined to spend their time getting xp to improve their ability to survive...

 

shocking i say...

shocking.

[HungryZombie]

This is part of my annoyance and in fair reflection to what something Roland said, some things can be done... "Wrong".

 

I hear you that with stealth skills, you can handle some of those issues. But again we're back to a very linear character progression path that we didn't used to have. Which... Fine. Go linear with the game design. But don't half ass it.

 

If we're supposed to combat spec first, then throw in some stealth specs, then splash in some stamina specs, then maybe some build specs fine.

 

Then make World of Warcraft like classes and skill trees. Give a clear path for "proper" game play. People who are combat oriented and aren't so build/crafting oriented slid right into A17, roughly. But everyone else was trying to figure out wth the game went sideways.

 

If you and TFP feel that we all should be running down a specific skill path, then just build it in already.

 

I honestly never liked the stealth much. Made POI's way too easy.

 

Easy with the irradiated inside or you mean just early on?

[meganoth]

This is part of my annoyance and in fair reflection to what something Roland said, some things can be done... "Wrong".

 

I hear you that with stealth skills, you can handle some of those issues. But again we're back to a very linear character progression path that we didn't used to have. Which... Fine. Go linear with the game design. But don't half ass it.

 

If we're supposed to combat spec first, then throw in some stealth specs, then splash in some stamina specs, then maybe some build specs fine.

 

Then make World of Warcraft like classes and skill trees. Give a clear path for "proper" game play. People who are combat oriented and aren't so build/crafting oriented slid right into A17, roughly. But everyone else was trying to figure out wth the game went sideways.

 

If you and TFP feel that we all should be running down a specific skill path, then just build it in already.

 

I honestly never liked the stealth much. Made POI's way too easy.

 

I don't see where this combat spec is suddenly coming from. If you are not detected while mining underground why do you need a combat spec?

[Cirion]

I don't see where this combat spec is suddenly coming from. If you are not detected while mining underground why do you need a combat spec?

 

Two Words: Horde Night

[Cirion]

<sigh>

 

You people with your absolutes. Lol. You can keep posting that the game is linear, you MUST do this or that, and that there is no choice— But mine and other’s play-styles is the proof that your claims aren’t the only reality. You are literally choosing to play the way you are playing.

 

 

I may not be able to make the claim "It is linear period" but I can make relative claims "It is more linear than it was". Several posters included myself laid out clearly, objectively, why it is more linear, and not subjectively. In A16 for example you could immediately jump into leveling up mining, without being gated behind attributes or player EXP. By definition, this is more freedom and does not require the choice of picking certain attributes in a certain way as it does now. No need to level up the middle man attribute like now.

 

Fact: You can not jump straight into leveling mining now without leveling up the middle man attribute strength. Or player exp.

 

I don't know how to make my stance clearer than this.

 

Rest In Pieces wants to let you be the victim saying that the incentives and rewards in the game are irresistible and that we can’t expect you to not race following one defined path.

 

But they are, and I explained this too and I am not going to spend time re-hashing in great detail because I already did in previous posts. Literally by making things gated behind attributes, by objective definition this gates the players and forces them down only a handful of paths and level gates further narrows the pathways that one can play. Right now you essentially choose between 5 paths in some mix or fashion. If attributes are removed, now you can choose between 100+ paths. If I wanna boost crossbow skill, I wanna boost crossbow skill. Not be stuck spending points on perception. If I wanna boost bartering skill, I don't wanna be stuck spending points on intelligence. If I wanna boost mining skill, I don't wanna be stuck spending points on strength. ETC.... and here I said I wasn't going to write anything LOL but I had some good examples to give you of how attributes remove freedom that just struck my mind, I even made a case study EX

 

Case study 1

I wanna be Daryl from TWG. I want to level up light armor, crossbow, stealth. I'd also like to be able to make better crossbows. Currently this requires Intellect, Perception, and Agility. It costs 5 points to max a perk, and 23 points to max an attribute (assuming my math is correct). What if those skills are the only skills you want from that attribute? Just to drive my point across. To be the guy you wanna be, you have now spent 5+5+5+23+23+23 = 84 points just to get essentially 4 skills, whereas if the 4 skills were split out, that would only be 20 points. 84 points mean you aren't who you wanna play as properly until nearer to end-game. A lot of people aren't going to have fun with that kind of system. One might think oh this is OP to be this powerful early, but how is it much different than what people are already doing with combat speccs? Plus the fact that this specc is only good for crossbows, light armor, and stealth and literally nothing else.

