Feedback for The Fun Pimps on Alpha 17

[FishStyk]

People who are having fun typically don't think about how much fun they would've had if the current default were somehow different so for those who are having fun whether they have "complete information" or not is irrelevant.

 

Fun is not a Boolean. Gaming is a competitive market. Games compete for the limited attention/money of gamers. If a game is less fun, that will result in more players opting to spend their time/money on other games.

 

The incomplete information is relevant to weighting the feedback of the player base. The assessments of those with less information are less credible. This of course, presumes the FP's are leveraging the assessments of the player base in the first place.

 

It would take a third party to go and get in their face and explain that they aren't having as much fun as they think they are...

 

It's not about having less fun than they think they are, it's about less fun than they could be having. When that puts them in the range of 'less fun than they'd have playing other games' this results in less customers.

[Roland]

Fun is not a Boolean.

 

Exactly my point. It is complex and ever shifting-- not only from person to person but even within the same person over time. This is why chasing some perceived idea of what is most fun for the most people is folly. In any creative endeavor the artist must do what is best for their own vision (or judgement if you like that better).

 

Gaming is a competitive market. Games compete for the limited attention/money of gamers. If a game is less fun, that will result in more players opting to spend their time/money on other games.

 

This sort of thinking is exactly what gets us carbon copy re-iterations of the same games with numbers at the end or years. It is the mantra of the huge corporate game studios that never risk or experiment or do anything different than what has already been shown to be most fun for the most people in the past. It is exactly because this is a small independent studio that we got an A17 that wasn't simply Alpha Sixteen 2019 or Alpha Sixteen 2-- even though there are those that wanted that.

 

The incomplete information is relevant to weighting the feedback of the player base. The assessments of those with less information are less credible. This of course, presumes the FP's are leveraging the assessments of the player base in the first place.

 

All feedback is biased. You want to discredit the feedback of the brand new because they aren't aware of older versions they never played? How about the feedback of the experienced who are burnt out on certain play mechanics and don't find them fun anymore? How about discrediting the feedback of the super knowledgeable who read all the patch notes and even looked at the code so that they understand all the workings under the hood? How about discrediting those with 4000+ hours who can no longer accurately recall what it was like to play the game as a fresh experience?

 

None of them should be discredited or weighted. But neither should they be chased. TFP should use their own judgement but consider the feedback to tailor slightly what they want to do. Large adjustments can be left to modders who represent the different factions of fun. TFP does leverage the feedback they get from the player base but not to pick a direction. It's usually to try and make the direction they've picked not quite as painful for those who don't want to go.

 

It's not about having less fun than they think they are, it's about less fun than they could be having. When that puts them in the range of 'less fun than they'd have playing other games' this results in less customers.

 

Completely subjective. This is nonsensical to try and control, predict, or develop to. What I feel about how much fun I could be having compared to what I'm having will change from day to day. Right now I'm having more fun tinkering with my mod than I am playing. Tomorrow, I might feel that playing another game in my library is going to feel more fun.

 

You make the game YOU feel is going to be fun and hope that others come along for the ride. TFP has proven to be successful at this.

[ZomBella]

You make the game YOU feel is going to be fun and hope that others come along for the ride. TFP has proven to be successful at this.

 

I agree to a point. I think they did make a great successful game, and for the most part players loved it or it wouldn't have the fan base is has or this massive forum for another, and then they made a lot of poor decisions both in roll out and fundamental changes that undermined their product.

 

I do also think the devs have somewhat lost touch with what the game was and have tried to make it too many things to too many people or perhaps into something it is not. For example: It is not a triple A title, never was, but I don't think anyone loved it any less for not being one. In fact I know many players love it because it's not. It was never solely an FPS, but it feels like it has tried to shift more in that direction.

 

A17 really changed the game in a way many long time fans, such as myself, didn't expect nor ask for. We wanted fixes to spinning zombies and instant respawns (which still happen) new POIs and new zombies, not a complete overhaul of xp and removing the perks and point of mining. It no longer has the longevity it once had.

 

I also agree that mods certainly do help with that longevity, I doubt I'd have 2000 odd hrs racked up without them, but when some fundamental elements are made redundant such as mining, it really does limit the time you spend in game. There are only so many mods you can combine until it's literally unplayable, as in, it doesn't even load.

