Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kzuy

Optimized

Recommended Posts

These people of yours. They would like that a game will leave EA within a reasonable time. I don't understand what you don't understand about that.

 

Given there is explicitly no guarantee that EA games will even be completed, expecting or hoping for completion in an arbitrarily "reasonable" timeframe indicates the lack of understanding is theirs. Why endeavour to understand a perspective not based in reality?

 

Granted, it's often necessary for producers to cater to immature or otherwise unreasonable demands from consumers, but it doesn't seem to me TFP are in that unenviable position yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Given there is explicitly no guarantee that EA games will even be completed, expecting or hoping for completion in an arbitrarily "reasonable" timeframe indicates the lack of understanding is theirs. Why endeavour to understand a perspective not based in reality?

 

Granted, it's often necessary for producers to cater to immature or otherwise unreasonable demands from consumers, but it doesn't seem to me TFP are in that unenviable position yet.

 

Lol

 

Now “there’s no guarantee an EA game will get completed” being tossed around as some form of defense of this titles ovbious going to be longer than 8 years dev cycle

 

just stop - save dignity lol

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Lol

 

Now “there’s no guarantee an EA game will get completed” being tossed around as some form of defense of this titles ovbious going to be longer than 8 years dev cycle

 

just stop - save dignity lol

 

No. The salient point is that for those who understand what they're actually buying with an EA game, the development of 7DtD requires no defense:

 

When will these games release?

 

Its up to the developer to determine when they are ready to 'release'. ... You should be aware that some teams will be unable to 'finish' their game. So you should only buy an Early Access game if you are excited about playing it in its current state.

Source (emphasis mine)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why though? Do they think someone is going to wave a magic wand and turn the game into exactly what they want upon release? People’s expectations about what the final polished and optimized version is will likely be disappointed. The reality is it will be like the current version but slightly better. Also, the game releasing means TFP will likely not be adding any major features to the game. The best part about EA games is that they evolve and change substantially during development and provide more replayability than they otherwise would. Keep in mind that a lot of people complaining about performance aren’t comparing 7dtd to other voxel games. Releasing the game won’t change it’s basic nature. It will always perform worse and look worse than most non-voxel games. That’s the trade-off for all of the options you have in a voxel game. Also, people can play their favorite version of 7dtd and not have to worry about the updates if they so choose.

 

Given there is explicitly no guarantee that EA games will even be completed, expecting or hoping for completion in an arbitrarily "reasonable" timeframe indicates the lack of understanding is theirs. Why endeavour to understand a perspective not based in reality?

 

Granted, it's often necessary for producers to cater to immature or otherwise unreasonable demands from consumers, but it doesn't seem to me TFP are in that unenviable position yet.

Yeah, now that you say it, it really seems silly to wish for a game to leave EA. What was I thinking.

 

mega, those people of yours? They're stupid. I realize that now.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As one of the more generally critical people, let me try to summarize the position with less name-calling and insults than are typically thrown around.

 

I believe the fundamental difference here is progress. Are the developers making consistent, steady progress towards finishing the game? I can forgive a long development cycle as long as I'm seeing steady movement forward. So why am I critical when the game is still being routinely and regularly updated (after the long gap during A16)? That's because, not knowing the ultimate goals of the designers, I see a lot of the recent changes and updates as sideways movement rather than forward movement. The biggest example of this was, to point to a dead and well-beaten horse that we don't need to debate in this thread, the removal of LBD and addition of the stats-and-perks system. That was a huge change to the fundamental nature of the game, one that would have to be balanced, rebalanced, and re-rebalanced for a long time, and one that didn't ultimately make any progress towards getting the game any more finished.

 

Changing such a core element of the game this late into development, alpha or not, makes some of us nervous as we might interpret it in a number of ways:

 

1) The developers don't really have a set vision for what they want the game to be. A vision that isn't well-defined means that the game is prone to changing at any time and will likely never be finished because there's literally no endpoint. You can't call a game finished unless you know what it's supposed to be when it's done.

 

2) The developers have a strong vision, but no solid outline for how they intend to achieve it. This leads to a perpetual alpha as new systems are designed, tried out, and discarded in a seemingly-endless cycle and ultimately concludes in the game being trapped in Development Purgatory. It's like building a house without blueprints.

 

3) The developers spent a large amount of time making and balancing a system that was ultimately just a placeholder for a simpler, more easily-designed system. This is a troublesome sign because it's incredibly wasteful and inefficient to design such an intricate, complicated system for something you never intended to be permanent.