 

Of course, if they DID do this approach, naturally to balance it, more SPECIFIC skills would need to be added to spread out skill point usages which BTW - by definition adds , you guessed it, MORE FREEDOM on top of LESS RESTRICTIONS. The way that seems some what logical to me is that crossbow skill should not only improve crossbow damage etc but also the ability to CRAFT crossbows. Under this new system instead of 84 points you would only need 15 to play as Daryl so to speak. With the addition of eliminating the pain of early-game and being super weak, which is yet ANOTHER benefit to this approach as many people complain about early game in A17.

 

84 points vs 15/20. What's better? If this clear-cut example doesn't drive home my point, then I give up, there is no hope LOL

 

BTW you know what? The more I write this the more I want it. I would ALMOST rate this as good as learn-by-doing. It's still less immersion than LBD, but it retains the freedom of LBD.

 

Here's the funny part - this is almost basically LBD but without LBD. I still don't know why they scrapped all of A16's system. Boggles my mind. Could have just removed LBD, added player exp, and called it a day.

 

I’m having fun playing the way I do and am happy and really that’s all that matters for me. I’m also enjoying testing the changes I’ve made to the game and trying new things.

 

I am glad you enjoy it. Truly. But your opinion is not shared by all. I am even dubious that it is even shared by >50% of players. I get it, TFP spent a long time on perks so they feel a commitment to stick with the latest changes. But I personally think it's a mistake to ignore the vast amount of constructive criticism that is being placed upon this new system. I mean they spent a year on A17, so it can be easy to just ignore the criticism and press on.

 

I get the impression that little effort is made to understand why we feel what we do even though we frequently make well thought out explanations as to why. Instead it is just dismissed out of hand as us just trying to convince ourselves and that anything we said has no merit. I have no need to convince myself of anything lol.

 

Again we have time and time again, with very lengthy and objective posted, explained why it is less freedom and more linear. At the end of the day it's still an opinion, but a very well thought out opinion.

[meganoth]

Two Words: Horde Night

 

Horde night was in A16 too. Last week we had a very relaxed horde night at day 56 where lots of barbed wire, 4 electric wires and 2 blade traps kept the zombies at distance. There were also 4 dart traps waiting to jump in but we didn't need them. And we also didn't need to retreat to the second level of the base where two shotgun turrets would have supported us. We did have all that stuff and more because we had miners and crafters in our group.

 

What I want to say with this is, a builder does not need a combat spec if he builds a trap-riddled defense base. He should be able to build a fortress while the combat-specced player doesn't have the resources or time to build anything comparable.

[Cirion]

Horde night was in A16 too. Last week we had a very relaxed horde night at day 56 where lots of barbed wire, 4 electric wires and 2 blade traps kept the zombies at distance. There were also 4 dart traps waiting to jump in but we didn't need them. And we also didn't need to retreat to the second level of the base where two shotgun turrets would have supported us. We did have all that stuff and more because we had miners and crafters in our group.

 

What I want to say with this is, a builder does not need a combat spec if he builds a trap-riddled defense base. He should be able to build a fortress while the combat-specced player doesn't have the resources or time to build anything comparable.

 

Hmmm... yeah you're not wrong, but given that Mining and Zombie killing are now the only two ways to grind EXP, that literally leaves mining for virtually all forms of EXP (if a solo player). Also, in A16 you COULD be a miner AND still level up combat skills on the side.

 

Note BTW that you said "in your group". What about solo players? And don't tell me solo players have to play in a group if they wanna play crafter/builder, that's a cop out answer.

 

It doesn't help the current system basically gates someone out of a combat specc because current combat speccs are by definition "genericized" via melee or ranged which encompasses ALL melee or ranged rather than discretizing by specific perks, via gating you with the attributes. You get the illusion of lots of choice by the perks, which is a big troll to the player because nope, you can't pick what you want without being forced to spend 23 points first.