 

Going back to the original OP, I think he has a point and is not alone in feeling curtailed in a players choices that were once there and then removed. The devs might not be "directly trying to kill player options." but in implementing 'new behaviors' in the zombies AI, they have done just that.

 

My 10 cents is: I loved the game: it had exploration, looting, trading, mining, building, you were rewarded for simply playing - it still has many of those things with quests and dungeon houses and more vehicles but now mining is virtually pointless thereto so is base building to a point, and then they made super architectural genius zombies that know exactly which beam to target or block to destroy esp. re-enforced concrete (which they demolish like butter).

 

Perhaps a solution is that maybe not ALL zombies have these super abilities but some, like cops do?

 

All I can say is I hope you're right Roland, that this is a change they made and it's still a work in progress and just like diggin zoms and Hawaiian shirt guy, they were reimplemented. Right now, "I might feel that playing another game in my library is going to feel more fun." has been today's flavour and has been for over a month now. I'm waiting for A18 I just hope I don't have to wait almost two years for it.

[meganoth]

My 10 cents is: I loved the game: it had exploration, looting, trading, mining, building, you were rewarded for simply playing - it still has many of those things with quests and dungeon houses and more vehicles but now mining is virtually pointless thereto so is base building to a point, and then they made super architectural genius zombies that know exactly which beam to target or block to destroy esp. re-enforced concrete (which they demolish like butter).

 

If mining is pointless, where do you get the material for building a horde base and all the traps (and repairing it?).

[FishStyk]

This sort of thinking is exactly what gets us carbon copy re-iterations of the same games with numbers at the end or years.

Minus creativity and innovation, sure. To think I was advocating for uninventive cookie cutter games is a very ungenerous interpretation of what I’ve said, if not an outwrite straw man.

 

All feedback is biased. You want to discredit the feedback of the brand new because they aren't aware of older versions they never played?

Let’s be clear here, I didn’t discredit anyone’s feedback, I made a general claim about the relative credibility of an assessment as it relates to the information available at the time of the assessment. Moreover, this line of discussion was in response to you making a similar claim, but in favor of new players. A claim that goes against our best understanding of decision making with incomplete information (from Information Theory). A claim backed solely by your own bias, which you now project upon others.

 

Completely subjective. This is nonsensical to try and control, predict, or develop to.

Demonstrably wrong. There are game companies that, with creativity, innovation, a strong sense of what’s fun for their audience, and solid game design principles repeatedly produce successful games. They recognize the patterns in what their audience finds enjoyable and build games leveraging those patterns. If this was entirely subjective then that would not be possible.

 

You make the game YOU feel is going to be fun and hope that others come along for the ride.

That is one of the approaches I mentioned. The cost of that approach is that if developers that follow this path are wrong they go out of business. I acknowledge this approach, contrasted it with others, as well as conceded that it’s TFP’s choice what they do. Our difference here seems to be in that you think this is the only viable path, whereas I see, and advocate for, other paths.

 

TFP has proven to be successful at this.

Game companies that have repeatedly produced successful games have proven they can develop fun games, TFP has not demonstrated this yet. This is their first game. It’s successful so far, but their changing it and it’s not yet clear if these changes will help or hurt the game, nor is it clear their final vision will be good.

[Roland]

I do also think the devs have somewhat lost touch with what the game was....

 

That is one possibility. Another is that some people didn't understand what the game was destined to be. This goes to the sandbox nature of the game as well. Were the early versions of the game purely sandbox because that was the ultimate intention of the devs but then they lost touch with that or were the early versions of the game purle sandbox because there were missing features that were always planned and then finally implemented which whittled away at the pure sandbox nature of the game? I guess the possibilities people will believe is dependent upon how they feel about the game.

 

Those who are angry about the changes because they were married to interim and placeholder features will assume negative motives and reasons I suppose.

 

A17 really changed the game in a way many long time fans, such as myself, didn't expect nor ask for. We wanted fixes to spinning zombies and instant respawns (which still happen) new POIs and new zombies, not a complete overhaul of xp and removing the perks and point of mining. It no longer has the longevity it once had.

 

Yes, franchises such as Call of Duty, Madden, etc have trained us to expect subsequent releases to be rehashes of what we already know with a few enhancements. Fortunately, as an independent studio with no marketing executives to demand hard release dates and taking no risks with tried and true formulas, TFP experiments and doesn't just churn out Alpha Fifteen 2 and Alpha Fifteen 3 and Alpha Fifteen 4. Alpha 17 is its own iteration and it really is an evolution of the game and despite the love affair that many have for LBD, there is nothing inherently wrong with a Central Pool XP system. Zombie AI is in its first iteration and will be improved. RWG is being improved.