 

My personal opinion tends to sit with #2. I think the developers know what kind of game they want to make, but either aren't sure how to get there or had a collective change in design philosophy in the year-long gap between A16.3 and A17. I see a lot of new ideas being tried - the scent system of earlier alphas, the removal of LBD for skills and perks, the shift from wandering zombies to sleepers, the infamous homing architect zombie AI of A17, the segregation of playstyles, the addition, removal, and re-addition of schematics, the Behemoth and Demolishers, the dungeonization of POIs. All this speaks to me of a dev team that really cares about their game and has a solid idea what they want from it in a broad sense, but doesn't have a straight path from the current build to the final build. Whether that be because the path was never straight or because the final target moved, I can't say. That said, I think if a change did occur it happened during the gap between A16.3 and A17, since the dev team has made steady if staggered progress in a specific direction since the rocky launch of A17.

Edited by BobTheBard (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
>snipped for quote brevity<

 

Changing such a core element of the game this late into development, alpha or not, makes some of us nervous as we might interpret it in a number of ways:

 

1) The developers don't really have a set vision for what they want the game to be. A vision that isn't well-defined means that the game is prone to changing at any time and will likely never be finished because there's literally no endpoint. You can't call a game finished unless you know what it's supposed to be when it's done.

 

2) The developers have a strong vision, but no solid outline for how they intend to achieve it. This leads to a perpetual alpha as new systems are designed, tried out, and discarded in a seemingly-endless cycle and ultimately concludes in the game being trapped in Development Purgatory. It's like building a house without blueprints.

 

3) The developers spent a large amount of time making and balancing a system that was ultimately just a placeholder for a simpler, more easily-designed system. This is a troublesome sign because it's incredibly wasteful and inefficient to design such an intricate, complicated system for something you never intended to be permanent.

 

>snipped for brevity<

 

You forgot to include one more reason.

 

4) The developers tried a mechanic out and upon implementation and community play testing decided they didn't like it and dumped it for a mechanic more in line with their preferences.

 

Since none of us can know the mind of TFP, none of us can say whether any or all of the reasons are wholly or even partly correct, or that the list of reasons itself is accurate and/or complete.

 

I agree with your distinction on the difference between sideways progress and forward progress, but assuming just for arguments sake that the changes to the games skills systems was due to reason 4 (and an assumption is all we could do), then what is a developer supposed to do when they find themselves in that situation? Should they keep a mechanic in the game that isn't working to their satisfaction? Should they drop it for an alternative mechanic? Should they be so gun-shy/omnisciently perfect as to not even ever implement a mechanic that turns out to not work well?

 

Quite apart from the concept of iterative development (which would largely invalidate many of the arguments against the some mechanics in the game being done and re-done), I'm personally glad that TFP have been willing to try out systems, even when such attempts had some chance of not working out. I'm even more glad that when TFP found something not working to their satisfaction that they were willing to admit it, and try again, rather than stubbornly say "that bits done, we're not re-doing it".

 

While some of the progress can be viewed as sideways rather than forward, overall the game has progressed forward with each Alpha (even my least favourite Alpha, number 17, has some advances over its immediate predecessor), so holistically the game is making forward progress (overall), and so long as it continues to do that, I frankly don't give a damn how long Alpha takes just personally.

Edited by OzHawkeye (see edit history)
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
These people of yours. They would like that a game will leave EA within a reasonable time. I don't understand what you don't understand about that.

 

This implies 7 years not being reasonable if that argument is put against 7d2d, right?

 

I'm confident that the author of the sentence "I feel like saying that the game is in "Alpha" Is just a lazy cop out at this point, it's been in "Alpha" for years." does think that 7 years in EA is not reasonable. Maybe I'm assuming too much if I think he got the reasonable time frame by looking at other EA games and concluding anything above what he is used to is not reasonable but a cop out. (I feel I had to give at least one example in case you are implying the "people of yours" don't exist. But if they really don't exist and I'm wrong about this poster, even better)

 

We could ask him for giving us his heuristic for determining "reasonable" if you are interested. Or if you have an opinion about that, you could give your opinion on determining the reasonable time frame of early access.

 

I actually like BobtheBards argumentation, he is not bringing up years and simply saying 7 years is too much. Instead he is analyzing the progress and is bringing up indications that could point to 7D2D development not being ideal independent of the time frame. I disagree, but I understand his reasons.

Edited by meganoth (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, now that you say it, it really seems silly to wish for a game to leave EA. What was I thinking.

 

mega, those people of yours? They're stupid. I realize that now.

 

 

Certainly not. The only remotely 'stupid' behaviour here is in how some folks - when confronted with the fact that their wishes don't seem to be influential - try to cast their wishes as being objectively-founded, or otherwise somehow more valid than the wishes of folks who aren't unhappy with development.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They may both be voxel-based, but comparing the two on an appearance/performance scale is inappropriate. The platform-independence of Java applications comes at the cost of significant overhead.

 

You're absolutely right, Minecraft was a completely Java application which is a memory abuser, I can confirm that as a java developer. 7D2D is a mix of C# and a Unity Engine which does some heavy job. While the languages are really alike, the output and performance would be very different due to usage of Unity for 7D2D which was initially made for game development assuming all heavy load processes, where as Java was never meant to be a game dev language and possess no good Frameworks for such stuff as graphics and etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As one of the more generally critical people, let me try to summarize the position with less name-calling and insults than are typically thrown around.

