City Atmosphere and Danger

[Viktoriusiii]

You don't have to hold the player in/from certain zones, just encourage/discourage him via static loot, difficult encounters, penalties, dynamic encounters, mechanics etc. In the world of Kenshi for example there is no real narrative and the world is just a sandbox. Its worldbuilding creates its own narrative. That world has random static loot, enemies and dynamic encounters which correspond to the actions of the player in that world. The player is discouraged e.g. from visiting an area full of acid storms until he gets proper equipment or they are encouraged to settle in the holy lands as long as you are weak enough to need their protection because there is a chance for them to offer you reinforcements when a bandit raid happens. Or e.g. even the UO dynamic ecosystem could be used for that purpose. Ways are infinite even without a strict narrative.

 

 

 

 

Could you link that post?

 

What you describe isnt really an "open world" anymore. That, I feel is the difference. Either you want the player to be able to go everywhere if they are smart enough, or not.

I mean I wouldn't be against 7d2d not beeing open world, since it is the same bland thing over and over anyways (with no hubcitie and one less zone to explore) I never really go anywhere that is further than 1.5km (~0.95 miles) away anyways.

But I think the definition of open world is kinda that you can go everywhere if you are smart enough.

Yes cities were pretty dangerous and I wouldn't go close to the wasteland ever since I knew that dogs spawn there on the regular (today its zombie bears) so as far as that, 7d2d already implemented at least one such zone.

But maybe I am totally wrong... maybe they can make the wasteland richer in loot and add more enemies to it...

 

I don't know ^^

 

 

 

p 829:

And here we see the fundamental flaw. Certain weapons should be more powerful!

If I am a bowguy, a t6 shotgun should still be a find I am happy about.

Yes you can say that this is replaced with weapons of your choosing beeing the "awesome find".

But then it looses its bond to reality.

If there was a zombie apocalypse (like the one in 7d2d with stronger and weaker z's) out there, I would be MUCH happier about a shotgun or AK than about a pistol.

 

I actually am having trouble explaining this... because it makes sense on first glance, but it removes something that I actually can't describe...

 

Hey RestInPieces would you be so glad?

Obviously... only if you see my problem...

but you've been far FAR better with words So you may be able to describe why putting every level on an equal playingfield is a bad thing for a survival game.

 

 

this describes it pretty well already... but it doesnt explain why "all weapons are garbage until you specc into it" is a bad designchoice.

 

Or am I just wrong in this?

 

 

[RestInPieces]

What you describe isnt really an "open world" anymore. That, I feel is the difference. Either you want the player to be able to go everywhere if they are smart enough, or not.

I mean I wouldn't be against 7d2d not beeing open world, since it is the same bland thing over and over anyways (with no hubcitie and one less zone to explore) I never really go anywhere that is further than 1.5km (~0.95 miles) away anyways.

But I think the definition of open world is kinda that you can go everywhere if you are smart enough.

Yes cities were pretty dangerous and I wouldn't go close to the wasteland ever since I knew that dogs spawn there on the regular (today its zombie bears) so as far as that, 7d2d already implemented at least one such zone.

But maybe I am totally wrong... maybe they can make the wasteland richer in loot and add more enemies to it...

 

I don't know ^^

 

Well it's not a complete sandbox but I think it's still an open world - some areas may require the player being smart enough (rewarding the ingenuity of the player is always a great thing), but having various areas sprinkled in the world, which the player CAN attempt to explore, but realize that it is just not worth it at that point or needs some preparation, is not the same as having invisible walls that completely prevent the player to move to the "next zone".

 

I mean, even in that example with that acid storm biome, the player could get smart and attack bandits with the proper equipment, steal it, or get a job and buy it. If it's "soft-gating" that rewards player ingenuity, but also his effort and correct world interactions, all the better.