 

Going back to the original OP, I think he has a point and is not alone in feeling curtailed in a players choices that were once there and then removed. The devs might not be "directly trying to kill player options." but in implementing 'new behaviors' in the zombies AI, they have done just that.

 

Notice the date of the OP. This is early feedback. Since that time there have been many posts by people who have discovered that base building is not as restrictive as it was originally thought. The problem for some is that they quit before learning to innovate and are now waiting for A18 but still reposting their feelings they had early on. I'm not saying that A17 should be fun for you and others if it isn't. Only you can decide if something is fun for yourself or not. However, saying that choices are curtailed is a statement that was thrown around freely at first but much less so among those who have actually put some time into A17.

 

All I can say is I hope you're right Roland...

 

Me too! Hoping for the best can lead to disappointment but worrying about failure only makes you suffer twice.

[meganoth]

Game companies that have repeatedly produced successful games have proven they can develop fun games,

 

If you take 100 dice and throw each of them 5 times and write down the values, you probably will find a few specific dice that totally rock and produce high values for all 5 throws? Those dice must be the so called lucky dice. Right?

 

But please share the names of those companies. Once people thought Bethesda was among them, not anymore. Some people thought Blizzard could never err, but then the Diablo 3 in-game store was quite a disaster. At the moment CD Project has a clean record, maybe Paradox as well. What are your picks?

[FishStyk]

If you take 100 dice and throw each of them 5 times and write down the values, you probably will find a few specific dice that totally rock and produce high values for all 5 throws? Those dice must be the so called lucky dice. Right?

So it’s just random chance, at 5-120 mill per dice roll.

 

But please share the names of those companies. Once people thought Bethesda was among them, not anymore. Some people thought Blizzard could never err, but then the Diablo 3 in-game store was quite a disaster. At the moment CD Project has a clean record, maybe Paradox as well. What are your picks?

 

No game company is infallible, especially since they are always in flux as markets, technology, leadership and team compositions change over time. I think Blizzard and Bethesda both have good records, but both got greedy. I also suspect they'll correct course after their latest missteps. At least I hope they do. I think Bioware had a fairly long and solid run, until EA bought them. They made some missteps along the way, but generally showed good judgment and adjusted course quickly as mistakes were made (again, until EA's involvement). I think Valve and Id also have good records. Rockstar. Back in the day, Westwood was solid (until EA). I suspect there are others I've missed.

[Roland]

Minus creativity and innovation, sure. To think I was advocating for uninventive cookie cutter games is a very ungenerous interpretation of what I’ve said, if not an outwrite straw man.

 

Not necessarily you but the sentiment is definitely real. I've lost track of the number of times people (pretty much the same half dozen people) have mused, "Why couldn't they have just done better graphics on Alpha 16 and have called it done?!" And in the industry that sentiment (strategy?) is exactly why we do end up with cookie cutter games.

 

Let’s be clear here, I didn’t discredit anyone’s feedback, I made a general claim about the relative credibility of an assessment as it relates to the information available at the time of the assessment. Moreover, this line of discussion was in response to you making a similar claim, but in favor of new players. A claim that goes against our best understanding of decision making with incomplete information (from Information Theory). A claim backed solely by your own bias, which you now project upon others.

 

All I claimed was that new players are predominately finding the game fun based on the feedback. I said that the predominate negative mark against the game by new players is regarding performance and there is very little in the way of negativity regarding the design of the gameplay. You then responded that new players have less credibility as a source of feedback for the devs because they don't know how much fun they could've been having if they had tried Alpha 16. If that is not the very definition of "discrediting" then I don't know what is I suppose. And as far as bias, I'm not sure what kind of bias would lead me to erroneously think that enjoying what is actually happening should always be compared to what enjoyment I might be having under different circumstances. Anti-Multiverse Bias? Are we in an episode of Sliders?

 

There is no who's right and who's wrong. Everyone is right about the fun they are individually having. If you aren't having fun because you can't help but compare A16 gameplay to A17 gameplay but I am having fun for the same reason we are both right. And then new guy purchases the game tomorrow and starts playing and has a blast...he's right too.