 

Why can't I be a crafter AND someone skilled in magnums? Oh wait, because TFP mandates I spend 23 points in perception before I can level magnum skills. Sigh. Eliminating the mutual exclusion of being able to kill zombies AND do other things would alleviate so much pain. Tell me again how attributes increase freedom rather than decrease it? I am rather curious.

 

I would much prefer being able to pick a SPECIFIC skill and be a master at it (say, Magnums), and master it sooner than the current system which essentially has you mastering ALL ranged weapons, and as such, costs significantly more skill points which means you can't do what you wanna do specifically until late or end game. I would much prefer magnum skill increasing only magnum damage, and not all gun damage, this way I feel I can do a very targetted, specific build the way I want. Increasing all ranged weapon damage seems overkill if a magnum is all I wanted. Not to mention a waste of points.

[RestInPieces]

<sigh>

 

You people with your absolutes. Lol. You can keep posting that the game is linear, you MUST do this or that, and that there is no choice— But mine and other’s play-styles is the proof that your claims aren’t the only reality. You are literally choosing to play the way you are playing. Rest In Pieces wants to let you be the victim saying that the incentives and rewards in the game are irresistible and that we can’t expect you to not race following one defined path.

 

I’ll let this go and stop pestering ya’ll. There’s nothing we can say to obtain a meeting of the minds. I’m having fun playing the way I do and am happy and really that’s all that matters for me. I’m also enjoying testing the changes I’ve made to the game and trying new things.

 

You guys can continue convincing yourselves of what is required, what is forced, what is impossible, and how linear you think it all is.

 

It's not that they are irresistible, it's that they shouldn't have to be resisted. And it's not that a player is a helpless victim to the game's flow, but as long as it influences them, the average player will tend to follow it.

 

I have been playing perfectly organically as well, using a different build each time in both SP/MP just enjoying anything the game throws at me, not paying much attention to character planning, to xp numbers on the bottom right, not following the most efficient path, not using traders, etc - but it's just not what most players will do (or want to do). It's kind of like binomial distribution O.o, If you have (even a small) a probability bias (say, a vector to a specific direction) in an otherwise unbiased and random space/group of numbers, the average will tend towards that.

[Ghostlight]

You people with your absolutes. Lol. You can keep posting that the game is linear, you MUST do this or that, and that there is no choice— But mine and other’s play-styles is the proof that your claims aren’t the only reality

 

Of course you can do it differently, but if you do you are gimped it's that simple.

 

I could switch my point allocation and for the entire early game I'd be constantly encumbered / out of stamina / unable to fight anything / unable to cook / unable to make metal / have no vehicle / etc. The play-through would be different, sure, but would it be fun? Not for me. I can't play like that....not even for the "variety".

 

Forcing yourself to build a crappy character just to have a little variety in the game seems rather pathetic.

[meganoth]

Loong answer, sorry.

 

Hmmm... yeah you're not wrong, but given that Mining and Zombie killing are now the only two ways to grind EXP, that literally leaves mining for virtually all forms of EXP (if a solo player). Also, in A16 you COULD be a miner AND still level up combat skills on the side.

 

That xp sources have to be balanced (and balanced in all stages of the game) is important and independant of our argument. The balance wasn't quite right in A16 too, miners had an advantage there in end-game and many people noticed this in co-op games. In A16 experimental there even were xp bugs with cutting gras that made progression a joke. That they now show every xp gain is a bad move IMO and makes balancing even more important.

 

What hinders a miner leveling up combat skills on the side? One of our miners in the co-op game is quite proficient with the shotgun and often runs in the front when we do quests. Getting to perk level 3 of any weapon skill is extraordinarily cheap at 10 perk points (thats what I would call "on the side"). Together with a well modded weapon you are probably doing 90% of the DPS a fully perked master would do (it is more complicated though as weapon perk is only part of the equation, I know, but lets keep it simple). And the well modded weapon he can get through crafting or buying at the trader. Or the somewhat more seldom scavenging tours miners usually do as well.

 

Note BTW that you said "in your group". What about solo players? And don't tell me solo players have to play in a group if they wanna play crafter/builder, that's a cop out answer.

