Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hated

Alpha 18 feedback and balancing thread

Recommended Posts

 

Sounds overcomplicated and like a pain in the ass.

 

Probably because I'm talking about the implementation. From the player perspective, the change would be imperceptible if none of the extra features are put into use. You go into your menu, search for "wood frame", and craft it. Behind the scene, you are no longer searching for an item or block, but searching for a recipe, which just so happens to have the same name as the block it crafts. But if you search for "9mm", you'll see not only the normal, AP and HP 9mm, but you may also see "Dismantle 9mm", plus the AP and HP versions, and crafting that produces gunpowder, bullet tips and bullet casing, if such a thing is added. Right now, that's impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Probably because I'm talking about the implementation. From the player perspective, the change would be imperceptible if none of the extra features are put into use. You go into your menu, search for "wood frame", and craft it. Behind the scene, you are no longer searching for an item or block, but searching for a recipe, which just so happens to have the same name as the block it crafts. But if you search for "9mm", you'll see not only the normal, AP and HP 9mm, but you may also see "Dismantle 9mm", plus the AP and HP versions, and crafting that produces gunpowder, bullet tips and bullet casing, if such a thing is added. Right now, that's impossible.

 

In their defense, I had to read your post twice before I realized what you were talking about. :)

 

Having said that, I would LOVE for crafting to get some love. In my 18.x games, crafting quickly becomes nothing more than making gasoline and gun powder. Why craft armor/weapons when you have ALWAYS found better by the time you can a) unlock the recipe and b) found enough "parts" to craft the item.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've seen at least one person remark that the Wasteland Treasures completion reward is underwhelming. Well, it is. First, you probably have found the schematic for military fiber by the time you complete the book set, and it's really cheap to make. Second, traders have it often and it's cheap enough. Third, by the time you complete a book set, you have a vehicle, so heavy armor isn't that much of a deal, and you may well have looted all the armor you are going to need.

 

Here are two alternative completion rewards that make sense in the context of what this book set gives:

 

* Scraping gives you 100% instead of 75% of the material.

* Scrap things faster.

 

I would like to see scrapping work the same was as crafting, as in not a total timer for all items being scrapped, but just scrap the stack one item at a time. Yes this may mean fractions are lost because it only gives 75% back, but in my opinion these should be lost anyway as scrapping 1 at a time and all at once should yield the same amount of scrap material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the flashlight supposed to lose its capacity as a melee weapon? I can't tell if this was intentional or not. I was looking at items.xml, and it's set up similar to other melee weapons, except it has no DamageType set.

 

I can't think of a technical or balancing reason the flashlight can't melee attack anymore... the torch still does, for comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was the flashlight supposed to lose its capacity as a melee weapon? I can't tell if this was intentional or not. I was looking at items.xml, and it's set up similar to other melee weapons, except it has no DamageType set.

 

I can't think of a technical or balancing reason the flashlight can't melee attack anymore... the torch still does, for comparison.

 

Besides that it would do less damage than even a claw hammer, and should break after only a few hits...if not the very first hit...the torch at least is a lot like a wood club that's been set on fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Localization.txt still says to repair the flashlight with a repair kit. But you can't repair something that never takes damage, and the flashlight never takes damage if you can't swing it. So I'm leaning more towards this being an oversight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Localization.txt still says to repair the flashlight with a repair kit. But you can't repair something that never takes damage, and the flashlight never takes damage if you can't swing it. So I'm leaning more towards this being an oversight.

 

As far as I know both should either be a melee weapon or not at all. The torch currently is a very OP as a starter weapon, only balanced by the fact it causes rage more often. It never breaks and deals a dot while also not costing to much stamina to swing.

 

All items usable as melee weapons should have durability and break. The torch used to have a chance to break every hit in A16 and before, but since A17 it does not break anymore when used as a melee weapon. I would even go as far to say it should lose durability when equipped over time, since its being burned, but that would be spoilage and we cannot have that :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As far as I know both should either be a melee weapon or not at all. The torch currently is a very OP as a starter weapon, only balanced by the fact it causes rage more often. It never breaks and deals a dot while also not costing to much stamina to swing.