 

Moreover, if TFP is trying to attract new players with their new money then you bet your bottom dollar that the fun that new players are having is credible regardless of whether those new players have a complete and full understanding of all previous versions of the game and how fun they might have been.

 

Demonstrably wrong. There are game companies that, with creativity, innovation, a strong sense of what’s fun for their audience, and solid game design principles repeatedly produce successful games. They recognize the patterns in what their audience finds enjoyable and build games leveraging those patterns. If this was entirely subjective then that would not be possible.

 

I'll give you that there are marketing departments adept at finding out what the masses find fun. They do a good job at keeping games safe and fun for maximum profits. And we can see why. Gamers are not forgiving. They say that they wish game companies would take more risks and try new things but we see what happens when formulas change and gamers don't like the change. Burn the world rage.

 

That is one of the approaches I mentioned. The cost of that approach is that if developers that follow this path are wrong they go out of business. I acknowledge this approach, contrasted it with others, as well as conceded that it’s TFP’s choice what they do. Our difference here seems to be in that you think this is the only viable path, whereas I see, and advocate for, other paths.

 

We do disagree. I want TFP to experiment and try new things and go with their instincts. I'm glad they made the changes for A17 instead of just keeping what they had with some graphics and performance boosts. I'm glad they are sticking to their vision. I don't see them going out of business. I see some players who have already put massive time and gotten massive entertainment value for that time possibly moving on to a new game but that isn't horrific. That's normal in this industry. Actually it already is literally a success. If TFP went to a convention and talked to other devs of other studios and said, "yeah, we could only keep some of our players for like 4000 hours before they moved on to a new game". I really doubt those other teams are going to be smugly thinking, "Epic Fail".

 

This is not to say that they should ignore their longtime players at all. Listen and use their feedback to make slight adjustments.

 

 

Game companies that have repeatedly produced successful games have proven they can develop fun games, TFP has not demonstrated this yet. This is their first game. It’s successful so far, but their changing it and it’s not yet clear if these changes will help or hurt the game, nor is it clear their final vision will be good.

 

It won't be good for some and it will be brilliant for others and meh for still others. Fun is subjective. But I bet it will be fun enough for enough people with them trusting to their own vision that they will stay in business and see lots of interest for their next game.

[FishStyk]

Not necessarily you but the sentiment is definitely real. I've lost track of the number of times people …

Fair enough, though this discussion was between us and that was not my argument. I’ll toss this up to a miss communication due to the medium.

 

All I claimed was that new players are predominately finding the game fun based on the feedback.

You stated this, and that most of the negative feedback was from older players, while defending the latest design changes. I took this as favoring the new players assessments over the older players assessments, but that was my interpretation, and may have been in error, so I’ll take responsibility for that. I apologize if I misunderstood your point.

 

As for ‘discrediting’ anyone, I don’t find it reasonable to weight all feedback equally. Weighting some feedback less than other feedback is not, imo, discrediting it. I weight the feedback of my mechanic friend over my pet groomer friend when it comes to buying cars, that doesn't mean I'm discrediting their input, just that when their advice conflicts, I'll tend to defer to my mechanic friend. I suggest we agree to disagree on this.

 

If you aren't having fun because you can't help but compare A16 gameplay to A17 gameplay.

That’s an assumption. I’m not having fun because I don’t like the game anymore. After about 15 hours of trying to enjoy a17, because I really wanted to, I’m done. Like many, I’m waiting until a18. Of the 3k+ hours I’ve played this game, I’m fairly confident that I’d not have made it even to hour 15 if the current gameplay was what I’d first experienced. There’s no way of knowing that for sure, but I’ve a pretty good handle on what I like and don’t like. The point of contrasting it with a16 was to communicate to the developers what changes have altered my degree of interest.

 

We do disagree. … I'm glad they are sticking to their vision.

I think we understand each other, and can agree to disagree.

 

If TFP went to a convention and talked to other devs of other studios and said, "yeah, we could only keep some of our players for like 4000 hours before they moved on to a new game". I really doubt those other teams are going to be smugly thinking, "Epic Fail".

 

Absolutely true, assuming the final game design keeps players that long. If the final shipped game design keeps people like 5 hours before they rage quit or, worse, few players even bother buying the game, then yeah, that’s a fail. In that case, it would be good that they got as much money from the beta as they did, because the early beta would have been more fun than the final game.