 

Note also that "in your group" was only when I was talking about an example. The last sentence was specifically for SP players.

 

We surely agree that SP players have a harder time than co-op players and might have to turn down difficulty one step to get a somwhat similar difficulty but still a different experience. A SP player will most of the time branch out a little into every field, for example one point into "living of the land" is VERY advisable. But where he just puts 1 or 2 points into and where he tries to maximize the perks is still his choice of spezialisation. A SP miner naturally will put points into other perks than miner related perks, otherwise he would be finished with the game at level 40 (28 points for mother lode and a few distributed points into stamina perks). Being miner doesn't mean he will do mining to the exclusion of anything else. Even in co-op game such players are not the rule I assume.

 

Same for a player going into scavenging. He stills might need to learn crafting a forge and a minibike (crafting learned "on the side") for convenience sake without him being specialized in it. But he will probably try to avoid crafting a chem station himself and try to find a working one somewhere.

 

It doesn't help the current system basically gates someone out of a combat specc because current combat speccs are by definition "genericized" via melee or ranged which encompasses ALL melee or ranged rather than discretizing by specific perks, via gating you with the attributes. You get the illusion of lots of choice by the perks, which is a big troll to the player because nope, you can't pick what you want without being forced to spend 23 points first.

 

Why can't I be a crafter AND someone skilled in magnums? Oh wait, because TFP mandates I spend 23 points in perception before I can level magnum skills. Sigh. Eliminating the mutual exclusion of being able to kill zombies AND do other things would alleviate so much pain. Tell me again how attributes increase freedom rather than decrease it? I am rather curious.

 

I would much prefer being able to pick a SPECIFIC skill and be a master at it (say, Magnums), and master it sooner than the current system which essentially has you mastering ALL ranged weapons, and as such, costs significantly more skill points which means you can't do what you wanna do specifically until late or end game. I would much prefer magnum skill increasing only magnum damage, and not all gun damage, this way I feel I can do a very targetted, specific build the way I want. Increasing all ranged weapon damage seems overkill if a magnum is all I wanted. Not to mention a waste of points.

 

I consider perception one of the best "perks" I can put points into, exactly because the bonus works on all ranged weapons and irrespective of hit location. I usually have a prefered gun (at the moment the pistol) that I put perk points into relatively fast, but always use bow as well and some other weapon as secondary. And that is in a co-op group where others use the gun ammo I don't use!

 

In SP I use any gun type unless I'm swimming in ammo. What use is a perked up rifle with 7 bullets when I got 200 shotgun ammo lying around ? Because of mods bringing half of the bonus damage gear is at least as important as what you spec and it isn't hard to find weapons of all types. So perception is something *I* want to put points in (your mileage may vary).

 

But let's get back to your specific argument about the magnum master. When it comes to paying the perk points you seem to argue that the 50% damage bonus for all weapons from perception is insignificant. But for magnum master the same "insignificant" 50% seem to disturb you in your spezialisation attempt. Well, what now?

Basically a lot of your revolt seems to be centered around the 28 perk points aka levels before you are a complete master, i.e. you want to "master it sooner than the current system". But that is just the old argument "I want to be in end game faster" for which the "200% XP gain" option was made. If early and mid game seems too drawn out for you, well, this is the option you want. Because once you are magnum master you also need the irradiated enemies or you will get bored. Shooting normal zombies with a magnum at highest skill is like a shooting gallery.

 

This "pick what you want without being forced to spend 23 points first." is a misleading expression because it suggests you have to spend 23 points FIRST to be good at magnum. I know you don't mean it literally but there is a disdain for perk level 3 or 4 in this sentence that isn't supported by the facts.

 

I have a hard time remembering details from A16, but didn't you have to shoot with your gun A LOT and also collect a fair share of levels? Was it gun skill to 60 or 80 to buy the last point in the gun perk? How many shots did you need to reach that? It might not be as much as in A17 but I don't remember ever rushing through to perk 5 in the first few weeks. Could be wrong though.

[Jackelmyer]

I have a hard time remembering details from A16, but didn't you have to shoot with your gun A LOT and also collect a fair share of levels? Was it gun skill to 60 or 80 to buy the last point in the gun perk? How many shots did you need to reach that? It might not be as much as in A17 but I don't remember ever rushing through to perk 5 in the first few weeks. Could be wrong though.

