Jump to content
Tehnomaag

Why are the devs screwing over agi/stealth in their POI design?

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Roland said:

You could speed run the game going with strength or you can slow down and sneak with Agility

On a sidenote... not really an issue but.. doesnt that statement sounds weird? Specifically for the fact that AGILITY will be the attribute taking a longer time to clean a POI? I'm purely talking about the word/name.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Why should there be any clear indicator that a trap is a trap? The zombies in that room are alert for whatever reason. Some of the suggestions put forth are some of the dumbest @%$# I can imagine and would detract from the game more than it already does. If there was some kind of tripwire or other que that I still can't do anything about that would piss me off more than the current implementation. For a game that is about fighting zombies I have never seen so many complaints about being forced to fight zombies. Hell, I dislike the BM horde mechanic, but having played with the option of turning it off, the game becomes dreadfully boring once you are past early game with them turned off.

Edited by Krougal (see edit history)
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Boidster said:

Indeed!

 

However I just tested it and it appears that POI XML must be loaded either at connect or as POIs come into the active chunks around a player. I set my client to 100% auto-aggro in a particular POI and the server was set to 100% passive. The zombies appeared to be passive when I entered the POI (though I'm very low level so they did wake up pretty easily when I tried to sneak).

 

My next test is to change the server to 100% aggro and leave the client at the default.

 

Edit to add: okay I cannot explain the behavior with a dedicated server. Maybe I'm missing something. Someone else may need to give it a try. Here's the behavior I've noticed so far:

 

Single-player game: changing XML in /prefabs changes the behavior of the POI, even between sessions (same world, same save). I set volumes to "attack" or "passive" and changed them back and every time I loaded the world they behaved as given in the XML.

Dedicated server "passive", client "attack": POI volumes appear to behave in "passive" manner. (ranger_station_05)

Dedicated server "attack", client "passive": POI volumes appear to behave in "passive" manner. (ranger_station_02)

 

I can't explain it, except to surmise that I am doing something wrong. The last test should have resulted in "attack" behavior, if the server is supplying the client with the POI XML. 🤔

 

I need to retest in a new world - not the one I'm actually using for my co-op game - where I can pop-tart my character to level 100 with max sneak. It could be that some of the behavior is just due to my level 11 self being very bad at sneaking. But "attack" should be pretty obvious regardless, and not all zombies in a volume would wake up at the same time so...seemed "passive" to me.

That is confusing. 

 

A hypothesis why the dedicated server test might "fail" - if the server transmitted POI files are cached client side somehow the local files, which the client believes to be the correct server-side configurations might get used resulting in passive zombie behavior while server-side they are set agressiivse, supposedly. That is quite a stretch hypothesis, though and I'd consider that to be somewhat improbable, as as far as I understand it, the zombies are, supposedly, controlled server-side. 

 

Another possibility might be that when a poi is visited the server somehow stores somewhere the state it was when it was visited and upon a next visit no longer loads the POI from the prefabs folder but actually picks up the stored copy of the POI with all the changes a player might have done when visiting it the previous time (all the broken walls, removed trash, looted containers, zombies already killed, etc). In that scenario, if you change the POI SleeperVolumeFlags in prefabs after the POI has been already visited by any player it might not register until someone gets a mission there and resets the POI, at which point I'd assume it would be freshly loaded from the prefabs and the new SleeperVolumeFlags register. 

 

By your description of what you are doing I do not believe it would be something that would be done "wrong" on your side. After-all, chaning the SleeperVolumeFlags in the POI xlm is a relatively straightforward action. It just seems to be more of a case, that the server-client interaction is a bit more complicated than one might at first assume. 

 

Thanx for the tests. There certainly is a fair bit of food for thought. However, I'd say that preliminary tests are promising to a degree. They show that it IS POSSIBLE to change SleeperVolumeFlags server side and these changes migrate over to the client side somehow (i.e., it would be sufficient, theoretically, to update the relevant xlm's server side). The open question is if it is possible to get these changes to register on an already running server and map or is the only sure what to do so upon a fresh map/server before any players log in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, hiemfire said:

I was looking for combined total from equipped gear and iirc that isn't what is shown on the left pane when modifying an item.

