The loot linearity is killing my interest in this game

[RestInPieces]

2 hours ago, Kalen said:

What good is a poll about the current state of looting if the current state of looting is only a step toward the final state of looting?

 

Just guessing, but I would expect TFP are also not happy with the current state of looting.... if they were, it would be the final product.

Well, if a poll's purpose is to get feedback about something (as its title implies) and that something gets mixed with future changes that haven't already happened, you don't really get any feedback about the effects of that something - you get feedback about the expectations people have about the whole thing.

 

Anyhow, whether the change is a necessary step™ or yet another step of experimentation, wish the whole player scaling went away when it comes to areas. My guess is that they will initially add modifiers, in the next alpha see that linearity is more or less the same and various POIs also become obsolete and decide to add negative modifiers and/or caps, in the alpha after that rebalance  lootlists to see if things improve, in the next realize that they could have done everything with area scaling in the first place, and somewhere around A4x, a believable world might emerge, if they don't get fed up in the meantime and start developing their new game.  

 

51 minutes ago, meganoth said:

If it isn't clear, with filter i meant adding all answers together that say the same about the current state irrespective of what they say about the future. If all possible future answers are included in this sum, only the testimony about the current state is left as testimony.

The choice itself is influenced by all parts of the answer. You can't just isolate some of them and ignore the rest.

 

 

An example of a double-barreled question would be the following: "do you think that students should have more classes about history and culture?" This question asks about two different issues: "do you think that students should have more classes about history" and "do you think that students should have more classes about culture?" Combining both questions into one makes it unclear what exactly is being measured, and as each question may elicit a different response if asked separately there is an increased likelihood of confusing the respondents.[2] In other words, while some respondents would answer "yes" to both and some "no" to both, some would like to answer both "yes and no".[4]

Other examples of double-barreled questions:

"Please agree or disagree with the following statement: Cars should be faster and safer."[3]

"How satisfied are you with your pay and job conditions?"[4]

"How often and how much time do you spend on each visit to a hospital?"[5]

"Does your department have a special recruitment policy for men and women?"[5]

"Do you think that there is a good market for the product and that it will sell well?"

"Should the government spend less money on the military and more on education?"

"Is this tool interesting and useful?"

[meganoth]

16 minutes ago, RestInPieces said:

Well, if a poll's purpose is to get feedback about something (as its title implies) and that something gets mixed with future changes that haven't already happened, you don't really get any feedback about the effects of that something - you get feedback about the expectations people have about the whole thing.

 

Anyhow, whether the change is a necessary step™ or yet another step of experimentation, wish the whole player scaling went away when it comes to areas. My guess is that they will initially add modifiers, in the next alpha see that linearity is more or less the same and various POIs also become obsolete and decide to add negative modifiers and/or caps, in the alpha after that rebalance  lootlists to see if things improve, in the next realize that they could have done everything with area scaling in the first place, and somewhere around A4x, a believable world might emerge, if they don't get fed up in the meantime and start developing their new game.  

 

The choice itself is influenced by all parts of the answer. You can't just isolate some of them and ignore the rest.

(wiki)



An example of a double-barreled question would be the following: "do you think that students should have more classes about history and culture?" This question asks about two different issues: "do you think that students should have more classes about history" and "do you think that students should have more classes about culture?" Combining both questions into one makes it unclear what exactly is being measured, and as each question may elicit a different response if asked separately there is an increased likelihood of confusing the respondents.[2] In other words, while some respondents would answer "yes" to both and some "no" to both, some would like to answer both "yes and no".[4]



Other examples of double-barreled questions:

"Please agree or disagree with the following statement: Cars should be faster and safer."[3]

"How satisfied are you with your pay and job conditions?"[4]

"How often and how much time do you spend on each visit to a hospital?"[5]

"Does your department have a special recruitment policy for men and women?"[5]

"Do you think that there is a good market for the product and that it will sell well?"

"Should the government spend less money on the military and more on education?"

"Is this tool interesting and useful?"

