A20 Developer Diary Discussions

[Naz]

29 minutes ago, Gamida said:

Speaking of FPS what is the difference. I have heard that 60fps is the sweet spot. I usually have that. I think I locked it somehow so my fps doesn't really go above that and I only notice something when sometimes for some reason it may drop suddenly to 10 or so for a split second then back again. At what point does a higher fps not matter.

I have watched some YTers, (LTT and Jayztwocents mostly) that show them getting really high fps on some games. I mean like couple hundred or more. Does that make a difference? I am not sure but they may have mentioned it mattered to players who play professionally in tournaments but what about to the casual player like me and most of you. Do you need a higher framerate to keep it smoother when you use a higher resolution to keep it smooth?

Just curious. What do you think is a good frame rate, at least for this game so it plays smooth enough.

generally speaking it depends. fps is frames per second or how many "images" the game renders per second. The higher the fps the smoother and more responsive the game feels. However not all games need a high fps to be considered "smooth" rts game could be run comfortably at 30 fps for example. It also depends on what monitor you have and if you're running at it's higher refresh rates. You can still notice greater response times at framerates above your monitors refresh rate, you won't be seeing the extra frames but the frames that are displayed will have a lower latency because of the higher fps.

That will cause screen tearing however that is another topic, so it's generally best to not run games at a framerate your monitor can't display (except for benchmarking purposes). As a rule of thumb 60fps is a good starting point for the majority of games, over 60 will have a greater importance in games that are fast paced. 7DTD kind of sits in the middle, it has a mix of slow paced gameplay and fast paced gameplay. If you have a monitor that can display more than 60 go for it, it will feel much more responsive especially if you're sensitive to that kind of thing and if you already have a monitor that can do so you may as well make use of it, since presumably you paid a premium for a higher refresh rate display. If you have a 60hz panel that's perfectly fine too, you won't be missing all that much (in 7DTD at least)

The last thing with higher fps gameplay is that you will need not only a more powerful GPU but CPU too, especially for 7DTD since the pc will have to work harder to render the extra frames. With higher settings (but not completely maxed) 100fps should be achievable for most people. If you have a decent setup 150fps should be possible. However when talking about frame rate, context is important, the estimates above are based on the assumption you're using a higher resolution panel than 1440p. If you're running at 1080p you can get away with a much less powerful GPU. The FPS numbers also assume you're using highish settings. You can of course sett everything to the lowest it can go and stare at the sky with 500 fps, but i'm assuming people that want to go higher than 60 want to do so without making the game look like a$$ and the ability to look at the ground occasionally😜

[stallionsden]

49 minutes ago, Jost Amman said:

Please stop. You can't even understand the implication of what YOU said, I was not talking about the exact words, but the point is you'd rather run "guns blazing" through AAZs than having the option to stealth through them. Admit it. If you really like playing stealth through and through, you'd WANT AAZs to be changed, but you don't.

 

You're CLEARLY trolling. Good troll, go back under your bridge.

 

The fact you insist on thinking I'm not able to fight zombies is funny actually, if you really wanna know, I don't really play much with stealth, since as it is now it's broken. I'm just saying it's not good enough to be a main choice in the skill tree. I said that AAZs CAN be avoided if someone knows beforehand where they are, I was NOT saying that's what I do when I play. Also, whatever mechanics you have available in game is NOT cheating. Destroying blocks is part of the game, so unless the devs protect specific rooms with unbreakable blocks, whatever you wanna do to reach your goal it's fair game. And again, it's NOT how I play, but I'd understand if someone did it. 

 

I normally use blunt weapons and clear ANY POI with minimal problems. But I'm sure in your next reply you'll forget about this and use some snarky comment about how I can't handle combat, lol... Is that how you vent your personal frustration? By trying to belittle other people to appear cool? My gosh, kid, you need to grow FAST, or you'll get kicked hard in the butt when you go out in the real world... 

Haha yawn no where in any of my posts have i mentioned running and gunning.  Coming across pretty desperate to force your way on others..  twisting words. Changing words to push your agenda..  yawn 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

49 minutes ago, Jost Amman said:

Please stop. You can't even understand the implication of what YOU said, I was not talking about the exact words, but the point is you'd rather run "guns blazing" through AAZs than having the option to stealth through them. Admit it. If you really like playing stealth through and through, you'd WANT AAZs to be changed, but you don't.

 

You're CLEARLY trolling. Good troll, go back under your bridge.

 

The fact you insist on thinking I'm not able to fight zombies is funny actually, if you really wanna know, I don't really play much with stealth, since as it is now it's broken. I'm just saying it's not good enough to be a main choice in the skill tree. I said that AAZs CAN be avoided if someone knows beforehand where they are, I was NOT saying that's what I do when I play. Also, whatever mechanics you have available in game is NOT cheating. Destroying blocks is part of the game, so unless the devs protect specific rooms with unbreakable blocks, whatever you wanna do to reach your goal it's fair game. And again, it's NOT how I play, but I'd understand if someone did it. 