 

I bet it will be fun enough for enough people with them trusting to their own vision that they will stay in business and see lots of interest for their next game.

 

I hope the final game is fun as well, either because they stick to their vision and it happens to be fun, or because they learn what their players enjoy and adjust course. I'm not making an effort to provide constructive feedback because I want them to burn..?

[xXBadDreamXx]

Very well said Roland. Thanks for being the voice of reason and keeping things real. In the end it boils down to the vision the Pimps have for their game. It's still alpha and were just along for the ride.

Now I'll say what I think.

7 days to die was entirely unique and not one single game out there could even begin to touch what it offered. Now they've moved in a direction to make it like other games instead of keeping what they'd already built. In time this may be awesome with a lot of fine tuning but in the meantime we're all left with a sour taste in our mouth because copying what another unique game had, did nothing but take away from what 7 days to die ALLREADY had.

[Roland]

Very well said Roland. Thanks for being the voice of reason and keeping things real.

 

Thanks but I’ll point out that FishStyck is also being a voice of reason for a different perspective and I appreciate most everyone remaining civil in this thread. We may not see eye to eye but we all would like to see a fun game get made in the end.

[meganoth]

So it’s just random chance, at 5-120 mill per dice roll.

 

Not really. But if the secret sauce of game design were so easy to find, big publishers would just buy successful developers and hand over money to them and voila, neverending success.

 

This is exactly what EA has been doing from time to time. They didn't always interfere with their developers. A well-known example was Lord British aka Richard Garriot. It didn't end well.

[FishStyk]

Not really. But if the secret sauce of game design were so easy to find, big publishers would just buy successful developers and hand over money to them and voila, neverending success.

 

It's definitely not easy, and Roland is on point when arguing the subjective nature of one's experience. Having said that, there are patterns in human behavior and interests. Different games leverage different patterns as few (if any) patterns are universal. Mindcraft, imo, for example, exposed a new pattern and it's success has spawned a set of new games exploring the boundaries of that pattern. I consider 7d2d one of those games, however, it seems as though that may not be the vision of TFP. We'll see.

 

This is exactly what EA has been doing from time to time. They didn't always interfere with their developers. A well-known example was Lord British aka Richard Garriot. It didn't end well.

 

Yeah, some times interference is warranted

[dex314]

I couldn't agree more with OP's sentiments. They clearly don't want you to even bother with crafting until you've played 60-plus levels of 7 Days to Hunt Zombies. Yeah - the game is now about US hunting THEM. The sheer amount of immersion and variety that has been yanked since a16 is unbelievable.

 

Yea I keep trying to play, after running PVE servers for a few years. Everything in this game has been made so grindy in the beginning. Normally, starting fresh was fun. But now, basic actions are so nerfed until you put skill points into that category that its absolutely miserable. I hate having to rest after jumping twice. I hate having to rest after hitting a rock 4 times. I hate that I cant craft anything. I hate that I cant run through a field picking flowers and now have to punch each one. I hate that the nail gun is super slow. Everything they added in terms of actions and skills made the beginning game incredibly frustrating. Again, I used to love starting fresh, but that was when baseline granted a player an acceptable level of competency. Now, in order to walk 12 steps you need to add skill points into stamina, otherwise you were like a person with a 60 yeark smoking pack history and emphysema. The pimps should make the baseline how it was in a16, and then let us become stronger. NOT start us out as crippled humans and then force us to level to gain basic human motor skills.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

 

It takes a long time for players to dig out those pits all the way around a base depending on its size, so to say there was no effort involved is inane, it used to take me an entire weekend to dig out my pits and they didn't even go to bedrock.

 

also not everything he suggested was a bug or an exploit, but there were some clever use of game mechanics as well.

 

I agree, especially with the nerfs to stamina in the beginning, prior to putting tons of skill points into separate melee, block dmg, and stamina categories. Just let us level stamina passively.

[RyanX]

Broken RWG + stuttering = lost interest

 

I've put a couple thousand hours into this game, so I guess you could say I've gotten my money's worth. But my wife and I play exclusively on MP servers and we lost interest a couple weeks ago and really have no desire to go back right now. The RWG is bad, we know. The frequent mini lock-ups are a real hassle. Yeah, it's alpha...but...

 

The MP server we played most had to shut down for lack of players as they waned away. Another loses players real fast after. The fun seems gone a LOT earlier than before on a new wipe.