 

But notice that in the first example they expect only yes or no as an answer, which makes the answer a useless combination of the four possible answers to the question.

 

Would they allow as answers all 4 permutations "yes and yes", "yes and no", "no and yes" and "no and no" the double-barrel would not exist anymore.

 

[Kalen]

7 minutes ago, RestInPieces said:

Well, if a poll's purpose is to get feedback about something (as its title implies) and that something gets mixed with future changes that haven't already happened, you don't really get any feedback about the effects of that something - you get feedback about the expectations people have about the whole thing.

I hear ya, but feedback about what currently exists without the context of why it exists (ie. what comes next) seems unhelpful.

[RestInPieces]

3 minutes ago, meganoth said:

But notice that in the first example they expect only yes or no as an answer, which makes the answer useless.

Would they allow as answers all 4 permutations "yes and yes", "yes and no", "no and yes" and "no and no" the double-barrel would not exist anymore.

You are correct. The reason I considered this a double-barreled poll is that I didn't consider the choices as permutations of all possible answers.

Quote

 

I hate it and want it reverted to the way it was in A18. The future sounds like it sucks.

I dislike it but can live with it until it is fully developed. The future has some potential.

 

Personally, I detest it and I want it reverted. Even though the future as described is fine, I can't "live with it" in the sense that this phrase usually implies compliance and, as the OP says, it has killed my interest in the game. Might be nitpicking over that one, but that is the reason I expressed my distaste about the poll. Yes, Roland wants us to think of it in the context of a bigger picture, and the bigger picture has its merits. But these merits are completely irrelevant to the player scaling itself and could easily stand on their own. In other words mixing a (subjectively/for me) overall good system with a (subjectively) negative part and asking our opinion through the lens of the overall system. Even if one considers the latest changes negative, they are bound to see them in a more positive light. 

18 minutes ago, Kalen said:

I hear ya, but feedback about what currently exists without the context of why it exists (ie. what comes next) seems unhelpful.

 Definitely, but my gripe is that the why hasn't been realized, or even thoroughly explained yet in this case. And in the end, they decided they wanted a player scaling factor in this system, a con/pro depending how one sees it, so I feel that factor should be judged/probed for feedback individually, versus judging all aspects of that system at once.

[JCrook1028]

5 hours ago, Dracula said:

Your point is moot since they had a purported release date of May, 2014 and that date is still visible on the Kickstarter page.  Seeing as the "meal" was supposed to be ready over 6 years ago, I have every right to complain about a plate of raw eggs.

 

2014 was when THEY said it was supposed to be ready; after all, NOT me.

From the KS page -

Estimated delivery May 2014

 

You may want to brush up on the definition of estimate. Obviously that was supremely optimistic. In reality tho, the game is FAR more than they ever thought it could be then and imo is worth the price even now unfinished. That however changes nothing regarding the point I made. The meal is unfinished. Period. You are eating a sample in the kitchen off the chef's ladle.

[Roland]

Regardless of how muddy you want to paint my poll questions, the fact is plain that this is a polarizing issue. It is not universally loved nor hated. Reverting it would anger a lot of people even as the original change angered a lot of people. Since TFP has a plan that they want to see through and lots of people are going to be angry either way the best course is to see it through. There are ways to revert it for yourself in the meantime. If you enjoy every other aspect of A19 then use the mod that returns the A18 looting and enjoy yourself until A20 comes out at which point you can try vanilla again to see if you like it.

@meganoth made the point that the feelings are pretty evenly divided. If you want to blame my poll questions for that then just look at dracula's poll which shows the same exact thing without any context of future plans. When asked simply whether you like it or not on its own merits the result so far is a split. That could change over the next few days but I doubt it will by much. The system works well for what it is trying to accomplish and it seems about half of the people like that slower progression with a pronounced primitive era while others hate it. If Dracula's poll shows exactly the same result as mine then I think we can safely assume that nobody was misled by my tricky questions.

[RestInPieces]

2 hours ago, Roland said:

The system works well for what it is trying to accomplish and it seems about half of the people like that slower progression with a pronounced primitive era while others hate it. If Dracula's poll shows exactly the same result as mine then I think we can safely assume that nobody was misled by my tricky questions.