 

All items usable as melee weapons should have durability and break. The torch used to have a chance to break every hit in A16 and before, but since A17 it does not break anymore when used as a melee weapon. I would even go as far to say it should lose durability when equipped over time, since its being burned, but that would be spoilage and we cannot have that :)

 

...but since they stack, and stacking items can't have durability, it's moot. You wouldn't want to have a single torch in each slot...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the saddest limitations of 7d2d is that crafting is very single-pathed. Recipes can be locked, but you can't have one recipe be locked, and another not. You don't craft "recipes", you craft "items", so it's always one kind of thing, and the game is very uninformative when it comes to quantities. You always craft at the same quality, and there's no chance involved: either you can craft it, or you can't.

 

I wish crafting went from items/blocks to recipes. You craft a pumpkin cheesecake recipe, not a pumpkin cheesecake. That would make many interesting things possible:

 

* Unlock better recipes separately; e.g. "campfire glue" is unlocked, but the cheaper "chem station glue" needs schematic.

* Multiple outputs: "Dismantle 9mm recipe" has as ingredient a 9mm bullet, and produces bullet casing, bullet tip and gunpowder.

* Chances: give recipes a chance of succeeding, and make perks increase that chance.

* Failure results: make stuff happen when failing. Poisoned food, very slow motorcycle, explosions...

 

It pains me so much to see incremental improvements on crafting, when the current way you craft (an item, instead of a recipe) is so limiting. :(

 

 

So you want even more RNG added into the game? I can see a lot of people raging about that, specially a negative one lol

 

And that would also require rebalancing the recipes. As you're gonna be wasting even more resources when crafting. Consider food recipes as an example: Unless you spec into Living Off the Land, you dont get many ingredients at a time and no one makes gigantic farms. Meaning farming for complex recipes like meat/vegetable stew that needs a lot of items of different ingredients would become very frustrating as your cooking fails. So you have two outcomes:

You either force people into living off the land/farming (and people are gonna rage about that, again) or you're gonna end up pushing people even farther away from doing farms and rely even more on canned food only.

 

Not to mention that would also bring the "Spam crafting" back - but this time for a different reason - and no one wants that. In the vehicles' case it would be almost a revert back to A17, when they had quality levels which influenced their speed, health points, gasoline usage, etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...but since they stack, and stacking items can't have durability, it's moot. You wouldn't want to have a single torch in each slot...

 

Then they either should not be a weapon anymore or lose their ability to stack. A stack of burning torches is a campfire anyway..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So you want even more RNG added into the game? I can see a lot of people raging about that, specially a negative one lol

 

And that would also require rebalancing the recipes. As you're gonna be wasting even more resources when crafting. Consider food recipes as an example: Unless you spec into Living Off the Land, you dont get many ingredients at a time and no one makes gigantic farms. Meaning farming for complex recipes like meat/vegetable stew that needs a lot of items of different ingredients would become very frustrating as your cooking fails. So you have two outcomes:

You either force people into living off the land/farming (and people are gonna rage about that, again) or you're gonna end up pushing people even farther away from doing farms and rely even more on canned food only.

 

Not to mention that would also bring the "Spam crafting" back - but this time for a different reason - and no one wants that. In the vehicles' case it would be almost a revert back to A17, when they had quality levels which influenced their speed, health points, gasoline usage, etc.

 

And what's your objection to disassembling ammo?

 

Let me completely destroy all your arguments: Ravenhearst is highly successful. That means that every single objection you have is not shared by everyone, so why impose your style over others? Notice that every single point you objected to was not something I asked for, but an example of what could be possible. They can add this change without ever changing anything from a player's perspective, though it would open possibilities that are not presently available. More importantly, it opens a wide range of possibilities for modders to explore.

 

It's akin to the block numbering that got removed. It didn't change a single thing for any player, but it made development easier, particularly on the modders side. This one would be a bigger change, but like the new buff system it would also open up a range of possibilities that were not there before.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

more realistic gunplay would make this game 5x better IMO. like recoil, make the guns feel like they have some weight when shot, like in CSGO.