 

Edit: @Krougal Looked at the left panel this time when doing a check of what Advanced Muffled Connectors + Light Armor Perks would do to detectability with the different types of light armor. Showed every piece of padded armor getting a -8% noise increase. 40% noise reduction with all pieces having the mod if it isn't a display bug, wow. Completely blows the +5% noise that perked + mod Leather and Military have (+10% with just the mod installed on the armor piece) out of the water even if it is a display bug (0% noise increase is allot better than a 5%>10% noise increase). The certain 25% damage reduction for 5 x Padded is also allot more attractive than rolling the dice and getting armor ratings below that on mil gear ( helmet rolled a stinking 4, gloves rolled a 5 so broke even, but that does mean the rng range for mil overlaps the set value of padded). The movement penalty perked + mod is +5% with all 5 slots being leather or mil as well...

 

Since there is no penalty for mixing armor types, nobody knowledgeable in the game would replace a padded armor with a mil armor of the same armor rating. Late game everyone will either have a padded or mil armor at max or max-1 rating in each slot.

 

Padded is a veritable choice for a stealth player as long as you can guarantee that you can survive at least one hit by the zombies you might encounter. On higher difficulties even a stealth player might have to take mil armor simply because he can't avoid the occassional hit.

 

16 hours ago, hiemfire said:

 

Base durability is the only thing I know for certain is a consistent downside to using Padded since I cannot wrap my head around what they're trying to @%$#ing say with the "Armor Crit Resistance" stat (-6% is tagged as worse than -4% and the explanation in the Armor entry of the journal doesn't really clarify it, just says chance to resist crit...) and being able to possibly take a hit better with either full mil or full leather really doesn't offset the higher chance of getting noticed for me.

 

Crit Resistance means resistance to getting a crit condition like broken leg. Higher values for a resistance are obviously better. So -6% is worse than -4%.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, meganoth said:

Higher values for a resistance are obviously better. So -6% is worse than -4%.

That doesn't make sense.... either it means you have 6% less chance of being crit vs 4% less chance of being crit.... meaning that the -6% should be better (not worse like @hiemfire is seeing) or it's saying you are 6% more likely to be crit vs 4% more likely to be crit which would be a ridiculous stat for armor.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Kalen said:

That doesn't make sense.... either it means you have 6% less chance of being crit vs 4% less chance of being crit.... meaning that the -6% should be better (not worse like @hiemfire is seeing) or it's saying you are 6% more likely to be crit vs 4% more likely to be crit which would be a ridiculous stat for armor.

Well, mathematically -4 IS a higher number than -6 is. And we are talking about a RESISTANCE, where higher values are better.

 

To visualize it: Draw an axis going from left -10 to the right +10. Highlight -6 and -4 on that axis. You will see -4 is more to the right, i.e. higher. (Or, since negative values can be viewed as penalties, the penalty of 4 is lower than 6)

 

Probably an empty armor slot has a crit resistance value of -10%, i.e. an even lower value aka higher penalty.

 

 

 

Edited by meganoth (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, meganoth said:

Padded is a veritable choice for a stealth player as long as you can guarantee that you can survive at least one hit by the zombies you might encounter. On higher difficulties even a stealth player might have to take mil armor simply because he can't avoid the occassional hit.

 

Not might. Must. Playing on survivalist and padded armor is a bad idea later in game. Also wolves, bears, pumas, dogpacks. You can´t sneak those every time. Effin bears always beeing right behind a corner. :p

Edited by pApA^LeGBa (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, meganoth said:

Well, mathematically -4 IS a higher number than -6 is. And we are talking about a RESISTANCE, where higher values are better.

True it is.   But it comes down to what it represents.   If we assume 100% crit resistance means you never get crit.... and 0% means you always get crit.   Anything that gets you close to 100 is good.   But, if the armor is giving you -4 or -6, yes the -4 is better.... but they both suck.  I'd rather have neither.   So that can't be what it means.

 

Unless, of course, you are right and empty armor has a base of -10.   But if thats true, that is silly.... you are more likely to be crit wearing armor?

Edited by Kalen (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Kalen said:

True it is.   But it comes down to what it represents.   If we assume 100% crit resistance means you never get crit.... and 0% means you always get crit.   Anything that gets you close to 100 is good.   But, if the armor is giving you -4 or -6, yes the -4 is better.... but they both suck.  I'd rather have neither.   So that can't be what it means.

 

Unless, of course, you are right and empty armor has a base of -10.   But if thats true, that is silly.... you are more likely to be crit wearing armor?

What I meant is that the empty armor slot penalty of -10% gets REPLACED by the penalty of the armor. That is the only way for it to make sense. 

 

EDIT: Does the journal entry to armor say anthing about this? Can't check at the moment

Edited by meganoth (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 10/8/2020 at 3:42 PM, Lesdeth said:

am so sorry that no one wants a balanced game apparently

The game IS balanced. Until YOU as a player make the conscious decision to UNBALANCE it by lowering your damage and raising the zombie's damage. That is what YOU are doing when you up the difficulty. Unbalancing the game.