Your (and TFP's) nefarious plan to pack the universally beloved area scaling and slower progression along with the abomination that is player scaling may have succeeded in muddying the waters, but these two things can happen without the latter. If they don't, so be it, but I do hope TFP have thoroughly planned this out (don't blame me for having doubts), because that post only describes a rough idea of what they will do. Do they plan on revisiting the GS formula? Making lootlists more POI-dependent? Having GS caps in POIs? etc etc. (Rhetorical questions)

 

[Dracula]

15 hours ago, JCrook1028 said:

From the KS page -

Estimated delivery May 2014

 

You may want to brush up on the definition of estimate. Obviously that was supremely optimistic. In reality tho, the game is FAR more than they ever thought it could be then and imo is worth the price even now unfinished. That however changes nothing regarding the point I made. The meal is unfinished. Period. You are eating a sample in the kitchen off the chef's ladle.

I'm not saying that it changes your point in that it's unfinished; however, my point was that I was sold on a meal 6 years ago and, while they've added a lot of garnish in the time and completely changed it.  Obviously I'm still waiting for the finished product; like how I'm waiting on Elder Scrolls 6.

 

@Roland

That's exactly why I made the poll I did; no fluff, no filler, no ambiguity.  It's as easy as I could think of and removes the argument of speculation.

[Boidster]

5 hours ago, RestInPieces said:

Your (and TFP's) nefarious plan to pack the universally beloved area scaling and slower progression along with the abomination that is player scaling

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "player scaling"? When I read that I interpret it as "gamestage" or maybe just the sub-component "level", but I don't think that's what you mean.

 

[RestInPieces]

1 hour ago, Boidster said:

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "player scaling"? When I read that I interpret it as "gamestage" or maybe just the sub-component "level", but I don't think that's what you mean.

That's what I mean.  Loot/spawns being governed by GS, which is mainly governed by your level.

[JCrook1028]

4 hours ago, Dracula said:

my point was that I was sold on a meal 6 years ago and, while they've added a lot of garnish in the time and completely changed it. 

Well yea, kind of the definition of what you bought. Early Access.....

[Boidster]

30 minutes ago, RestInPieces said:

That's what I mean.  Loot/spawns being governed by GS, which is mainly governed by your level.

Interesting! What mechanic would you prefer for the game to scale content as the player gains skills/tools/weapons? Or not scale to level at all, maybe? If you've already laid out your ideal system in another thread, just send me there; no need to rehash it here.

[RestInPieces]

6 minutes ago, Boidster said:

Interesting! What mechanic would you prefer for the game to scale content as the player gains skills/tools/weapons? Or not scale to level at all, maybe? If you've already laid out your ideal system in another thread, just send me there; no need to rehash it here.

Yes, very. Most of those posts were gone with the old forums. Zone/subzone/POI scaling is something that was being discussed since the beginning, but it wasn't interesting enough back then. Rigid level scaling usually seen in RPG-esque games (rarely any survival) is pretty much the most crude way to keep everything relevant and usually a recipe for repetitiveness and homogenization. It is a lost chance to make a world that breaths on its own, rather than revolves around the player and their "power level".

 

It's absolutely great that they decided to add stacking area modifiers. It would be even better though imo if they use GS caps (for zones/POIs etc, so that higher GS areas are always kept relevant, but the latest changes would be a necessary step™ if they wanted to do that), or just go for area ranges not affected by your level and bring back a decent randomization offset. There is no need for that lone cabin in the middle of nowhere to track your level progress. Or for that backwoods container to suddenly decide giving you steel items. Everything can stay relevant with a decent item economy and exclusive lootlists - the game's loot variety is astounding. "Scaling" can happen as the player acquires the tools and the ability to progressively handle higher difficulty areas. In other words I prefer environmental gates instead of artificial gates dependent on meta information.