 

I'm not here to gripe, just to give my varying mileage as input. TFP has put a lot into this alpha, but it seems to have taken a step back.

[Michlo]

Hear hear, OP.

 

Thank you for this thread. I did play a little yesterday and today (my first time with A17) and it was frustrating but I tried to go with it. The texture overhaul is rather nice, the lag is not (and I have a powerful machine).

 

Anyway, this thread makes it clear to me that it is too soon to return.

 

Cheers.

[hiigaran]

This Game is not a Survival Game anymore.

[ColdGate]

A17 looks like kind of short demo version with half cuted content comparing to A16. Also almost infinite replayability in earlier versions, no more exist, after played once I have feeling like game finished, and "Game Over" titles are played, so no more reason start another playthrough

[kuratowakiru]

left the game for a year and came back about a week or two now.

 

---

Skill

The skills is kinda let down. I don't know which alpha this was (15 or 16) but having both xp in each skill and spending point to buy it was nice.

 

I feel like TFP should make it if you use items weapons or tools, it increase the efficiency (old skill system) like reload speed, damage, block damage. And skill point for things like + X% to pop zombie head, increase crop harvest, increase resource gain.

 

it shouldn't be like I wack a bunches of zombies and now I'm a mechanic.

IMO, the tech tree should be reverse back to books, same skills we have now, but read books to unlock it.

 

---

Loot

The loot from zombies is gone, so now there less of an incense to even bother fighting Zs, it get replace with xp instead. So instead of survival game, it an RPG game.

 

The yellow loot bag was kinda rubbish, mediocre loots or downright garbage most of the time. And it disappear way too fast, by the time you finish clearing a horde, it gone. All those ammo and resource goes into defeating a horde gone for no reason. (I edit the xml for it to last to morning, I shouldn't even need to do this)

 

---

AI

Zombies chew through the base and you have to exploit their AI to survive. Older alpha base design was like, you can fight one end, quick repair it, go to other side and kills Zs on other side. You know, zombies survival. Now I search up base design, it all freaking maze or some kind of path finding exploit base. If you build older alpha design, the zombies just chew through your base because it doing so much godam damage, wtf. Not to mention, if it falls down like 20 blocks, it magically extend it arm back up and wack that block. So even more AI exploiting to get around this. And how the hell does zombies know it faster to go one direction rather hit certain block.

 

IMO, reverse it back to the old zombies AI or something similar to it (it should still keep the taking fall damage and go rampant at nearby block, that very zombie like) and if it can't reach you after a while, it'll try to find your building support and have a go at it.

 

And last I heard (over a year ago) wasn't we suppose to get an AI that look for your trail? I know zombies can jump like 2-3 block now, this shouldn't be an issue.

 

Give the current zombie AI to bandit. That make way more sense

 

---

POI and city zombies

 

 

POI have way too much Zs some times.

 

Hidden in wall and roof zombies are stupid too. 1 or 2 is fine, an army of feral in a small POI is just stupid. If you want a feral army trap, make a large shopping mall POI that as contain 3-4 current POI inside it and put them in there. not every POI need to be some kind of dungeon.

 

Turning most of the zombies into sleeper made the game super boring. Sneak sneak sneak, crossbow, sneak sneak crossbow

 

I miss the old alpha where there were fair amount of zombie roaming the city.

 

IMO, when you enter an POI, it spawn zombies, but put it on a "patrol pattern" and wondering inside the POI. When you fight the zombies, if it growls, it call nearby Zs to investigate (doesn't target you, but just go to the general area). POI zombies take longer to despawn (leave POI far enough or wait about 5 mins), add dead corpses in POI, now this is where the sleeper zombies/traps shines. You don't know whether the zombies is dead or sleeping.

 

and bring back wondering horde in the city.

 

Also, what with the godamn bleeding, it happen way too often.

 

---

Stamina, health, death and food

 

if it ain't broken, don't fix it. They change the micromanagement from clothes to food now.

I don't like walk 5 steps and be remind to take a sip of water or being hungry.

 

All the drink been dumb down to essentially coloured water. And beer you essentially drunk right after the first drink, wtf, I'm a lightweight and I don't get double vision after a single sip.

add in the water filter mod, there no reason to boil water, let alone to make any other drink.

 

What wrong with the old system?

if you let your food and water drop to 0, you slowly dying.

 

Speaking of dying.