Edited by JCrook1028 (see edit history)
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, meganoth said:

What I meant is that the empty armor slot penalty of -10% gets REPLACED by the penalty of the armor. That is the only way for it to make sense. 

 

EDIT: Does the journal entry to armor say anthing about this? Can't check at the moment

Heh, yeah I can't either.... 

 

Oh, I see what you mean.... about the empty armor slot.   That might be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, meganoth said:

Does the journal entry to armor say anthing about this? Can't check at the moment

A19.1_2020-10-09_09-30-48.thumb.jpg.9bd81dce796c79233d3c07ad73d05941.jpg

 

The "best" stat I've seen listed for it is -3%, and it also appears to be a variable stat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, hiemfire said:

The "best" stat I've seen listed for it is -3%, and it also appears to be a variable stat.

So I would guess that the scale is 100% means you always get crit and 0% means you never do.... so the negative % get you closer to 0.   That at least makes sense based on the numbers we're seeing.   Except where you saw a -4% being "better" than a -6%.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Krougal said:

Why should there be any clear indicator that a trap is a trap? The zombies in that room are alert for whatever reason. Some of the suggestions put forth are some of the dumbest @%$# I can imagine and would detract from the game more than it already does. If there was some kind of tripwire or other que that I still can't do anything about that would piss me off more than the current implementation. For a game that is about fighting zombies I have never seen so many complaints about being forced to fight zombies. Hell, I dislike the BM horde mechanic, but having played with the option of turning it off, the game becomes dreadfully boring once you are past early game with them turned off.

You may or may not have been responding to the inane list of 5 suggestions I offered, and it doesn't bother me in any event. But as is often the case with Internet-based communications, it appears that my efforts to be sarcastic have failed pitifully and my suggestions have been taken seriously. Let me take a step back and make my views clear:

I. The current system (in which sleeping zombies are totally unphased by nearby noise, and only respond to player presence in an X,Y,Z volume) is dumb, clunky, crude, incongruous with the rest of the game and--in contrast with the game as a whole--textbook bad design. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of person hours were devoted to creating all the various game play dynamics which teach the player how the game functions and how they can survive. In this case, specifically: zombies react to noise and light -> be quiet and you can sneak up on them / evade them. Then the current sleeper mode system defies all that work by planting blind, and deaf sleeper zombies in hidey spots inside POIs which only respond to player presence in an X,Y,Z space, not noise, or light.

II. My suggestions were meant to be equally stupid . . . with the exception of Number 5 which . . . I only came up with by thinking through the "equally dumb, crude, clunky, incongruous" examples and which it seems is a not too bad of prospect for how the devs could have their cake and eat it too?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Danidas said:

 

The main issues is that it has to be clear to the player that no matter what they do it will have no impact on the result.

 

Now I do like option 5 and proposed that my self a few times as a special infected alarm system. But the natural challenge of selling a inescapable trap in such a dynamic sandbox game that prides it self on player freedom will always be a tough sell. As players will always insist on a way to bypass it especially if they got burned by it one too many times.

 

RIGHT! It seems there are two design motives coming into conflict here and the player sparks are a result of users finding and grinding on that zone of conflict! 

 

Linear games like Space Invaders or Ms. Pacman are NOT "open world." Open world games like Minecraft or even Skyrim are NOT "linear." Now then, it IS true that both "types" may include ELEMENTS which are typical of the other type. There are not infinite sequences of moves a user can engage in to evade the chompers in any given level of Ms. Pacman, but it must be a very, VERY large number. So, while you cannot do something like whip out your breaching shotgun and blast through the maze walls and burn all the chompers with a hail of molotovs in Ms. Pacman, you CAN choose a non-standard pathing sequence . . . Same for Minecraft or any "Open World" game, there will be elements where you have to stick to a fairly narrow linear path to accomplish an in game goal. A good example in Minecraft might be "capturing" a mob spawner, but even there, there are probably dozens or even many scores of specific methods to capture one (so you can turn it into an xp and loot farm).

 

They key would seem to be: the "alternative design elements" need to be congruent with the prevailing design of the game.

 

"Sleeping" zombies that are completely unresponsive to sound and light and ONLY responsive to player presence within a pre-defined X,Y,Z space are NOT congruent with the rest of the game "rules" and game play dynamics in Seven Days to Die.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Diche_Bach said:

"Sleeping" zombies that are completely unresponsive to sound and light and ONLY responsive to player presence within a pre-defined X,Y,Z space are NOT congruent with the rest of the game "rules" and game play dynamics in Seven Days to Die.

