Feedback for The Fun Pimps on Alpha 17

[meganoth]

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.

 

Ok. Not a bad progression system.

 

But it seems to me to give less freedom for specialization as you can't level up a single perk in an attribute domain, you have to take at least three. And if we merge all attributes into one the number of perks to level before going one step up is probably 12-15 now (if we don't want to change progression speed). That seems also a bit restricting.

 

You realize your miner/magnum shooter combo ideal is not possible that way, right? After getting 1 point of the magnum perk you must get lots of other perks before you are allowed to put that second point into magnum. If we have interesting perks for it, nice, but it is a bit contrary to the goals you had before. I sense you really really don't like the attributes

 

If we assume you still get perk points at the same speed there are 23 times 5 points that now need new perks you can put them into (again if we don't want to change progression speed). If we keep perks at 5 this means 23 new perk trees to invent and balance. Could be done if MM scraps the perk books idea and uses the stuff in the books as perks. Or all perks get split up, i.e. Boom Headshot transforms to Boom Nightshot and Boom Dayshot. More headaches for balancing, but possible

 

Or we get perk points at a much slower rate. That seems doable. Or a mix of both. EDIT: Or perks have 7 steps instead of 5

 

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.

 

Well in the current system you might buy Fortitude and Heavy Armor to be badass in a tin can. Later you might get low on glue and look back at huntsmen still at level 0. You could learn huntsmen and you would NOT have to spend points on the attribute "Fortitude" first.

 

7 days has each attribute with attached perks in its own "pocket dimension" that you have to view on its own. Progression in each attribute space does not influence the others. If you merge them all into one, naturally it can't be that an attribute is lagging behind but at the same time the level gates are more pronounced, there is less specialization possible.

 

----

 

To summarize, more perks instead of the 5 attributes I could get behind but it may clash with the new books. I do think it is more restrictive, whether that has much practical consequences has to be seen. Personally I do tend to distribute points and don't think it would change my point disstribution much (at least if we keep 5 attributes)

[Cirion]

Ok. Not a bad progression system.

 

But it seems to me to give less freedom for specialization as you can't level up a single perk in an attribute domain, you have to take at least three. And if we merge all attributes into one the number of perks to level before going one step up is probably 15 now (if we don't want to change progression speed). That seems also a bit restricting.

 

Yes, this is why this is not my preferred approach, and prefer dropping all attributes to one "big" attribute instead. I still don't wish to be limited on an attribute-by-attribute basis as it is now, so I would still probably be salty, lol.

 

If we assume you still get perk points at the same speed there are 23 times 5 points that now need new perks you can put them into (again if we don't want to change progression speed). If we keep perks at 5 this means 23 new perk trees to invent and balance. Could be done if MM scraps the perk books idea and uses the stuff in the books as perks. Or all perks get split up, i.e. Boom Headshot transforms to Boom Nightshot and Boom Dayshot. More headaches for balancing, but possible

 

Why would there be 23 new perk trees? You could have one attribute and only 5 tiers easily using a DRG like approach. Each tier would contain ALL of the level 1 skills, tier 2 would have ALL of the level 2 skills and so on and so forth, in the simplest implementation. I suspect, I haven't done a good job describing the DRG system. So with this, because there is now only one attribute, you may have to spend significantly more points (Let's say 10, instead of the 3 as before) before you progress to tier 2, and then maybe 15 to get to 3, and so on and so forth. I STILL would dislike this over the ability to "Simply buy any skill when I want it on demand regardless of level, or attribute", or learning by doing, but I would like this more than what we have now.

 

EDIT I see the confusion now. Yes to rebalance the game, some skills may need to need more than 1 point per level. This would require maybe some slight thought. Or decrease the max level. Either way.

 

Well in the current system you might buy Fortitude and Heavy Armor to be badass in a tin can. Later you might get low on glue and look back at huntsmen still at level 0. In your words now only slightly altered: Even though it is an "old" perk it is something you currently do not have at all and is going to be useful whether it is early game or end game. You would still have to spend points first on huntsman level 1, then 2, 3, 4 and finally 5 much like before. The difference is you would NOT have to spend points on the attribute "Fortitude" first.

 

I simply don't see the difference here.