 

I believe the fundamental difference here is progress. Are the developers making consistent, steady progress towards finishing the game? I can forgive a long development cycle as long as I'm seeing steady movement forward. So why am I critical when the game is still being routinely and regularly updated (after the long gap during A16)? That's because, not knowing the ultimate goals of the designers, I see a lot of the recent changes and updates as sideways movement rather than forward movement. The biggest example of this was, to point to a dead and well-beaten horse that we don't need to debate in this thread, the removal of LBD and addition of the stats-and-perks system. That was a huge change to the fundamental nature of the game, one that would have to be balanced, rebalanced, and re-rebalanced for a long time, and one that didn't ultimately make any progress towards getting the game any more finished.

 

Changing such a core element of the game this late into development, alpha or not, makes some of us nervous as we might interpret it in a number of ways:

 

1) The developers don't really have a set vision for what they want the game to be. A vision that isn't well-defined means that the game is prone to changing at any time and will likely never be finished because there's literally no endpoint. You can't call a game finished unless you know what it's supposed to be when it's done.

 

2) The developers have a strong vision, but no solid outline for how they intend to achieve it. This leads to a perpetual alpha as new systems are designed, tried out, and discarded in a seemingly-endless cycle and ultimately concludes in the game being trapped in Development Purgatory. It's like building a house without blueprints.

 

3) The developers spent a large amount of time making and balancing a system that was ultimately just a placeholder for a simpler, more easily-designed system. This is a troublesome sign because it's incredibly wasteful and inefficient to design such an intricate, complicated system for something you never intended to be permanent.

 

My personal opinion tends to sit with #2. I think the developers know what kind of game they want to make, but either aren't sure how to get there or had a collective change in design philosophy in the year-long gap between A16.3 and A17. I see a lot of new ideas being tried - the scent system of earlier alphas, the removal of LBD for skills and perks, the shift from wandering zombies to sleepers, the infamous homing architect zombie AI of A17, the segregation of playstyles, the addition, removal, and re-addition of schematics, the Behemoth and Demolishers, the dungeonization of POIs. All this speaks to me of a dev team that really cares about their game and has a solid idea what they want from it in a broad sense, but doesn't have a straight path from the current build to the final build. Whether that be because the path was never straight or because the final target moved, I can't say. That said, I think if a change did occur it happened during the gap between A16.3 and A17, since the dev team has made steady if staggered progress in a specific direction since the rocky launch of A17.

 

Your perspective comes from your opinion that LBD, itself, was "such a core element of the game". I can tell you that the developers never shared that perspective about LBD itself. What they consider a core element of the game is player progression. LBD was just one possible means to that end. It was always "player progression" listed on the road map and never "learn by doing" other than in proposed documents for how to accomplish player progression. Knowing that it is player progression that is the core element it is more plain that the development has been moving forward experimenting with different designs and implementations

 

Also, there is a clear and steady decline of the use of LBD after it's height in Alpha 14 and a growing use of perks and points. People like to talk about the hybrid system of A16 but it wasn't always that way. It was much more pure LBD before that. If A17 had been a much shorter development cycle it would have been more apparent than it was. So if the use of perks and points was becoming more and more prevalent with each update that really does show a forward movement towards a goal rather than a floundering sideways shuffle because of no idea of what was wanted.

 

Now, of course, every individual will feel that some part of the game is core for them and there is no arguing against that since we all love what we love and hate what we hate. But from a pure development perspective from the developers themselves they never held LBD up on such a pedestal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... LBD ...

 

Sorry to derail the discussion, but do you recall if the devs went into much detail about the development of the LBD system, or the decision to drop it? I'd very much like to read a developer's account of either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

You forgot to include one more reason.

 

4) The developers tried a mechanic out and upon implementation and community play testing decided they didn't like it and dumped it for a mechanic more in line with their preferences.

 

I didn't forget it so much as I would consider it a different phrasing of #2. While it's definitely better to ditch a core system a dev doesn't like during Early Access than after release (looking at you Stellaris) at some point you have to look at it, consider it good enough, and move on. Continuously implementing, overhauling, and removing major systems leads to the same end result as not knowing what systems you want or need in the first place - The game is always changing in large, unpredictable ways and the development process is incredibly long.