 

I normally use blunt weapons and clear ANY POI with minimal problems. But I'm sure in your next reply you'll forget about this and use some snarky comment about how I can't handle combat, lol... Is that how you vent your personal frustration? By trying to belittle other people to appear cool? My gosh, kid, you need to grow FAST, or you'll get kicked hard in the butt when you go out in the real world... 

Wait I forgot you are not getting your way so you use the word troll.  

 

Nah you are not worth anymore time.. keep twisting words tho haha it is a laugh. And yeh good try at trying to offend me your posts have been hilarious 😉 argh yes still not getting your way so in comes the names.. Yawn... boring a 2 yr old can give better insults 🙂 

enjoy your tanty

Edited August 7, 2021 by stallionsden (see edit history)

[Roland]

29 minutes ago, Jost Amman said:

Sorry, but this is false. If by "respond" you mean running away and coming back sneaking, that's a "false" solution IMO.

The ONLY real problem with AAZs is that you get the same result every single time. If they change that and add a stealth chance I'd be okay with it.

You’ll need to do better at showing how using a classic stealth tactic used in many games is “false”. Just calling it false is not good enough. 
 

Also it isn’t a solution per se because a solution denotes a problem needing to be solved. Auto attack volumes function as designed and intended. There is no problem. 
 

Retreat/Hide/Sneak is a stealth-based tactical response to suddenly active enemies. That’s a fact supported by a plethora of games going all the way back to Metal Gear Solid. 
 

So yes I am definitely talking about response options to AAZ being either open (run and gun) or stealthy (retreat/hide/sneak). 
 

Maybe the way those two tactical responses are created is the same each time but if that is removed then there will only ever be one way in the game. Why are you not concerned with that?  You keep talking about the danger of sameness and yet you are arguing for blatant sameness. 

[Jost Amman]

1 hour ago, Roland said:

You’ll need to do better at showing how using a classic stealth tactic used in many games is “false”. Just calling it false is not good enough. 

Well, as I said, the main difference is that in 7D2D you're always going to fail a stealth check in AAZs.

I thought it was evident I was speaking about that.

 

1 hour ago, Roland said:

Maybe the way those two tactical responses are created is the same each time but if that is removed then there will only ever be one way in the game. Why are you not concerned with that?  You keep talking about the danger of sameness and yet you are arguing for blatant sameness. 

Again, nobody is asking to remove AAZs, I'm just asking for them to be integrated with the same stealth mechanics that is already used in the rest of the game.

 

Will this ruin the game for other players? No. They can still go through AAZs the same way as today.

Will stealth players be able to automatically skip AAZs? No. There will always be a good chance you still wake up the sleepers.

 

So, I don't understand what your objection really is. The answer is in the details of my explanation, but both you and stallionsden just see the general argument, which you don't agree with, and then reply ignoring the important details I pointed out. Now, I can forget about that troll/clown, because he's evidently just trying to win the argument, but frankly I was expecting much more from you. 

[Matt115]

3 hours ago, Fanatical_Meat said:

 

Pretty much this. Smooth edges are nice but overall not super noticeable while playing if it is an either or I’d prefer more zombie variety even if it is the same zombie with different colored clothes and maybe more walk/run profiles so they appear even more different.

 

yeah honestly i surrfer a lot because of that

3 hours ago, Gamida said:

Speaking of FPS what is the difference. I have heard that 60fps is the sweet spot. I usually have that. I think I locked it somehow so my fps doesn't really go above that and I only notice something when sometimes for some reason it may drop suddenly to 10 or so for a split second then back again. At what point does a higher fps not matter.

I have watched some YTers, (LTT and Jayztwocents mostly) that show them getting really high fps on some games. I mean like couple hundred or more. Does that make a difference? I am not sure but they may have mentioned it mattered to players who play professionally in tournaments but what about to the casual player like me and most of you. Do you need a higher framerate to keep it smoother when you use a higher resolution to keep it smooth?

Just curious. What do you think is a good frame rate, at least for this game so it plays smooth enough.

Yeah so this "fanatic" about 60 is annoying me - honestly i played even 24 some games and it was good enough. well i honestly hate modern fps like warzone fortinte because the streamers yt etc but i hope devs will more and more be focues about looks - you know bigger maps , better textures more enemies on screen that 60 fps . 30 was honestly good enough

2 hours ago, Naz said:

generally speaking it depends. fps is frames per second or how many "images" the game renders per second. The higher the fps the smoother and more responsive the game feels. However not all games need a high fps to be considered "smooth" rts game could be run comfortably at 30 fps for example. It also depends on what monitor you have and if you're running at it's higher refresh rates. You can still notice greater response times at framerates above your monitors refresh rate, you won't be seeing the extra frames but the frames that are displayed will have a lower latency because of the higher fps.