I don't have the game handy so I can't recall so bear with me. But if the huntsman perk is in an attribute tree you do not currently have any points in, no you CAN NOT get the huntsman perk in A17. Not without spending on the attribute first. Even if you are close to end-game. mid to end-game is where my idea shines the most. End-game you might have 10-10-10-0-0 on attributes (just random example). You want to get a perk on fourth or fifth tree... Whoops, you can't because you have 0 on that attribute.

 

To summarize, more perks instead of the 5 attributes I could get behind but it may clash with the new books. I do think it is more restrictive, whether that has much practical consequences has to be seen. Personally I do tend to distribute points and don't think it would change my point disstribution much (at least if we keep 5 attributes)

 

I am not necessarily advocating for new perks. In fact, this system could be implemented with ZERO change to the current perks or attributes, or very minimal, that's the beauty of it. Very little to no re-work. See my previous paragraph for demonstration why it is MORE freedom. You are right, keeping the 5 attributes prolly won't change things too much. Again why I much prefer scrapping them.

 

The thing is that going to one attribute would probably not affect your playstyle of "spreading points around" all that much for the most part, while it would dramatically improve my enjoyment. That's a win, right? The goal is to make everyone happy. I was advocating LBD for a while but now it's clear many people don't want it, so now I'm just trying to see how I and maybe others can get behind the new system lol

[Star69]

Another game to look at with somewhat similar perk system is Payday 2. You must buy enough level 1 perks in order to open level 2 perks which are generally either more powerful than level 1 or give you more abilities related to the level 1 perks. That system allowed freedom to pick & choose perks along the paths you wished to take. There are, if I remember correctly, 5 categories that if you spent points only in one category that made you a specific class of a player ie. buying all perks in the medicine category gave you all the abilities of a medic, same for combat, stealth etc. Within each category are 3 trees, all medic related. In order to buy level 2 perks, you must buy 2 or 3 level 1 perks from the different trees, all related in some way. However, if you wanted to have medic & say combat skills that was fine, without having to buy let’s say stealth skills. So many ways to mix and match perks, so much freedom right out of the gate. This current 7d2d system, everything is inter-related so you must spend points in abilities you don’t want to get those that you do want. Hard to explain unless you have played those games.

[Greymantle]

Biggest mistake with 17 IMO...

 

I feel the dev team underestimated how important RWG is to this game at this point of development. They had a year plus to get this right for version 17 and failed to deliver. I feel a lot of the complaints about other parts of the game would be much smaller if we had a working RWG. What do you all think?

[Poojam]

I don't really care much anymore. Too little too late.

[Cirion]

Another game to look at with somewhat similar perk system is Payday 2. You must buy enough level 1 perks in order to open level 2 perks which are generally either more powerful than level 1 or give you more abilities related to the level 1 perks. That system allowed freedom to pick & choose perks along the paths you wished to take. There are, if I remember correctly, 5 categories that if you spent points only in one category that made you a specific class of a player ie. buying all perks in the medicine category gave you all the abilities of a medic, same for combat, stealth etc. Within each category are 3 trees, all medic related. In order to buy level 2 perks, you must buy 2 or 3 level 1 perks from the different trees, all related in some way. However, if you wanted to have medic & say combat skills that was fine, without having to buy let’s say stealth skills. So many ways to mix and match perks, so much freedom right out of the gate. This current 7d2d system, everything is inter-related so you must spend points in abilities you don’t want to get those that you do want. Hard to explain unless you have played those games.

 

I have not played Payday 2 but yes, this sounds exactly like the DRG system and what I am advocating for.

[Royal Deluxe]

What do you all think?

Why my chips are so salty. Could eat much more if they would not be so salty.

 

There is a world you wish, and a world we have.

In reality not everything is as you wish.

 

Sounds like "Weltschmerz"

[Cirion]

It would certainly have helped, about 50% of it. I have harped again and again on skills so I won't here. RNG is almost the other half of the game I liked previously. Luckily though, RWG is getting fixed and RNG is getting new love with legendary items and the books MM is introducing, so that should help with that department as well.