 

I think 7DTD would really benefit from this, radiation zones that were frequently requested being an example. The player will still get rewarded by efficiently crafting or earning coins to buy equipment in order to visit these zones. At least personally, I find that a completely sandbox world that scales with you, is mostly predictable, loot included, and allows you to see absolutely everything from the get-go, is mundane and flat.

 

I certainly hate the "get to level 10 to unlock area B and then 20 to unlock area C" popular mmo model - it's much worse. But a virtual world that does allow you to go anywhere but is sprinkled with different level encounters/subzones is how a real ecosystem would work and I think it makes for a much better and varied exploration experience.

 

 

 

PS: Replied on that post in the dev diary

[Moldy Bread]

I hope a modlet comes out that allows large cities to generate their own classic city biome and dangerous wandeing zombies. Or a modlet that adds the hub cities back with the best loot only available in these cities.

[Viktoriusiii]

Well it's not a complete sandbox but I think it's still an open world - some areas may require the player being smart enough (rewarding the ingenuity of the player is always a great thing), but having various areas sprinkled in the world, which the player CAN attempt to explore, but realize that it is just not worth it at that point or needs some preparation, is not the same as having invisible walls that completely prevent the player to move to the "next zone".

 

I mean, even in that example with that acid storm biome, the player could get smart and attack bandits with the proper equipment, steal it, or get a job and buy it. If it's "soft-gating" that rewards player ingenuity, but also his effort and correct world interactions, all the better.

 

I think 7DTD would really benefit from this, radiation zones that were frequently requested being an example. The player will still get rewarded by efficiently crafting or earning coins to buy equipment in order to visit these zones. At least personally, I find that a completely sandbox world that scales with you, is mostly predictable, loot included, and allows you to see absolutely everything from the get-go, is mundane and flat.

 

I certainly hate the "get to level 10 to unlock area B and then 20 to unlock area C" popular mmo model - it's much worse. But a virtual world that does allow you to go anywhere but is sprinkled with different level encounters/subzones is how a real ecosystem would work and I think it makes for a much better and varied exploration experience.

 

 

 

PS: Replied on that post in the dev diary

 

 

Hmmm... I'm not really certain that this would work and still feel like an open world game. Certainly it would be a great way to guide the player and be rewarding.

I think our difference is only in the definition of "open world"

But yeah I think if implemented correctly (but hey its TFPs! Playing smart isnt accessible to dumb players, so its not appealing to the biggest demographic *if anyone else reads this, this is called hyperboly, playing up a certain thing into ridicoulusness* )this might benefit the game, because it seriously lacks variety of gameplay right now... at least in the exploration department.

 

PS: thx ^^

 

*edit*

 

Isn't it weird how you can have different views without beeing condescending and actually bringing forth arguments, leading to a better understanding of the other person? So weird

[RestInPieces]

Hmmm... I'm not really certain that this would work and still feel like an open world game. Certainly it would be a great way to guide the player and be rewarding.

I think our difference is only in the definition of "open world"

 

True. Like in the level-gate discussion during A17 launch, the thing I hate most are fixed/predictable gates like the ones they introduced, but I am a fan of soft-gates which can be affected by the player's planning/ingenuity/efficiency. In the same way, in an open world or semi-open world game, I believe that exploration should be free without invisible walls or gimmicks, but paced with soft-gating which the player can overcome with the above-mentioned traits.

 

Isn't it weird how you can have different views without beeing condescending and actually bringing forth arguments, leading to a better understanding of the other person? So weird

 

Common sense is a super power nowadays

[beHypE]

They really need to make something unique about each biome to make them worthwhile. I mean, unless i'm in dire need of water, yucca or birdnests, there's literally no point going into the desert or the snow. It gets even worse with the burnt forest that has absolutely no valuable resource and a terrible atmosphere. Last but not least, the wasteland is by far the toughest biome but again... nothing rewards you for going there, so why would you ?

 

They should probably try to make certain types of loot only findable in certain biomes. Right now a forest is all you need, as it's both the most resource filled biome AND the most aethestically pleasing one.