 

And please fix the reflex sight I can barely see thru it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't think of the word before but.. A learnable bullet spread pattern for each gun would be very cool imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And what's your objection to disassembling ammo?

 

Let me completely destroy all your arguments: Ravenhearst is highly successful. That means that every single objection you have is not shared by everyone, so why impose your style over others? Notice that every single point you objected to was not something I asked for, but an example of what could be possible. They can add this change without ever changing anything from a player's perspective, though it would open possibilities that are not presently available. More importantly, it opens a wide range of possibilities for modders to explore.

 

It's akin to the block numbering that got removed. It didn't change a single thing for any player, but it made development easier, particularly on the modders side. This one would be a bigger change, but like the new buff system it would also open up a range of possibilities that were not there before.

 

 

Regards the ammo part: none. I barely understood what you meant about it.

 

But alas, This isnt a competition, I was just pointing out how much your ideas would either unbalance the game even more or revert back to stuff that got taken out previously. And as for Ravenhearst, it is what it is: a mod. The moment you start incorporating mod ideas into the original game, the mod loses its purpose and you turn your game into a game led by community and fan entitlement making it impossible to balance. Remember this an A18 feedback and balancing thread.

And I'm not imposing MY style, I'm sticking by the creator's original vision for the game. But if TFP want to take that route, they're totally free to do so, it's their game. Honestly, it changes nothing for me, I play the game the way the devs intend me to, otherwise, I'd be modding it - And they already allow for a shitton of customization.

 

Besides, almost every single post I make in here is about balancing on A18. I'm not the one saying "oh, I dont like it being that way.. I wish you would do it like this..." so who is imposing what..?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

any chance someone can actually add the code in for abilities that don’t exist right now and it appears has been over looked by testers since a18 came out? Each successive rank on stun baton does *not* increase the length of the stun, each successive rank of advanced engineering does not reduce crafting time by 20%, getting ranks of physician does not enable you to use bandages on other players, etc. I’ve got almost 2k hours in this game and I absolutely love it, this is probably the best game I have ever played and it is everything I am looking for, I just wish some of these oversights could be looked into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the saddest limitations of 7d2d is that crafting is very single-pathed. Recipes can be locked, but you can't have one recipe be locked, and another not. You don't craft "recipes", you craft "items", so it's always one kind of thing, and the game is very uninformative when it comes to quantities. You always craft at the same quality, and there's no chance involved: either you can craft it, or you can't.

 

I wish crafting went from items/blocks to recipes. You craft a pumpkin cheesecake recipe, not a pumpkin cheesecake. That would make many interesting things possible:

 

* Unlock better recipes separately; e.g. "campfire glue" is unlocked, but the cheaper "chem station glue" needs schematic.

* Multiple outputs: "Dismantle 9mm recipe" has as ingredient a 9mm bullet, and produces bullet casing, bullet tip and gunpowder.

* Chances: give recipes a chance of succeeding, and make perks increase that chance.

* Failure results: make stuff happen when failing. Poisoned food, very slow motorcycle, explosions...

 

It pains me so much to see incremental improvements on crafting, when the current way you craft (an item, instead of a recipe) is so limiting. :(

 

I'm not quite sure I follow what you are looking for but it sounds complicated and unintuitive which is the opposite the dev team wants to head (e.g. less failure points, potential bugs, and balancing).

 

Some of your examples sounds interesting but need to further understand the A > B > C > D which probably should be posted in the pimp dreams forum section so your idea doesn't get lost in this one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys should try a Tier V quest in the Shotgun Messiah Factory, but on a horde night.

 

Tried it on my 50th day in game (random horde night) , 2 hours long days on warrior difficulty and was lets say a must try, but with the proper skills, armor and weapons, lots of ammo, indeed, but worth every brass particle. Not only because, if you accidentally awake the whole second floor..or all next ones to the roof, while the horde climbs the stairs to you, but the pure horror of all happening at once is awesome.