 

 

Your perspective comes from your opinion that LBD, itself, was "such a core element of the game". I can tell you that the developers never shared that perspective about LBD itself. What they consider a core element of the game is player progression. LBD was just one possible means to that end. It was always "player progression" listed on the road map and never "learn by doing" other than in proposed documents for how to accomplish player progression. Knowing that it is player progression that is the core element it is more plain that the development has been moving forward experimenting with different designs and implementations

 

I misspoke, perhaps, what I should have called it was a core system. Whether the developers thought that about LBD or not, it was a core system and a central element of the game since it was the entire progression system, one of the key systems that filters and adjusts the player's interaction with every other system. To go back to Stellaris again, it's like saying that the transition from three selectable interstellar transportation options (Hyperlane, Wormhole, Jump) to just one, with elements of the other two (Hyperlane only, with static wormholes and expensive, unlockable, slow-charging jump drives) wasn't that big of a deal because it didn't change any of the broader ideas of the game. In practice though it was one of the biggest changes they've ever made to that game, and they have made a lot of them. Now I don't think the removal of the hybrid LBD system and its replacement by the perk system was as big of a change as the one I just mentioned, but it was still a pretty significant shift and caused major changes in how many people approached the game.

 

Ultimately though, I don't have a horse in the LBD/Perk discussion anymore, just a preference. It was more an easy way to illustrate the concept I was talking about.

Edited by BobTheBard (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This implies 7 years not being reasonable if that argument is put against 7d2d, right?

 

I'm confident that the author of the sentence "I feel like saying that the game is in "Alpha" Is just a lazy cop out at this point, it's been in "Alpha" for years." does think that 7 years in EA is not reasonable. Maybe I'm assuming too much if I think he got the reasonable time frame by looking at other EA games and concluding anything above what he is used to is not reasonable but a cop out. (I feel I had to give at least one example in case you are implying the "people of yours" don't exist. But if they really don't exist and I'm wrong about this poster, even better)

 

We could ask him for giving us his heuristic for determining "reasonable" if you are interested. Or if you have an opinion about that, you could give your opinion on determining the reasonable time frame of early access.

 

I actually like BobtheBards argumentation, he is not bringing up years and simply saying 7 years is too much. Instead he is analyzing the progress and is bringing up indications that could point to 7D2D development not being ideal independent of the time frame. I disagree, but I understand his reasons.

We all know the reasons for the unreasonably long time that 7dtd is in EA. Devs developing by trial and error, changing stuff around. We knew that years ago already. Here is a video about it:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, of course, every individual will feel that some part of the game is core for them and there is no arguing against that since we all love what we love and hate what we hate. But from a pure development perspective from the developers themselves they never held LBD up on such a pedestal.
High enough to code it though. Which seem pretty high. Seems like their first choice, even though perks are actually indeed more common in all kinds of games.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I misspoke, perhaps, what I should have called it was a core system. Whether the developers thought that about LBD or not, it was a core system and a central element of the game since it was the entire progression system, one of the key systems that filters and adjusts the player's interaction with every other system. To go back to Stellaris again, it's like saying that the transition from three selectable interstellar transportation options (Hyperlane, Wormhole, Jump) to just one, with elements of the other two (Hyperlane only, with static wormholes and expensive, unlockable, slow-charging jump drives) wasn't that big of a deal because it didn't change any of the broader ideas of the game. In practice though it was one of the biggest changes they've ever made to that game, and they have made a lot of them. Now I don't think the removal of the hybrid LBD system and its replacement by the perk system was as big of a change as the one I just mentioned, but it was still a pretty significant shift and caused major changes in how many people approached the game.

 

Ultimately though, I don't have a horse in the LBD/Perk discussion anymore, just a preference. It was more an easy way to illustrate the concept I was talking about.

 

Again, I just think it really depends upon why someone logs on to play the game. If character progression through LBD was the reason for playing then it was a core system to them. If building a fort and exploring and killing zombies is the principle reason for clicking play then LBD is going to be more of a peripheral system. To me, character progression has always felt peripheral. The thing I personally didn't like about spam crafting and LBD in general is that it seemed to steal focus from what I felt was the reason for playing. Even the current system steals more focus than I would prefer. I prefer mining for the sake of getting ore or creating an underground base. I don't want the reason for mining to be farming xp or (as in LBD to just increase the skill). It is the reason I made my mod that removes XP completely and makes character progression a function of time survived without dying. But I understand that that is my own preference and comes mostly from me having put over a thousand hours in the game pre Alpha 11 when character progression was completely absent.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
High enough to code it though. Which seem pretty high. Seems like their first choice, even though perks are actually indeed more common in all kinds of games.

 

 

Well, yes, high enough to code it. But they esteem lots of things high enough to code it because they really are experimenting with the details of their overall plan as they go (as you pointed out). They esteemed zip lines enough to code them. They esteemed the Behemoth enough to code it. They esteemed the Plains Biome enough to code it. They esteemed height based snow lines enough to code them. They esteemed hub cities enough to code them. They esteemed random cave systems enough to code them. I wouldn't call any of those features core to the game necessarily even if I was disappointed that they fell by the wayside.

 

They talked about perks and even professions in the kickstarter so technically perks always came first. They pushed into LBD initially and then methodically transitioned over time into perks. They still have the code for their LBD system,btw, which they could possibly apply to a future game. They do keep all the experiments they initiated.