[Ranzera]

I think the RWG is just insult to injury. The game loop problems would exist even on a perfect RWG. RWG has obvious quantifiable problems, so that makes it an easy target. Those happen to be problems that TFP are willing to acknowledge so I'm a little less worried about those, though removing the plains biome was stupid.

[Cirion]

I think the RWG is just insult to injury. The game loop problems would exist even on a perfect RWG. RWG has obvious quantifiable problems, so that makes it an easy target. Those happen to be problems that TFP are willing to acknowledge so I'm a little less worried about those, though removing the plains biome was stupid.

 

Roland confirmed to me in another thread that they are looking into returning the underground caverns, as long as they can fix the problems they had with it. That'll be a huge boon to RWG if they can get it. I never played the older alphas that had it, so that'll be a sweet addition to the game for me.

[Cirion]

Here is a screenshot from the game that may clear it up for any one confused still

 

 

The # arrows tell you how many perks you must buy from that tier or lower tiers to progress to the next tier, the # is the level of that perk skill (much like you have perk levels in this game).

[Ghostlight]

I feel the dev team underestimated how important RWG is to this game at this point of development. They had a year plus to get this right for version 17 and failed to deliver. I feel a lot of the complaints about other parts of the game would be much smaller if we had a working RWG. What do you all think?

 

Absolutely no! A revamped perk system that nobody wanted was obviously much more conducive to a positive play experience than a workable map.

[Jackelmyer]

In fairness RWG has been jacked up for a while. More functional in other Alpha's, and A17 really hit it hard. But the fact they're stating that there's is very dedicated work being done to RWG right now, and not just patching like I've seen the past few Alpha's, leaves me a ton of hope on that point.

[Poojam]

In fairness RWG has been jacked up for a while. More functional in other Alpha's, and A17 really hit it hard. But the fact they're stating that there's is very dedicated work being done to RWG right now, and not just patching like I've seen the past few Alpha's, leaves me a ton of hope on that point.

 

Fool me 16 times shame on me, fool me 17....

[xXBadDreamXx]

itll be ok poojam.... cmere well hug it out bro....do like me and play on ultrra easy mode with 200% loot...i go on a 1 day loot run and get 1500 rounds of ammo and feed it back to the zombies

[OzHawkeye]

I feel the dev team underestimated how important RWG is to this game at this point of development. They had a year plus to get this right for version 17 and failed to deliver. I feel a lot of the complaints about other parts of the game would be much smaller if we had a working RWG. What do you all think?

 

Personally, I think they tried to put too much into a single Alpha release. There may well be reasons for it, and good ones at that, that we're not aware of (I certainly don't have any inside information on that score), but with the delay between A16 and A17 being what it is, I think it would have been better if A17 had hit the ground running on multiple fronts.

 

As someone who only plays RWG, it's current state has certainly impacted me more than any other feature, but in hindsight, I suspect it might have been better to change less of the games other systems in one go, and so (potentially, possibly) reduce the gap between 16 and 17, and give the player base more time to mull over what was changed.

 

The longer cycle and consequently greater change, may have itself, put people off side, where the changes, in smaller, more frequent increments, might not otherwise have done so.

[SnakeWildlife]

95% of my gameplay, is mining and being in my base. I only need to go out looting PoI's for ONE thing...for modifications, EVERYTHING ELSE, to sustain yourself, is done at base.

[meganoth]

Yes, this is why this is not my preferred approach, and prefer dropping all attributes to one "big" attribute instead. I still don't wish to be limited on an attribute-by-attribute basis as it is now, so I would still probably be salty, lol.

 

 

 

Why would there be 23 new perk trees? You could have one attribute and only 5 tiers easily using a DRG like approach.

 

At the moment you have to spend 23 points per attribute, i.e. 5 times 23 = 115. Together with perks you are fully perked up somewhere around 300. In a perk system without attribute points you would be fully perked at about (300-115 = level 185). You need a new sink for those 115 points if you still want the progression last until 300.

 

But I see you talk about making perks cost more than one point. Yes, that would work. Since there are 9x5= 45 perk trees and you need to put about 115 points into it on average 2 levels per perk would have to cost 2 points.