 

Gonna go collect brass for weeks now, but don`t mind it at all, had great one Pimps, thanks :loyal:

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides, almost every single post I make in here is about balancing on A18. I'm not the one saying "oh, I dont like it being that way.. I wish you would do it like this..." so who is imposing what..?

 

Balancing and feedback. My proposal doesn't cause any changes to gameplay, just make them possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm not quite sure I follow what you are looking for but it sounds complicated and unintuitive which is the opposite the dev team wants to head (e.g. less failure points, potential bugs, and balancing).

 

Some of your examples sounds interesting but need to further understand the A > B > C > D which probably should be posted in the pimp dreams forum section so your idea doesn't get lost in this one.

 

Let's try again. This is a recipe in the game, as it stands right now:

 

<recipe name="ammo9mmBulletBall" count="1" craft_area="workbench" tags="workbenchCrafting">
 <ingredient name="resourceBulletTip" count="1"/>
 <ingredient name="resourceGunPowder" count="1"/>
 <ingredient name="resourceBulletCasing" count="1"/>
</recipe>

 

It is a recipe for 9mm bullets. It states that if you take 1 bullet tip, 1 gunpowder, and 1 bullet casing, you can make 1 9mm bullet, and it needs to be done on a workbench.

 

Now, here's a related recipe:

 

<recipe name="ammoBundle9mmBulletBall" count="1" craft_time="240" craft_area="workbench" tags="learnable,workbenchCrafting">
 <ingredient name="resourceBulletTip" count="80"/>
 <ingredient name="resourceGunPowder" count="80"/>
 <ingredient name="resourceBulletCasing" count="80"/>
</recipe>

 

This is a recipe for 9mm bullet bundles. For every 80 bullet tips, 80 gunpowder, and 80 bullet casing, you craft 1 bullet bundle. Once you crafted that, you can open it to get 100 9mm bullets.

 

So, could TFP, as it stands right now, made it so you could craft 100 9mm bullets at 80% cost directly, once you completed the gunslinger book series? No. Because you either know how to craft 9mm bullets, or you don't. You can't learn how to craft a bunch of 9mm bullets for a smaller cost. Now, suppose these recipes were written like this:

 

<recipe name="ammo9mmBulletBall" craft_area="workbench" tags="workbenchCrafting">
 <output name="ammo9mmBulletBall" count="1"/>
 <ingredient name="resourceBulletTip" count="1"/>
 <ingredient name="resourceGunPowder" count="1"/>
 <ingredient name="resourceBulletCasing" count="1"/>
</recipe>
<recipe name="ammoBundle9mmBulletBall" craft_time="240" craft_area="workbench" tags="learnable,workbenchCrafting">
 <output name="ammoBundle9mmBulletBall" count="1"/>
 <ingredient name="resourceBulletTip" count="80"/>
 <ingredient name="resourceGunPowder" count="80"/>
 <ingredient name="resourceBulletCasing" count="80"/>
</recipe>

 

Then they could have done it by changing the second one like this:

 

<recipe name="ammoBundle9mmBulletBall" craft_time="240" craft_area="workbench" tags="learnable,workbenchCrafting">
 <output name="ammo9mmBulletBall" count="100"/>
 <ingredient name="resourceBulletTip" count="80"/>
 <ingredient name="resourceGunPowder" count="80"/>
 <ingredient name="resourceBulletCasing" count="80"/>
</recipe>

 

And here's the thing: no changes would be needed in any other file. And, in fact, unless they did make it so you craft 100 bullets instead of 1 bullet bundle, you wouldn't even be able to tell there's something different. But it allows something that wasn't possible before.

 

Now let's go for the other example: disassembling ammunition. Say I got 100 armor piercing magnum bullets as a quest reward from the trader, but I have no magnum. I do have a hunting rifle, though, and I'd like to get those .44 magnum bullets, split them into bullet tip, bullet casing and gunpowder, and use that material to make 7.62mm bullets. There's almost no way to do that -- if you think what I suggested is complicated, you should see what people have done to make that thing possible: not only it's very complicated, but it's very complicated for the players too.