 

There are always different reasons why something is abandoned for something else. You like to point out a lot that you feel they are developing to technical limitations which I think is true in some cases-obviously with zombie numbers as Joel has admitted that fact many times. It can also be because they come to believe a design is ultimately too confusing. This will end up being the case with the Integrated Survival System. Food and water bars are returning to the HUD and the way max stamina degradation and max health degradation works is being altered than how it was-- mostly because they want to remove all confusion about the system and have it be more understandable. Returning the food and water bars to the playing screen is likely to be an overwhelmingly popular decision so when A19 hits, I doubt anyone will complain that TFP esteemed the A17 system highly enough to code it that way or lament that most other games also show food and water bars on their screens. :)

Edited by Roland (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Food and water bars are returning to the HUD and the way max stamina degradation and max health degradation works is being altered than how it was-- mostly because they want to remove all confusion about the system and have it be more understandable.

 

Given that the main reason I use mods is to see food, water, and temperature on the HUD, all I can say is 'This is definitely a step in the right direction.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, yes, high enough to code it. But they esteem lots of things high enough to code it because they really are experimenting with the details of their overall plan as they go (as you pointed out). They esteemed zip lines enough to code them. They esteemed the Behemoth enough to code it. They esteemed the Plains Biome enough to code it. They esteemed height based snow lines enough to code them. They esteemed hub cities enough to code them. They esteemed random cave systems enough to code them. I wouldn't call any of those features core to the game necessarily even if I was disappointed that they fell by the wayside.

 

Progression is a core element of the game. There is no doubt about that. Progression is not of the same relevance like 1 type of enemy or "zip lines" or one of many locations. It is of essential relevance and highly important. It also is a "delicate" system, that needs to be properly "balanced", something you can only achieve over time, through testing it over and over and over again.

 

And the devs designed it as LBD initially, and they designed it quite thoroughly, it was a complete system, just that it had flaws. And when they removed it, they changed, as Bob said, "such a core element of the game".

 

So you can argue that they change all kinds of things all the time. Which is no ... "refutation" or "objection" to what Bob said, but actually supporting his point. Another core system is world generation, that was changed quite drastically in A17, and gradually before. But the removal of LBD, as Bob said very right once more, "was a huge change to the fundamental nature of the game, one that would have to be balanced, rebalanced, and re-rebalanced for a long time, and one that didn't ultimately make any progress towards getting the game any more finished."

 

They talked about perks and even professions in the kickstarter so technically perks always came first. They pushed into LBD initially and then methodically transitioned over time into perks. They still have the code for their LBD system,btw, which they could possibly apply to a future game. They do keep all the experiments they initiated.

 

They did? Ok. And then? *shrugs* Well, then they created LBD, balanced that for, what?, years? And then they redesigned progression, which is a core element.

 

There are always different reasons why something is abandoned for something else. You like to point out a lot that you feel they are developing to technical limitations which I think is true in some cases-obviously with zombie numbers as Joel has admitted that fact many times. It can also be because they come to believe a design is ultimately too confusing. This will end up being the case with the Integrated Survival System. Food and water bars are returning to the HUD and the way max stamina degradation and max health degradation works is being altered than how it was-- mostly because they want to remove all confusion about the system and have it be more understandable. Returning the food and water bars to the playing screen is likely to be an overwhelmingly popular decision so when A19 hits, I doubt anyone will complain that TFP esteemed the A17 system highly enough to code it that way or lament that most other games also show food and water bars on their screens. :)

 

Yes, the removal of LBD is, in my opinion as well, not because of technical limitations. And I don't know why you even bring that up. Why would you point out that I point that out in other cases? Where it is true. In this case, I assume they replaced LBD with perks for three reasons:

 

- (at least) Joel is a Fallout fan and prefers perks

- perks are easier to design and manage and balance on the devs side

- perks are easier to understand and more obvious as a feature on the players side

 

Actually, at least Joel said that technical problems would be the/a reason to remove lbd, he was talking about a few of it's flaws, like the ole "cacti". Which is not really a technical problem, as flaws like this could easily be fixed.

 

But again. The concern here is that a core element is being change this deep into development, when we actually expect the final version to drop this year. At least I heard legends and rumours that it would. That's really not so good, don't you agree. Come on, it's at least potentially questionable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Right, because knee-jerk input like upvotes and anecdotal data are all you need to get the full picture. And it's not like people are more inclined to advertise negative feelings than positive ones.

 

The fact is, only TFP are likely to have all the necessary data to properly understand the long-term health of the game. Yet everyone who's unhappy with the state of the game seems certain that the data supports their perspective. Could it be that's due to hubris rather than rigorous analysis? :eek2:

 

But anyway, you missed the point of that post. You said you're involved in indie game development and criticized how TFP are doing things. Instead of cherry-picking data about 7DtD, how about providing data about your game (like the aforementioned metrics) to indicate that your development philosophy is sound, and moreover that it has any bearing on the development of 7DtD?