 

I didn't perk up in guns until around day 60-70+ in A16. I used a standard wooden bow or a crossbow and for the most part was fine. Brass was a semi rare commodity and shotgun rounds went to my turrets. By the time zombies hit Rad levels on horde night, I had my base so heavily built that even with just a bow I'd be fine. It took some research, youtube watching, and base planning to get to that point. But by the end of A15 I had my method down pat.

 

A17 made things just more annoying to do.

 

Mining without stealth skills and stealthing underground draws zombies (which honestly I've not heard anyone test the stealth mining, so don't know if that even is working).

 

Skills to just get to iron tools requires a week+ (in game time) on all default settings. Unless you go hog wild on POI's pulling XP. But then you don't get much time to setup your week one base without claiming a POI.

 

And claimed POI's are still buggy. Bug reports on entire bases being lost because a POI reverts to it's original state. Back in the day, I didn't use POI's because zombies would respawn in them on occasion.

 

I suppose if some of the bugs on POI usage were ironed out once and for all, it wouldn't be so bad. But a release was put out where TFP announces...

"Hey! POI's are safe to take over again survivors! We've fixed zombie spawns, POI's resetting, etc!"...

Then maybe the rest of us who don't want to deal with our starter base getting squashed or surprised spawns would go back to that. In fairness, taking over a POI was fun when I first started playing. Just... was buggy.

[Cirion]

I consider perception one of the best "perks" I can put points into, exactly because the bonus works on all ranged weapons and irrespective of hit location. I usually have a prefered gun (at the moment the pistol) that I put perk points into relatively fast, but always use bow as well and some other weapon as secondary. And that is in a co-op group where others use the gun ammo I don't use!

 

I don't even necessarily disagree here (Perception is a decent attribute overall) but my points still stand which I'll get into a bit later...

 

But let's get back to your specific argument about the magnum master. When it comes to paying the perk points you seem to argue that the 50% damage bonus for all weapons from perception is insignificant. But for magnum master the same "insignificant" 50% seem to disturb you in your spezialisation attempt. Well, what now?

Basically a lot of your revolt seems to be centered around the 28 perk points aka levels before you are a complete master, i.e. you want to "master it sooner than the current system". But that is just the old argument "I want to be in end game faster" for which the "200% XP gain" option was made. If early and mid game seems too drawn out for you, well, this is the option you want.

 

No, I think you misunderstand me. 50% is not insignificant, but I'd rather get that 50% on a specific weapon I want, and for less than 28 points. Your point about reaching end-game too quickly is noted, but there is more than one way to gate a player from doing that. Look at how Deep Rock Galactic gates players. In my opinion, their version of gating is the best I have seen. If you have not played DRG, the simplest way of explaining their gating system is that instead of FIVE attributes, there is only ONE. The "one attribute" takes a tremendous amount of points to max BUT... A.) You do not have to directly spend points on the "attribute" to "level it up". No feeling of wasted points as such. B.) The attribute "level ups" merely by getting any perk you want from the ENTIRE gambit of options, No restrictions, complete freedom. However, because there is still a "gate", you can not get too OP too quickly because you can only start off with low level skills, then mid level, then finally end-game. BUT you can pick whatever you want at any point of the time, which encourages experimentation since you are NOT locked in like you are with A17 perks. Sure, you're still gated much like 7D2D, but in a manner that doesn't seem to punish you as badly, and you're going to be buying random perks anyway, so you don't feel the pain of the gating as badly.

 

This "pick what you want without being forced to spend 23 points first." is a misleading expression because it suggests you have to spend 23 points FIRST to be good at magnum. I know you don't mean it literally but there is a disdain for perk level 3 or 4 in this sentence that isn't supported by the facts.

True, but note what I just said in my previous paragraph.

 

I have a hard time remembering details from A16, but didn't you have to shoot with your gun A LOT and also collect a fair share of levels? Was it gun skill to 60 or 80 to buy the last point in the gun perk? How many shots did you need to reach that? It might not be as much as in A17 but I don't remember ever rushing through to perk 5 in the first few weeks. Could be wrong though.