 

If, however, that thing above is used, then I could do this:

 

<recipe name="ammo44MagnumBulletAPDisassemble" craft_time="240" craft_area="workbench" tags="learnable,workbenchCrafting">
 <ingredient name="ammo44MagnumBulletAP" count="100"/>
 <output name="resourceBulletTip" count="80"/>
 <output name="resourceGunPowder" count="400"/>
 <output name="resourceBulletCasing" count="80"/>
</recipe>

 

So then you go to your to your workbench and use those 100 AP 44 Magnum bullets to get 80% of the bullet casing, bullet tips and gunpowder that took to make them.

 

So maybe that's not something that should be in 7 Days to Die as sold by TFP, and I'm fine with it. But, hey, it's also something that's not in War of the Walkers, or Darkness Falls, or Ravenhearst, or any other mod because it's just not possible, and I think it should be, and the fact that people came up with incredibly complicated schemes to do something like that shows there's a lot of interest in it, at least in the modding community.

 

Should TFP just go do whatever the modding community wants? Hell, no. They have a game to make and sell. But they do want a vibrant modding community, which seems to be a central aspect of any long lived game, and they do help out the modding community every now and then.

 

Do I find it absolutely necessary for them to do something like this? No. But this is a feedback forum, and while there's a lot of feedback from players, modders are also part of their public, and this is my feedback as a modder. Something that will allow a lot of different things people in the mod community have tried to do, and spend a lot of time coming up with complex and fragile schemes to do, and which would have allowed TFP to use a simpler solution to bullet bundles -- to make the bullet bundles they had to add a whole new class of items, which is way more complex than simply adding a recipe --, but wouldn't actually change the game from a players perspective in any way, unless TFP choses to use it to accomplish one of their goals or respond to someone else's feedback.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Let's try again. This is a recipe in the game, as it stands right now:

 

<recipe name="ammo9mmBulletBall" count="1" craft_area="workbench" tags="workbenchCrafting">
<ingredient name="resourceBulletTip" count="1"/>
<ingredient name="resourceGunPowder" count="1"/>
<ingredient name="resourceBulletCasing" count="1"/>
</recipe>

 

It is a recipe for 9mm bullets. It states that if you take 1 bullet tip, 1 gunpowder, and 1 bullet casing, you can make 1 9mm bullet, and it needs to be done on a workbench.

 

Now, here's a related recipe:

 

<recipe name="ammoBundle9mmBulletBall" count="1" craft_time="240" craft_area="workbench" tags="learnable,workbenchCrafting">
<ingredient name="resourceBulletTip" count="80"/>
<ingredient name="resourceGunPowder" count="80"/>
<ingredient name="resourceBulletCasing" count="80"/>
</recipe>

 

This is a recipe for 9mm bullet bundles. For every 80 bullet tips, 80 gunpowder, and 80 bullet casing, you craft 1 bullet bundle. Once you crafted that, you can open it to get 100 9mm bullets.

 

So, could TFP, as it stands right now, made it so you could craft 100 9mm bullets at 80% cost directly, once you completed the gunslinger book series? No. Because you either know how to craft 9mm bullets, or you don't. You can't learn how to craft a bunch of 9mm bullets for a smaller cost. Now, suppose these recipes were written like this:

 

<recipe name="ammo9mmBulletBall" craft_area="workbench" tags="workbenchCrafting">
<output name="ammo9mmBulletBall" count="1"/>
<ingredient name="resourceBulletTip" count="1"/>
<ingredient name="resourceGunPowder" count="1"/>
<ingredient name="resourceBulletCasing" count="1"/>
</recipe>
<recipe name="ammoBundle9mmBulletBall" craft_time="240" craft_area="workbench" tags="learnable,workbenchCrafting">
<output name="ammoBundle9mmBulletBall" count="1"/>
<ingredient name="resourceBulletTip" count="80"/>
<ingredient name="resourceGunPowder" count="80"/>
<ingredient name="resourceBulletCasing" count="80"/>
</recipe>

 

Then they could have done it by changing the second one like this:

 

<recipe name="ammoBundle9mmBulletBall" craft_time="240" craft_area="workbench" tags="learnable,workbenchCrafting">
<output name="ammo9mmBulletBall" count="100"/>
<ingredient name="resourceBulletTip" count="80"/>
<ingredient name="resourceGunPowder" count="80"/>
<ingredient name="resourceBulletCasing" count="80"/>
</recipe>

 

And here's the thing: no changes would be needed in any other file. And, in fact, unless they did make it so you craft 100 bullets instead of 1 bullet bundle, you wouldn't even be able to tell there's something different. But it allows something that wasn't possible before.