 

Well where else are you going to get the data from? Just vivid guessing?? You are shooting down my arguments and not presenting your own...

To refute this silly statement...If someone is passionate about a specific topic, they are inclined to write one positive or negative, whether they vent their fustration or pleasure in the reviews or Forum posts, I have written both positive and negative critiques on the forum, So thats why your argument is poorly misinformed. Are you really trying to insinuate that the Fun Pimps have their own private reviewing section of reviews?

 

"The fact is, only TFP are likely to have all the necessary data to properly understand the long-term health of the game." Do they though? I mean have you asked them? I dont need to know since FTP Staff member "madMole" Had to leave the forums for 1 week due to attacks.

 

" Yet everyone who's unhappy with the state of the game seems certain that the data supports their perspective. Could it be that's due to hubris rather than rigorous analysis?" Well public opinion overrules near enough everything. If your walking through reviews and find that quite a few people have the same scenario, your generally gonna feel like your perspective is more accurate and aligned with community opinion.

 

Oh...so that explains why you have ignored my entire comment and only took the bottom half? I work on the O.N.I Team (Obviously thats all im telling you cause, privacy) And im very pleased on how successful such a poorly designed idea it became. We didnt have an idea from the start, all we did was debate and discuss ideas and that would be our new big thing for the game.

This is why I and many others are against your idea of Stages, they are an incompatible method in which to design games which are open to the public.

 

IF the game wasnt public, maybe your prespective might have some more foundations, but unfortunately its open and people wanna play. Im gonna asssume your fairly new to the idsea of 7 days to die? Ive been playing the game near enough to its release date, Its why i stand firm on my opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, yes, high enough to code it. But they esteem lots of things high enough to code it because they really are experimenting with the details of their overall plan as they go (as you pointed out). They esteemed zip lines enough to code them. They esteemed the Behemoth enough to code it. They esteemed the Plains Biome enough to code it. They esteemed height based snow lines enough to code them. They esteemed hub cities enough to code them. They esteemed random cave systems enough to code them. I wouldn't call any of those features core to the game necessarily even if I was disappointed that they fell by the wayside.

 

They talked about perks and even professions in the kickstarter so technically perks always came first. They pushed into LBD initially and then methodically transitioned over time into perks. They still have the code for their LBD system,btw, which they could possibly apply to a future game. They do keep all the experiments they initiated.

 

There are always different reasons why something is abandoned for something else. You like to point out a lot that you feel they are developing to technical limitations which I think is true in some cases-obviously with zombie numbers as Joel has admitted that fact many times. It can also be because they come to believe a design is ultimately too confusing. This will end up being the case with the Integrated Survival System. Food and water bars are returning to the HUD and the way max stamina degradation and max health degradation works is being altered than how it was-- mostly because they want to remove all confusion about the system and have it be more understandable. Returning the food and water bars to the playing screen is likely to be an overwhelmingly popular decision so when A19 hits, I doubt anyone will complain that TFP esteemed the A17 system highly enough to code it that way or lament that most other games also show food and water bars on their screens. :)

 

If thats true Roland, Why is it an issue to implement all of these ideas into the game and let the player choose what core features to enable and disable? Wouldnt it be a more entertaining experience to try and play the game on different ideas? Like Playing on Ye olde A15 but with modern-day improvements?

 

I guess from a Dev's prespective, itd be harder to try and optimize these systems all at once...

Mod support anyone? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Progression is a core element of the game. There is no doubt about that. Progression is not of the same relevance like 1 type of enemy or "zip lines" or one of many locations. It is of essential relevance and highly important. It also is a "delicate" system, that needs to be properly "balanced", something you can only achieve over time, through testing it over and over and over again.

 

<shrug>. I guess it just depends on when you started playing. Someone starting after Alpha 12 might see it as a core system whereas someone who played for years without it might see it as peripheral. I’m sure the same is true of traders and will be true of bandits. Those who buy the game after Alpha 21 wont be able to imagine the game without bandits and reputation. Will that make bandits and reputation a core system? To them it will.

 

There’s no doubt progression is a big part of the game and the devs have invested a lot in it. The fact that they wanted to get it right before they went gold and so redesigned it is proof that it is important to them. It’s just that you can play the game without progression. Even you have said you’ve played for quite awhile before without spending any points on perks. Now try playing the game without any world generation....

 

And the devs designed it as LBD initially, and they designed it quite thoroughly, it was a complete system, just that it had flaws. And when they removed it, they changed, as Bob said, "such a core element of the game".

 

So you can argue that they change all kinds of things all the time. Which is no ... "refutation" or "objection" to what Bob said, but actually supporting his point. Another core system is world generation, that was changed quite drastically in A17, and gradually before. But the removal of LBD, as Bob said very right once more, "was a huge change to the fundamental nature of the game, one that would have to be balanced, rebalanced, and re-rebalanced for a long time, and one that didn't ultimately make any progress towards getting the game any more finished."