 

Each tier would contain ALL of the level 1 skills, tier 2 would have ALL of the level 2 skills and so on and so forth, in the simplest implementation. I suspect, I haven't done a good job describing the DRG system. So with this, because there is now only one attribute, you may have to spend significantly more points (Let's say 10, instead of the 3 as before) before you progress to tier 2, and then maybe 15 to get to 3, and so on and so forth. I STILL would dislike this over the ability to "Simply buy any skill when I want it on demand regardless of level, or attribute", or learning by doing, but I would like this more than what we have now.

 

EDIT I see the confusion now. Yes to rebalance the game, some skills may need to need more than 1 point per level. This would require maybe some slight thought. Or decrease the max level. Either way.

 

You say spend 10 to tier 2 and 15 to tier 3 as an example. Lets say I have spent 10 points and could buy tier 2 perks. Would I now need 5 or 15 more points to reach tier 3? In other words are the 10 already included in the 15?

 

One problem I see is that as soon as you have reached the number for tier 5 you can have anything from each tree. I know, this is exactly what you want, but it also means you are getting much more powerful in mid-game because you can pick all the perks with synergies out of all trees. Just as an example:

 

There is boom headshot and hidden strike, a very powerful combination. Getting one of them maxed needs 28 points, getting both maxed needs 56. This might be exactly the intention, as their synergies are just too good.

 

Attribute separation has another advantage: Perks don't need to balanced perfectly. Lets assume that heavy armor isn't quite as wonderful as light armor, but IF you already have put a lot of points in fortitude you really start to reconsider if heavy armor instead of light might not be the better because cheaper solution for you. This is actually something I like about the A17 system as my choices depend on the attributes I previously had skilled.

 

In effect the perks in your system AND the synergies they provide would have to be balanced much finer than now.

 

I am not necessarily advocating for new perks. In fact, this system could be implemented with ZERO change to the current perks or attributes, or very minimal, that's the beauty of it. Very little to no re-work. See my previous paragraph for demonstration why it is MORE freedom. You are right, keeping the 5 attributes prolly won't change things too much. Again why I much prefer scrapping them.

 

The thing is that going to one attribute would probably not affect your playstyle of "spreading points around" all that much for the most part, while it would dramatically improve my enjoyment. That's a win, right? The goal is to make everyone happy. I was advocating LBD for a while but now it's clear many people don't want it, so now I'm just trying to see how I and maybe others can get behind the new system lol

 

Weeell, I don't think the freedom we talk about is just one dimension. While this system allows some things that the A17 system doesn't it also prevents some things the A17 system allows. I.e. early specialization, which might be done especially in co-op games. Now that might even be something you can sell to TFP as a big advantage because they can gate forges and iron tools better without it getting so much attention.

 

Yes, I think I could live with this system as well as with the A17 system. I have my doubts about mid- and end-game though as it might lead even more to people always picking the same perks.

[Maynard69]

Certain aspects of RWG so far in a17 are so bad. My biggest complaint with it POI distribution (cell tower, water works ect), elevated POI terrain (causing collapses), and Ore distribution. Oh and size, so much size... I hate small maps.

 

I could live just fine with bad roads, biome placement problems ect. But the other stuff, coupled with the new dull perk system, loss of RNG chase loot, level gates, ect is enough to make me lose interest prematurely in every playthrough I have done in a17.

 

Feels too incomplete, not thought out, and tiresome compared to the winning formula they were working on before a17. But ya the RWG is pretty bad too.I hope a lot of the game changes in the future, I am leaking hope like a siv lately though.

 

The straw that will break the camels back will be if they release a new pretty RWG with fancy rivers and bridges and then I come to a city with 30 cell towers in it still. If that happens and I'm out for real. (probably) (well, at least until it goes gold)

[Maynard69]

In Payday 2 you still had a prerequisite number of points you had to spend to move up a level in each tree. So there was times you had to spend on stuff you didnt want too. I honestly hated that system, I would either spend hours setting and resetting my points as I progressed, or copy a meta build because I would get fed up with dealing with the perks. (hated doing that though)

[meganoth]

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).

 

I looked up "From the shadows" in-game and the text differs from the wiki. Now level 5 gives 60% reduction. Which may or may not be sufficient. It is one thing we might test soon in our co-op game as we want to do a top-down mine with a hanging platform in the center.

 

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.