 

Now let's go for the other example: disassembling ammunition. Say I got 100 armor piercing magnum bullets as a quest reward from the trader, but I have no magnum. I do have a hunting rifle, though, and I'd like to get those .44 magnum bullets, split them into bullet tip, bullet casing and gunpowder, and use that material to make 7.62mm bullets. There's almost no way to do that -- if you think what I suggested is complicated, you should see what people have done to make that thing possible: not only it's very complicated, but it's very complicated for the players too.

 

If, however, that thing above is used, then I could do this:

 

<recipe name="ammo44MagnumBulletAPDisassemble" craft_time="240" craft_area="workbench" tags="learnable,workbenchCrafting">
<ingredient name="ammo44MagnumBulletAP" count="100"/>
<output name="resourceBulletTip" count="80"/>
<output name="resourceGunPowder" count="400"/>
<output name="resourceBulletCasing" count="80"/>
</recipe>

 

So then you go to your to your workbench and use those 100 AP 44 Magnum bullets to get 80% of the bullet casing, bullet tips and gunpowder that took to make them.

 

So maybe that's not something that should be in 7 Days to Die as sold by TFP, and I'm fine with it. But, hey, it's also something that's not in War of the Walkers, or Darkness Falls, or Ravenhearst, or any other mod because it's just not possible, and I think it should be, and the fact that people came up with incredibly complicated schemes to do something like that shows there's a lot of interest in it, at least in the modding community.

 

Should TFP just go do whatever the modding community wants? Hell, no. They have a game to make and sell. But they do want a vibrant modding community, which seems to be a central aspect of any long lived game, and they do help out the modding community every now and then.

 

Do I find it absolutely necessary for them to do something like this? No. But this is a feedback forum, and while there's a lot of feedback from players, modders are also part of their public, and this is my feedback as a modder. Something that will allow a lot of different things people in the mod community have tried to do, and spend a lot of time coming up with complex and fragile schemes to do, and which would have allowed TFP to use a simpler solution to bullet bundles -- to make the bullet bundles they had to add a whole new class of items, which is way more complex than simply adding a recipe --, but wouldn't actually change the game from a players perspective in any way, unless TFP choses to use it to accomplish one of their goals or respond to someone else's feedback.

 

1st of all thanks for going into greater detail about what you mean. If I understand you correctly all you want is the ability to scrap down items into more them one type? Sounds like a legitimate request but probably not a balancing concern.

 

As a side note the bundled ammo serves more purpose then reduced resource cost. It also saves inventory space so it is not a bad design imo...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1st of all thanks for going into greater detail about what you mean. If I understand you correctly all you want is the ability to scrap down items into more them one type? Sounds like a legitimate request but probably not a balancing concern.

 

As a side note the bundled ammo serves more purpose then reduced resource cost. It also saves inventory space so it is not a bad design imo...

 

After the lengthy explanation you are still kind of missing the actual point. He is not asking for scrapping down items into more than one type. He is asking for an overhaul on how recipes are defines so they allow multiple item outputs. This in turn unlocks the example he mentioned of being able to make a recipe to take something apart. But it also unlocks stuff like getting back the jar when you cook a meal. Or allowing a certain item to be needed in a recipe but not consumed, say a can opener to turn a can to an opened can and then return the can opener too.

 

A system were recipes have multiple outputs unlocks so much more potential than just the examples we give here, stuff the Fun Pimps could use themselves to add new interesting things to the game.