 

As I see it the formula is mostly necessary for dynamic events like the BM (which atm is a rather flat event and does not vary) and could contain various other shared factors (weather, player behavior, global time w/ a cap etc) with different weights, player scaling included but with a much lesser weight, not the predictability fest we have now. 

[Boidster]

15 minutes ago, RestInPieces said:

Zone/subzone/POI scaling is something that was being discussed since the beginning, but it wasn't interesting enough back then. Rigid level scaling usually seen in RPG-esque games (rarely any survival) is pretty much the most crude way to keep everything relevant and usually a recipe for repetitiveness and homogenization. It is a lost chance to make a world that breaths on its own, rather than revolves around the player and their "power level". <snip>

That's an interesting take. I'm not sure I'm on board with the phrasing "rigid level scaling" since even with GS the actual effect is only a small shifting of probabilities. There isn't a bright line between level X and level Y. But nevermind that.

 

In your scaling system, it would be natural for players either to relocate from area to area as they level up, or accept traveling to interesting areas while perhaps living in the now-easy starting area? So you start in N00btown where the toughest enemy is maybe a Moe and no matter how long you play if you remain in N00btown you're never going to see worse than a Moe. As well, you will only get starter loot. If you move over to Gitgud City, then you get Bikers and Cops and a Wight or two, and better loot. No changes or adaptation to you, strictly based on where you're standing.

 

And of course let's not even talk about Abattoir Acres...nobody who goes there has ever come back.

 

For it to work I'd think they would have to somehow make particular sub-zones of biomes have different difficulty levels (and somehow mark them as such). Because you will have people who prefer to live in the forest and also prefer to not drive across the map to find wasteland where they find level-appropriate challenges. And on MP servers I think it might exacerbate the "nobody joins past day 21" problem because all of the higher-level players will have moved on from N00btown and any n00bs joining won't be able to catch up and join parties heading into level-appropriate areas. Or maybe it will help alleviate the problem because said n00bs will have N00btown all to themselves? Maybe higher-GS servers will be sought out, so the little n00bs can have some peace and quiet while the big boys go die elsewhere.

[RestInPieces]

2 hours ago, Boidster said:

That's an interesting take. I'm not sure I'm on board with the phrasing "rigid level scaling" since even with GS the actual effect is only a small shifting of probabilities. There isn't a bright line between level X and level Y. But nevermind that.

 

In your scaling system, it would be natural for players either to relocate from area to area as they level up, or accept traveling to interesting areas while perhaps living in the now-easy starting area? So you start in N00btown where the toughest enemy is maybe a Moe and no matter how long you play if you remain in N00btown you're never going to see worse than a Moe. As well, you will only get starter loot. If you move over to Gitgud City, then you get Bikers and Cops and a Wight or two, and better loot. No changes or adaptation to you, strictly based on where you're standing.

 

And of course let's not even talk about Abattoir Acres...nobody who goes there has ever come back.

 

For it to work I'd think they would have to somehow make particular sub-zones of biomes have different difficulty levels (and somehow mark them as such). Because you will have people who prefer to live in the forest and also prefer to not drive across the map to find wasteland where they find level-appropriate challenges. And on MP servers I think it might exacerbate the "nobody joins past day 21" problem because all of the higher-level players will have moved on from N00btown and any n00bs joining won't be able to catch up and join parties heading into level-appropriate areas. Or maybe it will help alleviate the problem because said n00bs will have N00btown all to themselves? Maybe higher-GS servers will be sought out, so the little n00bs can have some peace and quiet while the big boys go die elsewhere.

You don't want to know what happened in Abattoir Acres...

 

It's not mine, it's nothing original, a lot of games work wonderfully without scaling. Well, when you know what to anticipate in terms of risk and reward because of a meta number, it is rigid in my book. And that knowledge does not come with thousands of hours of gameplay. It takes one, maybe two, playthroughs to become obvious.