Old system reward you for being healthy (eating food and staying alive) and punish you if you die by taking away health and stamina. Forcing you to play cautiously to rebuild it.

New system is punish you for not eating and drinking every other 5 seconds. And dying punish you by brain dead and forget your skill for half an hour, forcing you to ♥♥♥♥ around for half an hour.

 

 

IMO, if you want to keep the new system. Wait till food and water at 50% before starting to penalize the player. Reduce stamina consumption across the board (why the hell aiming down sight consume stamina?). Bring back the old drink, or have food give similar effects of old drink.

bring back the old wellness system and get rid of the skill point for stamina and health.

 

---

Item quality

 

beside durability, there no real reason to get better quality item. You also lost that feeling of awe when you found better loot.

 

Old system where rarer item dealt more damage/block damage give it an incense to find better quality item.

TFP already got rid of combining item repair, don't need to remove rare item bonus as well.

 

 

---

performance

 

oh boy. The last time I play 7D2D, I have like 120~80 fps on max setting (except texture, on half),1920x1080 with normal gameplay, 60 if my base was clutter and fill with lights turn on(large room with 3 lights, 5 levels of this).

 

now I'm have to play on 1600x900 with everything on low (texture still half) to get 60 fps, and it get dip down to 40~30 at times. And Im in the middle of butt f nowhere, only my crappy base and it tank my fps like that. Also, everything is blurry because I have to turn down the graphic to keep the 60fps, and I have a powerful PC.

 

 

 

---------------

Overall

 

The game feel like everything been dumb down, or take a step back. The game definately feeling less and less of zombie survival sandbox and more of zombie RPG/tower defend.

[Zarzthor]

I really enjoy A17 except for a few things.

 

1. Level gates have always bugged me in pretty much any game.

2. Buildings are like clown cars with the amount of zed's inside most of the time.

3. All crafting tied to intelligence

 

That said all these are being addressed with A18.

 

If you look at the A18 dev thread pretty much everything you're wondering about is answered there. https://7daystodie.com/forums/showthread.php?111778-Alpha-18-Dev-Diary!!

[ktr]

Still liking 17.0 in both SP and MP and I'm liking the potential changes coming for a18. If the new RWG looks as good as the pics that have been posted, then exploration is going to be a real treat. Level gates seem to be going away and the attributes/perks are going to get some restructuring to allow for focus on particular play styles.

[Jamey]

I’m done with A17. I’ve made my criticisms clear in a number of threads. Hopefully the devs have listened.

 

I’ll evaluate A18 when it comes out. My impression is that the devs like the changes I hate, so I may be done with 7 days (or perhaps playing mods).

[Razzoriel]

Everyone has their threshold for punishment. A moment when they say "enough, im not supporting this anymore". It is a slow build-up for those that are engaged in something they used to like. Mine was a two-pronged event, first at A15, when i decided to longer mod an Alpha game that changes so much with every update, and for the worst. You know when someone tries to save a cake by adding new layers, but each new layer, as good as they taste individually just messes up the entire cake more? This is 7 Days to Die.

 

The second was when René Kuhn, the most dedicated modder in the game, died in an accident. The developers didnt care. They couldnt. They after all need more ways to sell their game. Its okay. Ill just quit modding.

 

But then came A17 and everyone said it was bottom-level 7DTD. I couldnt believe it so i tested it myself for a month or so. The game is now completely devoid of its original character. There are just so many problems that rotted out to this version it stank even new cool mechanics, like new vehicles. The LBD is gone, because it actually was a cool thing and we cant have cool things. With standard settings zombies destroy bases effortlessly. I cant now find parts, just whole guns. The awesome quality level system for items is gone for a meager 1-6 system, because instead of hiring a mathematician to make loot drops more interesting they instead scrapped the whole idea because they couldnt bang their heads enough.

 

And for all gun aficcionados out there, all they got was a mod system that is alright, but makes zero sense when you need a schematic that is destroyed when you craft one. And im not even mentioning how farming is useless and they broke completely what was once the best sustaining water/food system several alphas ago.

 

So yeah, patience has its limits. And even the most patient of people are leaving because the devs want to be Hideo Kojima and do the opposite of what their players want, but can't separate the whiners from the good advice. Way to go, pimps. You sure slap and put those wenches of yours giving you money, thats how its done.

[RestInPieces]

There is a lot of talk about how they will never backtrack.

 

cough... stamina changes... cough cough... death penalty.... cough...