 

Granted on XML level the change is marginal, requiring the recipes to be restructured just once, but on code level it could be harder to do, considering how a crafted item and stack are cued up in the crafting UI, the code that actually decides what item to make probably needs a refactor to allow multiple outputs. But it should be possible, just likely not going to happen unless there is a valid usecase for them and I know taking ammo apart or returning jars are not (both have been discussed and dismissed in the past many times).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

After the lengthy explanation you are still kind of missing the actual point. He is not asking for scrapping down items into more than one type. He is asking for an overhaul on how recipes are defines so they allow multiple item outputs. This in turn unlocks the example he mentioned of being able to make a recipe to take something apart. But it also unlocks stuff like getting back the jar when you cook a meal. Or allowing a certain item to be needed in a recipe but not consumed, say a can opener to turn a can to an opened can and then return the can opener too.

 

A system were recipes have multiple outputs unlocks so much more potential than just the examples we give here, stuff the Fun Pimps could use themselves to add new interesting things to the game.

 

Granted on XML level the change is marginal, requiring the recipes to be restructured just once, but on code level it could be harder to do, considering how a crafted item and stack are cued up in the crafting UI, the code that actually decides what item to make probably needs a refactor to allow multiple outputs. But it should be possible, just likely not going to happen unless there is a valid usecase for them and I know taking ammo apart or returning jars are not (both have been discussed and dismissed in the past many times).

 

Yeah, I see the potential. Your expectations are in the right place too.

 

Hopefully the devs will add more qol mod functions the closer we get to gold so the community can make alot of cool things.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

Balancing and feedback. My proposal doesn't cause any changes to gameplay, just make them possible.

 

They absolutely do, actually. But this discussion has to be separated on two fronts:

 

First front: your two-way recipes idea. Its brilliant. Honestly, I love it. I think it's a very good idea that should be implemented. This one actually doesnt change much, but it still does, since you'd have to apply that to many items (if you can do that to 1 item, why doesnt it apply to others?).

Example: Office chairs. They are crafted with cotton, forged iron, mechanical parts and leather. When harvested: mechanical parts, scrap iron, leather. When scrapped: only leather. Your idea is basically like a disassemble action, which should give you all the items back, minus a % lost in the process. Ok, still cool. But it impacts on the gameplay because it impacts on the decision make-side of looting, handling items, carrying capacity, etc. When everything you can craft can also be uncrafted, the rarer items become less valuable (think beakers, engines, diamonds, etc). Which affects price, loot chance, scavenging, etc. So it's still impactful gameplay-wise. Once again: I'm all for this idea, but you have to consider such aspects that make it not so simple when it comes to balancing.

 

Second front: and this is the one I was mostly arguing with you about. You also wanted recipes to fail, to cause random side effects that affect its quality, etc. Because that impacts gameplay A LOT. And I have already explained how. And the point you seem to be missing out on is: the "feedback" part on this thread is regards A18. This type of suggestion is a feedback on the game, not on the alpha, particularly. Hence why Laz Man already suggested that you should bring this idea to another thread more in line with it.

 

I hope this clears things out and mend peace.

Edited by th3s0n1c (see edit history)
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we have a light armor track and a heavy armor track, each with three tiers. For hats, it goes like this.

 

Light: cloth hood, leather hood, military helmet

Heavy: scrap helmet, iron helmet, steel helmet

 

Since these six items cover the basics, any other hats are supplemental. They can be alternates in whichever category makes sense. And I don't think it makes sense for football helmets and mining helmets to be light armor. They're made of hard, bulky, reinforced materials to protect against 300-pound athletes crashing into you or rocks falling on your head, respectively. Heavy-duty stuff, if you ask me. The firefighter's helmet counts as heavy armor, and it's just a red-colored mining helmet. So I find this inconsistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Regarding Pack Mule, I feel the perk is undervalued especially with the ability to outfit pocket mods in both clothing and armor. What do you think if each armor mod installed added an encumbrance slot back to the player (with the exception of pocket mods of course)? This would make perking into pack mule more desirable...

Edited by Laz Man (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...