 

AFAIK they are already planning on having stacking modifiers. As Roland said, for example, a SM factory in a desert city could have +50 GS, 15 for the desert, 15 for the city and 20 because it's a high tier POI. Something like that. Which is great. But there are a lot of things that haven't been clarified. Like for example, if a player reaches a max GS stage (when it comes to loot/spawns), will every POI contain the same loot tier/spawns? If so, what will be the point of those modifiers at that point, and if not, will the lower GS areas be capped? And if they are capped, do we need scaling in the first place? 

 

And if we do need scaling up to a point only, modifiers gate people from getting items up to that point and don't really gate them from visiting any area, since they will always be ahead of the player's GS (except when they reach the max GS content), thus the world will be a less homogeneous place, but still homogeneous enough so that players will be visiting everything from the start to the end of their playthrough, turn on loot respawn and just hang out in the same area, or even worse restrain themselves up to a specific level, being encouraged to count their GS to save POIs for later, so that it gets them the optimal loot, not because they acquired the tools to best it, which would be a "natural" environmental gate. 

 

Besides the immersion factor e.g. "the looted rural town suddenly changed its loot table becaused I leveled", it's also a matter of gameplay in the sense that there is little to look forward to - you don't look forward to a goal e.g. acquire the means to finally be able to loot that military complex/skycraper/factory etc at some point. You look forward to level up so that the GS rises to go loot it again for better loot. They actually want to do something similar AFAIK with radiation zones, but it's a drop in the ocean, compared to the rest of the flatness.

 

The much anticipated event manager as Roland called it and the BM will always need some scaling reference that depends on the player. But even then the formula is rigid. With more factors and variations it can be spiced up and perhaps surprise you even now and then vs the "our GS is x, we will get x".

[Boidster]

3 hours ago, RestInPieces said:

Like for example, if a player reaches a max GS stage (when it comes to loot/spawns), will every POI contain the same loot tier/spawns? If so, what will be the point of those modifiers at that point, and if not, will the lower GS areas be capped? And if they are capped, do we need scaling in the first place?

I would expect that if you play a map long enough to reach maximum GS in the loot tables (currently GS 973) or the spawn tables (GS 5778) then yes all POIs would in effect have the same loot 'cause +50 GS does nothing for you at that point. I see the technical point you are making, but as a practical matter I don't really see the issue. In your geo-only scaling system, why on earth would a GS 900+ player care what was going on back in N00bville anyhow? Those loot containers would be entirely worthless and would have been so for hundreds of levels/days. The difference in the systems is "I'm so high level now that I get top-tier loot wherever I go" vs "I'm so high level now that I don't even bother visiting areas A, B, or C any more". With GS-based scaling, the entire map could, conceivably, remain somewhat interesting for all players.

 

3 hours ago, RestInPieces said:

Besides the immersion factor e.g. "the looted rural town suddenly changed its loot table becaused I leveled"

Okay, but that does not happen. I'm intrigued by the idea of changing 7D2D to be more like, say The Division, where areas have levels and you ought not to go there until you meet the level requirement (though you're always free to try!). But I don't think you need to put up strawmen to then beat down in order to make your case. The accurate way to say that is, "the looted rural town just added .01% probability to certain types of loot while subtracting .01% from other types of loot". The loot scales very gradually, though of course you could avoid the rural town for 100 GS and then go back and have a significantly different loot experience from when you were first there. I don't see that as a huge problem, but I understand your reasoning for why you do think it's a problem. I can respect that you've given it a lot of thought, even if I disagree on some points.

 

Just a side observation: based on your concern about max-GS looting, I think our different viewpoints stem in part from (what I guess is) our different games' longevity. I have maybe made it as far as day 70 or 100 on a single map, before starting another map. I don't play on public servers, only co-op on my own, or SP. There is no conceivable way I would ever even approach max GS and possibly this is why, to me, an 8K (or larger, thx Nitrogen) map is nearly endlessly entertaining. I simply cannot see every POI and loot every container in the time I have before the next Alpha point release. My guess is that you have played very deep into a single map and see many more end-game issues than I ever will.

 

3 hours ago, RestInPieces said:

But even then the formula is rigid. With more factors and variations it can be spiced up and perhaps surprise you even now and then vs the "our GS is x, we will get x".