I would say the majority of zombies that an average player encounters in a game with default settings are sleepers.... so it would be more accurate, IMO, to say that zombies encountered in the wild are not congruent with the rest of the game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, AtomicUs5000 said:

Why don't they just make it so that the noises of zombies can wake up other zombies, if they want to keep things spicy?
(not to be confused with a screamer that actually spawns in additional zombies).
When a zombie sees you, perhaps a 50% chance it will yell out, drawing in close by zombies, waking sleeping zombies.
Make it so that when you stealth kill a zombie, it has something like 25% chance to groan loudly as it dies.
As you level up in stealth, this percentage goes down... but cap it so that there is always at least a 5% chance.
 
To resolve blood moon, extend Stealth into Stealth and Evasion, which can be a big help during BM.
- chance to dodge melee attacks.
- significantly reduces the player being targeted by cops.
- significantly reduces the player being targeted by vultures.
- significantly reduces the number of vultures chasing you down while driving.

The first part of this sounds very promising to me. Even leaving out the groan loudly, just the collapsing body might wake up other zombies and it would be a LOT more immersive and less incongruous than zombies up on perches that are impervious to all sensory feedback EXCEPT player stepping into an X,Y,Z space.

 

I won't comment on the issues of 'resolving blood moon' as it isn't something about which I have a clear view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Kalen said:

So I would guess that the scale is 100% means you always get crit and 0% means you never do.... so the negative % get you closer to 0.   That at least makes sense based on the numbers we're seeing.   Except where you saw a -4% being "better" than a -6%.   

The one thing we seem to know is that -4% IS better than -6%, as better armors have -4% or even -3%, at least if I understand hiemfire correctly. Now you propose a new theory that simply doesn't fit the facts.

 

100% would mean 100% crit RESISTANCE. If I'm right with the 10% for no armor (altough 8% sounds more likely), with no armor and 5 armor slots you have a crit resistance of measly 100%-5*10%=50%

Decked out in -6% padded armor the RESISTANCE would increase to 100%-5*6%= 70%

In steel armor with -3% the RESISTANCE would increase to 100%-5*3% = 85%

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Kalen said:

I would say the majority of zombies that an average player encounters in a game with default settings are sleepers.... so it would be more accurate, IMO, to say that zombies encountered in the wild are not congruent with the rest of the game.

 

Some zombies ("many" zombies? maybe "most" zombies"?) seem to have retained some of their sensory capacities from when they were alive. They seem to have something akin to vision, hearing, and perhaps smell and taste? Their reactions to being the recipient of violence also suggest they retain something akin to 'touch' and/or pain receptors. They ALSO seem to have something like hunger or longing (they seem to be looking for something when they shamble about quite often), and they also seem to experience anger or rage.

 

Playing the game for 5 hours will present the player with COPIOUS game play and in-game tool-tip information which supports all of the above. Efforts to evade these facts by claiming that the "Zombies in Stasis Until the Player crosses a magical geographic threshold" are "the norm" are not going to dispel the inevitable user revulsion at the game mechanic.

 

ADDIT: and it is perhaps salutary to point out that there are more than one type of "sleeper." There are sleepers standing inside a cupboard who will "behave congruently with prevailing game rules," i.e., they will "wake up" in response to noise. There are sleepers standing up on a perch in the attic space of a small building who will NOT behave congruently in the sense that you can approach them from above make as much noise as you want and until your toon touches the floor in the XYZ space that is defined by the level builder as the "auto aggro trigger" this type of "Stasis Zombie" will not wake up.

 

Edited by Diche_Bach
clarification (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, meganoth said:

The one thing we seem to know is that -4% IS better than -6%, as better armors have -4% or even -3%, at least if I understand hiemfire correctly. Now you propose a new theory that simply doesn't fit the facts.

 

100% would mean 100% crit RESISTANCE. If I'm right with the 10% for no armor (altough 8% sounds more likely), with no armor and 5 armor slots you have a crit resistance of measly 100%-5*10%=50%

Decked out in -6% padded armor the RESISTANCE would increase to 100%-5*6%= 70%

In steel armor with -3% the RESISTANCE would increase to 100%-5*3% = 85%

 

 

That makes sense.... I just don't understand why the %s are listed as negative values.   Starting with a base of -10 and armor has higher values (but still negative) seems overly confusing.    I think it would be more intuitive if the base was 0 and armor had positive values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Kalen said:

So I would guess that the scale is 100% means you always get crit and 0% means you never do.... so the negative % get you closer to 0.   That at least makes sense based on the numbers we're seeing.   Except where you saw a -4% being "better" than a -6%.   