 

You and Bob see LBD itself as a core system of the game. The developers see LBD as simply one means to the end of having player progression in the game. You’ll notice that LBD is gone and yet we still have player progression. I’m certain that for you and Bob LBD was critical and core to your personal enjoyment and preference. But to the game? I disagree.

 

Yes, the removal of LBD is, in my opinion as well, not because of technical limitations. And I don't know why you even bring that up. Why would you point out that I point that out in other cases? Where it is true. In this case, I assume they replaced LBD with perks for three reasons:

 

- (at least) Joel is a Fallout fan and prefers perks

- perks are easier to design and manage and balance on the devs side

- perks are easier to understand and more obvious as a feature on the players side

 

Actually, at least Joel said that technical problems would be the/a reason to remove lbd, he was talking about a few of it's flaws, like the ole "cacti". Which is not really a technical problem, as flaws like this could easily be fixed.

 

But again. The concern here is that a core element is being change this deep into development, when we actually expect the final version to drop this year. At least I heard legends and rumours that it would. That's really not so good, don't you agree. Come on, it's at least potentially questionable.

 

Joel is actually a huge fan of Skyrim as well and spent years modding it and still plays it from time to time now. I’m certain that that had a big influence on their initial push into LBD. I just brought up what you said about technical limitations to agree that not all design changes are purely based on “vision” but sometimes have more pragmatic reasons. The difficulty of balancing LBD was a big part of why they parted ways with it. Fallout inspiration is another big part.

 

as far as the game releasing this year I highly doubt that will be the case. They are hoping Alpha 20 will be ready in time for Christmas and they already have things planned for an Alpha 21. That video reviewer you linked really had no clue how much he was under-ranting about how long this game would remain in early access..lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Update: Joel just said this in the dev diary which kind of shows the feeling of the devs on the relative importance of LBD.

 

 

Just to be clear, discarded means you had it then you threw it out. I think his intention was it was planned then never done, that is not the case either. It was not planned, but I did design it already. Maybe A20. We discarded sharp sticks, LBD, grid crafting.

 

Sharp sticks and grid crafting is about the level of "coreness" that LBD had. In fact, the crafting example is good. The means to crafting is not considered core by the devs. That part was able to be shifted without issue because it wasn't really the core and we still have crafting. This doesn't lessen the disappointment for the fans of grid crafting, of course. Their preference was discarded.

Edited by Roland (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Sharp sticks and grid crafting is about the level of "coreness" that LBD had. In fact, the crafting example is good. The means to crafting is not considered core by the devs. That part was able to be shifted without issue because it wasn't really the core and we still have crafting. This doesn't lessen the disappointment for the fans of grid crafting, of course. Their preference was discarded.

 

This confirms for me that Theory #2 is the correct one. As for LBD specifically, I'd argue that it was a major system whether or not the developers agree. They put three years of work into it then just got rid of it for a sidegrade rather than an upgrade. Them not considering it a major or important system and just tossing it aside casually when it was a significant part of the game for so long actually worries me a little more that the game will be in perpetual alpha, though I am encouraged by the steady progress we've been seeing since A18. Guess we'll see if the optimist or pessimist is right.

Edited by BobTheBard (see edit history)
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This confirms for me that Theory #2 is the correct one. As for LBD specifically, I'd argue that it was a major system whether or not the developers agree. They put three years of work into it then just got rid of it for a sidegrade rather than an upgrade. Them not considering it a major or important system and just tossing it aside casually when it was a significant part of the game for so long actually worries me a little more that the game will be in perpetual alpha, though I am encouraged by the steady progress we've been seeing since A18. Guess we'll see if the optimist or pessimist is right.

 

Saying that they put three years of work into LBD is overstating it by quite a bit. They didn't work on that for three years. It was IN the game for three years but that is a different thing altogether from actively working on something. Let's look at water as an example. Water has been been in the game for close to 7 years now but they haven't touched it in quite some time other than some cosmetic graphic changes. Now in Alpha 21 if they change the water into something different than it is now I suppose people who don't like the change will be able to say that they worked on water for 7 years and then suddenly threw it out for this new water-- 7 years of labor down the toilet. Not.

 

In addition, during the time that they did work on it they consistently iterated what they had from an almost purely LBD model into a hybrid of LBD and perks and then finally into a pure perk model. It was not a constant focus on LBD alone until it reached a pinnacle of LBD purity only to be completely erased for something completely new. Go back and look at the perks in Alpha 16. Many of them are exactly the same perks that we have now or slightly modified versions.