It's not though. Everything is based on probabilities. Are you highly likely to see a feral wight in your BMH at GS200? Sure. But is it guaranteed? No. And maybe you get one maybe you get 3. Maybe you get a ton of Cops instead. RNG determines the horde makeup, taken from a pool of GS-appropriate zombies. If they want to add some surprises in there - take out a nest of wights in a POI and surprise your next horde is 50% wights - that does sound neat. Count me in.

[RestInPieces]

12 hours ago, Boidster said:

I would expect that if you play a map long enough to reach maximum GS in the loot tables (currently GS 973) or the spawn tables (GS 5778) then yes all POIs would in effect have the same loot 'cause +50 GS does nothing for you at that point. I see the technical point you are making, but as a practical matter I don't really see the issue. In your geo-only scaling system, why on earth would a GS 900+ player care what was going on back in N00bville anyhow? Those loot containers would be entirely worthless and would have been so for hundreds of levels/days. The difference in the systems is "I'm so high level now that I get top-tier loot wherever I go" vs "I'm so high level now that I don't even bother visiting areas A, B, or C any more". With GS-based scaling, the entire map could, conceivably, remain somewhat interesting for all players.

It only takes the point until the "end-game" items start make their appearance in the lootlists. Even if it seems unintuitive to progressively make lower GS places mostly uninteresting, I actually believe it's a good thing to keep shifting the player's focus towards different areas throughout the session. The entire map being interesting (loot and spawn-wise), means that everything is within their reach during their whole playthrough and has roughly the same level of challenge everywhere (that differentiates only with entity groups). While modifiers will achieve variation of content to some degree, players' focus and visiting habits don't really change -- in other words keeping everything interesting for a long time is not always great, because that everything in our case is a list of randomly repeated prefabs.

 

And when it comes to lower level areas, while definitely out of focus later in the game, it is common and good practice to keep them remotely relevant (e.g. via exclusive lootlists), remotely being key though. Most RPG-esque/survival games that progressively increase their difficulty always sprinkle low level enemies in the players' path or make sure players can measure their progress by the standard of how far they have come since the beginning - e.g. you will still rarely have to gather some materials in the Shallows, while having the best gear in Subnautica, or you will still rarely meet packs of watchers (first enemy) in the highest level areas in Horizon Dawn Zero. Yes, N00bville becoming Badassville will keep the players on their toes, but when that is the case for nearly everywhere it loses impact.  

 

12 hours ago, Boidster said:

Okay, but that does not happen. I'm intrigued by the idea of changing 7D2D to be more like, say The Division, where areas have levels and you ought not to go there until you meet the level requirement (though you're always free to try!). But I don't think you need to put up strawmen to then beat down in order to make your case. The accurate way to say that is, "the looted rural town just added .01% probability to certain types of loot while subtracting .01% from other types of loot". The loot scales very gradually, though of course you could avoid the rural town for 100 GS and then go back and have a significantly different loot experience from when you were first there. I don't see that as a huge problem, but I understand your reasoning for why you do think it's a problem. I can respect that you've given it a lot of thought, even if I disagree on some points.

Always happy to discuss and I am in no way saying "this is the best for the game, period" -- just sharing another view. My example was quaint and only meant to get the point across, but I am glad you did get what I am trying to say. It may be gradual but my problem is that it is noticeable.

12 hours ago, Boidster said:

Just a side observation: based on your concern about max-GS looting, I think our different viewpoints stem in part from (what I guess is) our different games' longevity. I have maybe made it as far as day 70 or 100 on a single map, before starting another map. I don't play on public servers, only co-op on my own, or SP. There is no conceivable way I would ever even approach max GS and possibly this is why, to me, an 8K (or larger, thx Nitrogen) map is nearly endlessly entertaining. I simply cannot see every POI and loot every container in the time I have before the next Alpha point release. My guess is that you have played very deep into a single map and see many more end-game issues than I ever will.