 

I don't think XP grinding is the optimal way, especially in SP. You need resources more than xp+gamestage. Do a quest each day and you either get iron tools from that or get the money to buy one or two iron tools. Loot building sites and you get lots of materials even without much of a fight. My base in 17.0 was just one of the really big stones i cut to a rectangular shape and a 2 wide spike garden with a cobblestone wall around. It worked very well for day 7.

 

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.

 

We always use a POI as main base and it happened only once that a poi reset on us, in A16 + Darkness Falls. We took over a trader as main- and horde base (trader POIs are vulnerable in that mod). After the reset I just reloaded a backup.

[Cirion]

In Payday 2 you still had a prerequisite number of points you had to spend to move up a level in each tree. So there was times you had to spend on stuff you didnt want too. I honestly hated that system, I would either spend hours setting and resetting my points as I progressed, or copy a meta build because I would get fed up with dealing with the perks. (hated doing that though)

 

this can certainly happen if the perks aren't well thought out. They spent so much time thinking about the perks in DRG that virtually all of them are enticing. you have to think about it because many paths are tempting.

 

I also hate it when games with perk systems have "Filler" perks that virtually no one will ever pick. No argument there

[Cirion]

One problem I see is that as soon as you have reached the number for tier 5 you can have anything from each tree. I know, this is exactly what you want, but it also means you are getting much more powerful in mid-game because you can pick all the perks with synergies out of all trees.

 

I see nothing wrong with this. After all you are already at near end-game by the time this happens. And remember, if done right, you'll still need up to 10-15 points to bring up a skill from 1-5, so you'd still want to think about it before blindly putting points in something.

 

It should be worth noting that I believe it was Roland that mentioned to me that he considers level 100 "End-Game" and that the last 200 level ups are there just so you can max everything. With that in mind, I absolutely think you should be able to start getting anything you want by 80-100.

 

Attribute separation has another advantage: Perks don't need to balanced perfectly. Lets assume that heavy armor isn't quite as wonderful as light armor, but IF you already have put a lot of points in fortitude you really start to reconsider if heavy armor instead of light might not be the better because cheaper solution for you. This is actually something I like about the A17 system as my choices depend on the attributes I previously had skilled.

 

I get you are trying hard to explain how A17 can be good and I have to hand it to you. But I simply don't agree. Again, I hate the fact that sometimes, I have to spend the 28 points to get something I want. Nothing will change my mind here. You're not wrong, it's just that this is the lazy approach. Take the work, and balance everything so this doesn't happen. Or at least make it so the skills that are "Better" cost more points, that is the simplest approach.

 

In effect the perks in your system AND the synergies they provide would have to be balanced much finer than now.

 

This, I probably agree with if you think it would really be an issue.

 

Weeell, I don't think the freedom we talk about is just one dimension. While this system allows some things that the A17 system doesn't it also prevents some things the A17 system allows. I.e. early specialization, which might be done especially in co-op games. Now that might even be something you can sell to TFP as a big advantage because they can gate forges and iron tools better without it getting so much attention.

 

Yes, TFP level gated crafting after all but didn't level gate anything else. I personally think it makes no sense to level gate one thing and not the other. Either gate everything, or gate nothing. Don't be on the fence about it.

 

Yes, I think I could live with this system as well as with the A17 system. I have my doubts about mid- and end-game though as it might lead even more to people always picking the same perks.

 

Solvable if virtually every perk is tempting. Even so, most people now in A17 pick the same path anyway, so it is hardly different. Most people tend to gravitate towards primarily combat specializations. Not all, but a large majority. It's pretty much the meta for early game grinding. Literally no matter how the perk system is set up, there will ALWAYS be a meta. There is no way around this, but you can at least make people consider choosing paths that are only marginally worse than meta.

 

The thing is though it is PRECISELY because of the mid-late game benefits that I want such a system. You've earned it - you reached end-game, now you can get what you want.

[Wigbert]

My internet really sucks and I can not really play multiplayer.

 

RWG is my everything.

[Alphado-Jaki]

For those who are tired with bad poi distribution and too small cities, I made the mods for that.

https://7daystodie.com/forums/showthread.php?110773-Alphado-s-modlet

 

But, road and biome..., we need to wait till they fix.