 

Finally, you are correct that whether something is a major system or not is a matter of opinion. What really matters is whose opinion is weightier. I'd submit that the devs' opinions are the only ones that really matter since as a team they are unified and they have the power and opportunity to act on their opinions. As a community we don't have consensus in the first place, and we have no opportunity nor power to act on our opinions. We can talk but the devs can act. So if you want to believe that LBD is a core major system independent of what I or the devs believe that is fine for you. But the devs opinions are what matter and if they see LBD as something that can be discarded and replaced with a different method. Then their opinion is the reality. LBD did get replaced (really it happened over the course of A15 - A17) and here we still have player progression in the game and the community still has no consensus. Some hate it and some love it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

<shrug>. I guess it just depends on when you started playing. Someone starting after Alpha 12 might see it as a core system whereas someone who played for years without it might see it as peripheral. I’m sure the same is true of traders and will be true of bandits. Those who buy the game after Alpha 21 wont be able to imagine the game without bandits and reputation. Will that make bandits and reputation a core system? To them it will.

 

There’s no doubt progression is a big part of the game and the devs have invested a lot in it. The fact that they wanted to get it right before they went gold and so redesigned it is proof that it is important to them. It’s just that you can play the game without progression. Even you have said you’ve played for quite awhile before without spending any points on perks. Now try playing the game without any world generation....

 

 

 

You and Bob see LBD itself as a core system of the game. The developers see LBD as simply one means to the end of having player progression in the game. You’ll notice that LBD is gone and yet we still have player progression. I’m certain that for you and Bob LBD was critical and core to your personal enjoyment and preference. But to the game? I disagree.

 

 

 

Joel is actually a huge fan of Skyrim as well and spent years modding it and still plays it from time to time now. I’m certain that that had a big influence on their initial push into LBD. I just brought up what you said about technical limitations to agree that not all design changes are purely based on “vision” but sometimes have more pragmatic reasons. The difficulty of balancing LBD was a big part of why they parted ways with it. Fallout inspiration is another big part.

 

as far as the game releasing this year I highly doubt that will be the case. They are hoping Alpha 20 will be ready in time for Christmas and they already have things planned for an Alpha 21. That video reviewer you linked really had no clue how much he was under-ranting about how long this game would remain in early access..lol

Update: Joel just said this in the dev diary which kind of shows the feeling of the devs on the relative importance of LBD.

 

 

 

Sharp sticks and grid crafting is about the level of "coreness" that LBD had. In fact, the crafting example is good. The means to crafting is not considered core by the devs. That part was able to be shifted without issue because it wasn't really the core and we still have crafting. This doesn't lessen the disappointment for the fans of grid crafting, of course. Their preference was discarded.

 

Saying that they put three years of work into LBD is overstating it by quite a bit. They didn't work on that for three years. It was IN the game for three years but that is a different thing altogether from actively working on something. Let's look at water as an example. Water has been been in the game for close to 7 years now but they haven't touched it in quite some time other than some cosmetic graphic changes. Now in Alpha 21 if they change the water into something different than it is now I suppose people who don't like the change will be able to say that they worked on water for 7 years and then suddenly threw it out for this new water-- 7 years of labor down the toilet. Not.

 

In addition, during the time that they did work on it they consistently iterated what they had from an almost purely LBD model into a hybrid of LBD and perks and then finally into a pure perk model. It was not a constant focus on LBD alone until it reached a pinnacle of LBD purity only to be completely erased for something completely new. Go back and look at the perks in Alpha 16. Many of them are exactly the same perks that we have now or slightly modified versions.

 

Finally, you are correct that whether something is a major system or not is a matter of opinion. What really matters is whose opinion is weightier. I'd submit that the devs' opinions are the only ones that really matter since as a team they are unified and they have the power and opportunity to act on their opinions. As a community we don't have consensus in the first place, and we have no opportunity nor power to act on our opinions. We can talk but the devs can act. So if you want to believe that LBD is a core major system independent of what I or the devs believe that is fine for you. But the devs opinions are what matter and if they see LBD as something that can be discarded and replaced with a different method. Then their opinion is the reality. LBD did get replaced (really it happened over the course of A15 - A17) and here we still have player progression in the game and the community still has no consensus. Some hate it and some love it.

LBD itself is not a core element. Ob-, Roland, -viously, as it is gone. Noone ever said LBD was a core element. If you think someone did, you misunderstood them, I promise. For example did Bob very clearly say "Changing such a core element of the game". What was changed? Was LBD "changed"? No, Roland, LBD was not "changed". LBD was removed. What was changed, Roland, was progression. Which is a core element. Tweaking progression is the core of your mod, isn't it? 0XP?

 

This discussion is not about "but I prefer LBD, I'm sad they removed it".

 

The point is that the design of a core element was changed this deep into development and (possibly) this close to the final release, is problematic, particularly in case of progression, because such a mechanic needs to be fine tuned and can only be fine tuned with experience. When they replaced LBD with perks, they went back to square one of the core element "progression". And now they are in the process of tweaking it back and forth.

 

Aren't they. Roland. Aren't they.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...