Padded has a flat -6% across the board on every piece. Steel (on the other end of the spectrum) I've seen with -4% and -3%. Those are not the numbers in green or red either, those are the items' base stats. My character on my test save is wearing fiber in every slot that we can make it for so the -6% armor crit resist has a green value of +4% (which lends to @meganoth's thought that the bare value for a body location, since plant fiber clothing only adds minimal thermal protection, is -10%). It looks like these are negative modifiers on a d% roll over (x) resist roll, the way the information is presented is just confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Diche_Bach said:

Some zombies ("many" zombies? maybe "most" zombies"?) seem to have retained some of their sensory capacities from when they were alive. They seem to have something akin to vision, hearing, and perhaps smell and taste? Their reactions to being the recipient of violence also suggest they retain something akin to 'touch' and/or pain receptors. They ALSO seem to have something like hunger or longing (they seem to be looking for something when they shamble about quite often), and they also seem to experience anger or rage.

 

Playing the game for 5 hours will present the player with COPIOUS game play and in-game tool-tip information which supports all of the above. Efforts to evade these facts by claiming that the "Zombies in Stasis Until the Player crosses a magical geographic threshold" are "the norm" are not going to dispel the inevitable user revulsion at the game mechanic.

 

ADDIT: and it is perhaps salutary to point out that there are more than one type of "sleeper." There are sleepers standing inside a cupboard who will "behave congruently with prevailing game rules," i.e., they will "wake up" in response to noise. There are sleepers standing up on a perch in the attic space of a small building who will NOT behave congruently in the sense that you can approach them from above make as much noise as you want and until your toon touches the floor in the XYZ space that is defined by the level builder as the "auto aggro trigger" this type of "Stasis Zombie" will not wake up.

 

I get what you are saying.... however, the alternative is worse, IMO.   We used to have entire houses of free roaming zombies and they pretty much tore up the house before you could get to any of the loot.   Sleepers are a decent compromise, as far as I'm concerned.   So I wouldn't say I'm even close to revolted by it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kalen said:

they pretty much tore up the house before you could get to any of the loot.

They pretty much tore up the POI's to get to you if you walked anywhere near them from what I remember from the vids I watched of pre A17...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hiemfire said:

They pretty much tore up the POI's to get to you if you walked anywhere near them from what I remember from the vids I watched of pre A17...

Yup, you would be in a house and you'd stir up the zombies in the neighboring houses.   When you went to loot those houses they'd be in shambles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Kalen said:

I get what you are saying.... however, the alternative is worse, IMO.   We used to have entire houses of free roaming zombies and they pretty much tore up the house before you could get to any of the loot.   Sleepers are a decent compromise, as far as I'm concerned.   So I wouldn't say I'm even close to revolted by it.

If having sleepers inside structures is desirable for reasons which were obvious in past builds I can understand that. The most obvious "solution" would be that any and all sleepers ARE responsive to noise (however with caveats, see m ADDIT section below). It has to be noted that the present system DOES create breaches of immersion which look, at best comical. Check out my screen cap here: 

 

That type of thing is now going to become a very common experience for users who stop to consider how to survive with the least risk and most reward.

 

I realize that, if ALL zombies respond to enough noise then players can "game" that system by making a bunch of noise while in safety either outside a POI structure or otherwise, but those are the breaks. Either the game is "open world" or it is "linear" and if it is one then the degree to which it can involve elements of the other while still retaining a high degree of fidelity, immersion, and fun is necessarily limited.

 

ADDIT: one possible happy medium . . . set ALL zombies in the game to be sensitive to sensory inputs. Let us assume that the maximum level of sensory receptivity is "1000" for a wide awake monkey dude zombie roaming in the wilderness (or whichever one would represent "the most perceptive" and aware).

 

In addition to a basic sensory receptivity threshold (1, or 10, or 50 to 1000 or whatever was appropriate) which would be compared to the level of light/noise/other the player creates, zombie "sensation" could have a second variable regulating it which would be something like "Repetition Threshold." This variable would represent how many sequential cycles the zombie would have to be exposed to a sensory signal that exceeded their threshold. 1 would be the "most alert," 10 would mean that, even if the zombies sensation threshold is "500" it needs to receive a player generated signal that is >=500 ten times in a row in order to be alerted -> this, if properly tuned, could conceivable achieve the intended purpose of the "Stasis Zombies" without making them totally insensitive to noise.

Edited by Diche_Bach
Additional Idea (see edit history)

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

×
×
  • Create New...