This was mostly probing to perhaps get some more information about the planned system or maybe probe the degree it was planned, maybe learn if they plan to have caps etc. I play mostly co-op with friends who I've brought into the game and, very rarely, SP. A few playthroughts stop until the point end-game gear starts appearing in the tables, most much earlier as I enjoy the "primitive" stages more. 

12 hours ago, Boidster said:

It's not though. Everything is based on probabilities. Are you highly likely to see a feral wight in your BMH at GS200? Sure. But is it guaranteed? No. And maybe you get one maybe you get 3. Maybe you get a ton of Cops instead. RNG determines the horde makeup, taken from a pool of GS-appropriate zombies. If they want to add some surprises in there - take out a nest of wights in a POI and surprise your next horde is 50% wights - that does sound neat. Count me in.

I am not saying players know beforehand exactly the kind of zombies that will appear -- that would be rather awful. I am saying the game mainly takes your level (and days alive capped by it) into account, making it rather unvaried when it could be spiced up by more things. Like something similar to your example (besides the fact that atm it might be best to avoid throwing a large number of the same enemies at the same time both for visual and gameplay reasons). It could be literally anything plausible (as long as it's cheap in work hours), like e.g. AI variations because of, say, weather state or a pending quest state etc. And while a level reference is also admittedly necessary for the BM, throwing more factors in it can create a sense of urgency, consequence, anticipation etc etc depending on what is added. Maybe the random event manager will do exactly what I am talking about, but considering the mmo-ish back-and-forth quests we have now, I don't have any particular hopes for it. 

[meganoth]

2 hours ago, RestInPieces said:

 

And when it comes to lower level areas, while definitely out of focus later in the game, it is common and good practice to keep them remotely relevant (e.g. via exclusive lootlists), remotely being key though. Most RPG-esque/survival games that progressively increase their difficulty always sprinkle low level enemies in the players' path or make players can measure their progress by the standard of how far they have come since the beginning - e.g. you will still rarely have to gather some materials in the Shallows, while having the best gear in Subnautica, or you will still rarely meet packs of watchers (first enemy) in the highest level areas in Horizon Dawn Zero. Yes, N00bville becoming Badassville will keep the players on their toes, but when that is the case for nearly everywhere it loses impact.  

 

 

 

This could definitely work. Raiding high tier pois in advanced areas with most enemies glowies is often a zero-sum game for ammo (for a normal player). But this player could go back to gamestage-capped areas to "farm" ammo in POIs using only melee.

 

[Boidster]

Good discussion, thanks. I'm going to go find a thread where I can engage in some veiled insults and talking past other people. All this reasonable discourse grates on me. 🙂

[Worrun]

On 8/22/2020 at 12:07 PM, Slaasher said:

But I have started several games and in almost all of them I have gotten AK 47's and pistols in the first few days. In a couple of the games I was even surprised to find pistols in the toilets LOL

Doubt.

[AtomicUs5000]

1 minute ago, Worrun said:

Doubt.

The difference between 2 hour days and 10 minute days is fierce, yet nobody specifies.

[fragtzack]

12 minutes ago, Worrun said:

Doubt.

Day 3, looted an AK47 in current game. It does happen. 

 

IMHO, folks that don't like the loot system should go install a mod or two that addresses this issue.  I found 2 in 5 minutes of searching. 

 

Other good choices to remedy your loot  issue  are uninstall and go play Diablo* and Borderlands*, games that are focused on loot. 

 

 

 

 

[Roland]

I just want to point out that in order to play Diablo or Borderlands you don’t need to uninstall this game. Just in case that was a deal breaker for anyone feeling like playing either of those games. 

[Slaasher]

On 8/28/2020 at 7:21 PM, Worrun said:

Doubt.

LOL. Why on earth would I have any reason to lie about something like that. Give your head a shake mate.

 

[Worrun]

10 minutes ago, Slaasher said:

LOL. Why on earth would I have any reason to lie about something like that. Give your head a shake mate.

mert ya birds a kin 'lag kid. doon be gassin' lyk. :L
wats ur msn lad al fkin mangle ye