 

Yes, A16 system was not perfect. Even I disliked some aspects of it. The difference here is you're gated by using the SPECIFIC SKILL THAT YOU WANT. So I did actually not mind that at all. The only thing I disliked in A16 was that some skills did not necessarily level up at a reasonable pace even when you were grinding it. You brought up a good example actually - guns. They did level up quite slowly. I recall only having gun skill 20-30 by a very late game stage. That's one thing they could have improved.

[Cirion]

One slightly alternative way to adopt a kind of "DRG" approach would be this.

 

Currently you must spend points directly on an attribute, in order to get past the "gates". You could adopt a "DRG" approach without even eliminating or changing any of the current attributes.

 

What if the following method was employed?

-Each attribute starts off at tier 1.

-To progress to letting the player level skills to 2, the tier must be increased to 2.

-To increase the tier from 1 to 2, a certain amount of perks must be bought. Let's say 3 for example. so 3 skill points spent, 3 perks are now 1/5 in that attribute tree.

-To increase the tier from 2-3, a certain amount of perks must be bought. Let's say 4 for example. you could either upgrade a few of your perks already at level 1 to level 2, OR try out a few new perks at level 1/5, either way, 4 points.

-So on and so forth until finally the tier goes from 4-5, at which point you can now go level 5/5 in any perk within that specific attribute.

 

** I realize my #'s may not be balanced, just using them for example purposes**

 

I personally still prefer the idea of just one massive "attribute" like DRG does it, but this method is still preferable to the old method... IMO.

[meganoth]

Look at how Deep Rock Galactic gates players. In my opinion, their version of gating is the best I have seen. If you have not played DRG, the simplest way of explaining their gating system is that instead of FIVE attributes, there is only ONE. The "one attribute" takes a tremendous amount of points to max BUT... A.) You do not have to directly spend points on the "attribute" to "level it up". No feeling of wasted points as such. B.) The attribute "level ups" merely by getting any perk you want from the ENTIRE gambit of options, No restrictions, complete freedom. However, because there is still a "gate", you can not get too OP too quickly because you can only start off with low level skills, then mid level, then finally end-game. BUT you can pick whatever you want at any point of the time, which encourages experimentation since you are NOT locked in like you are with A17 perks. Sure, you're still gated much like 7D2D, but in a manner that doesn't seem to punish you as badly, and you're going to be buying random perks anyway, so you don't feel the pain of the gating as badly.

 

Don't know DRG. Do I understand this correctly that perks don't have any levels so getting a perk is independant of every other perk you could spend? But you have low, mid and high level versions of most or many of the perks? Or is the variation so good that no low level perk looks like the weaker version of the mid level perk for example?

[Cirion]

Don't know DRG. Do I understand this correctly that perks don't have any levels so getting a perk is independant of every other perk you could spend? But you have low, mid and high level versions of most or many of the perks? Or is the variation so good that no low level perk looks like the weaker version of the mid level perk for example?

 

-> Non-tiered perks (Only 1/1 max level). An example might be "Ability to craft bicycles". Something like that (in the context of 7d2d). In DRG if the perk was considered fairly game-changing, you could not get it until a much later tier, so that newbies couldn't be OP.

 

-> Tiered perks (5/5 max level, in the context of 7d2d)

 

The perks would still have levels. This remains unchanged. You would still have to progress from perk level 1/5 to 5/5 like before. The manner in which you do, is what changes. When I get off work I might post a screenshot that might help explain it better.

 

Yes, the variation is enough that there is incentive to get some of the lower level perks even if you had mid level perks. For example, let's say up until now you've only been leveling up rifle skills, stamina, and bartering skills (just as example). You've progressed up high in the tiers. Now you realize... I'd like to have some HP regen. Well, just look back at the older tiers, and go buy it. Even though it's an "old" tier, HP regen is something you currently do not have at all and is going to be useful, whether its early game or end game.

 

You would still have to spend points first on HP regen level 1, then 2, 3, 4 and finally 5 much like before. The difference is you would NOT have to spend points on an attribute "Fortitude" first.

 

In the current system, you can't do this. Not without spending points on Fortitude first.