That will cause screen tearing however that is another topic, so it's generally best to not run games at a framerate your monitor can't display (except for benchmarking purposes). As a rule of thumb 60fps is a good starting point for the majority of games, over 60 will have a greater importance in games that are fast paced. 7DTD kind of sits in the middle, it has a mix of slow paced gameplay and fast paced gameplay. If you have a monitor that can display more than 60 go for it, it will feel much more responsive especially if you're sensitive to that kind of thing and if you already have a monitor that can do so you may as well make use of it, since presumably you paid a premium for a higher refresh rate display. If you have a 60hz panel that's perfectly fine too, you won't be missing all that much (in 7DTD at least)

The last thing with higher fps gameplay is that you will need not only a more powerful GPU but CPU too, especially for 7DTD since the pc will have to work harder to render the extra frames. With higher settings (but not completely maxed) 100fps should be achievable for most people. If you have a decent setup 150fps should be possible. However when talking about frame rate, context is important, the estimates above are based on the assumption you're using a higher resolution panel than 1440p. If you're running at 1080p you can get away with a much less powerful GPU. The FPS numbers also assume you're using highish settings. You can of course sett everything to the lowest it can go and stare at the sky with 500 fps, but i'm assuming people that want to go higher than 60 want to do so without making the game look like a$$ and the ability to look at the ground occasionally😜

Well i'm think graphic is more important that frames and i hate when streamers play on warzone etc and have 100 fps but graphic looks terrible. why ? because people watch them so devs will be more focused about  at least 60 fps that good graphic. well i played a lot in mw 2 , dod and it was good. now playing in modern pvp is nightmare

[Roland]

47 minutes ago, Jost Amman said:

Well, as I said, the main difference is that in 7D2D you're always going to fail a stealth check in AAZs.

I thought it was evident I was speaking about that.

 

And as I've said countless times, I'm not against enhancing AAZ with visual cues that show a reason why the zombies woke which wasn't your fault, making them randomly happen, or making it a response to a failed stealth check. I have zero problem with that. My objection is to the idea that AAZ are bad design and that they ruin stealth or invalidate points spent on stealth. Even in their current form, I disagree with that whole premise. This is not a stealth game. It has an agility branch with one aspect being stealth skills that can enhance what the player can already do natively without spending any perk points. The point is to explore a POI and there are a number of tactical choices the player can make as they do that. Looting a POI without a single enemy ever waking up is not one of the design goals even if it may be a personal player goal. But then that is like playing a racing sim and having a personal goal of walking around the entire track and then saying the game is poorly designed because the developers don't allow that to happen even though their goal was always to have players in cars racing and not for players to go for a stroll.

 

So I'm all in for your idea to add a stealth check to the game and make that check harder to pass in some zones and easier in others. But that won't satisfy people who be upset everytime the check fails. Most likely the stealth check won't be visible anyway so players will still get mad that the room "inexplicably" woke up. They certainly won't blame their own failure..lol

 

57 minutes ago, Jost Amman said:

Again, nobody is asking to remove AAZs

 

Here is where you are very very wrong. There are a few vociferous people in this forum who are calling for exactly that. They want 100% removal and no halfway compromise will satisfy them. In this very thread there are examples of people saying that AAZ should not exist at all.

 

59 minutes ago, Jost Amman said:

I'm just asking for them to be integrated with the same stealth mechanics that is already used in the rest of the game.

 

Technically, they already are consistent with how the rest of the game works. There currently are zero stealth checks as in d20 style checks. It is all trigger based. If you step on the trash at a certain distance it triggers wake up. If you jump off that ledge within a certain distance it triggers. There are no probability rolls modified by your perks. There is a distance at which a zombie can see you when it is dark. If you are within that range they will see you. There is no probability roll. If you are outside the range they will not see you. The perks simply adjust the ranges and the triggers and the duration of time the zombies target you.

 

I have a feeling that if the Pimps changed from simple triggers to probability rolls it would just anger the people who want full control to remain in their own hands even more. Can you imagine the rage from someone who feels like they did everything right but then a probability roll screwed them over anyway? But I'm still on board with it since I prefer chance creating hairy situations that I must react to. I think the player being able to control every aspect of their environment is the more boring gameplay. So, yeah. Probability rolls vs stealth skills. Let's do it.

 

1 hour ago, Jost Amman said:

So, I don't understand what your objection really is. The answer is in the details of my explanation, but both you and stallionsden just see the general argument, which you don't agree with, and then reply ignoring the important details I pointed out. Now, I can forget about that troll/clown, because he's evidently just trying to win the argument, but frankly I was expecting much more from you. 

 

There are times when I respond to you specifically because I disagree with some specific aspect of what you wrote-- as in the idea that retreat-hide-emerge is some sort of false tactic. But most of the time I am responding to the general group who is against AAZ and want them removed and see them as stealth destroyers instead of stealth game changers. So maybe when I am speaking in general terms you think I'm still talking to you personally? <shrug> You think I'm a puppet bot of the developers anyway so I really don't care what you expect of me. Your assumptions and expectations are skewed.

[Matt115]

1 hour ago, Jost Amman said:

Well, as I said, the main difference is that in 7D2D you're always going to fail a stealth check in AAZs.

I thought it was evident I was speaking about that.

 

Again, nobody is asking to remove AAZs, I'm just asking for them to be integrated with the same stealth mechanics that is already used in the rest of the game.

 

Will this ruin the game for other players? No. They can still go through AAZs the same way as today.

Will stealth players be able to automatically skip AAZs? No. There will always be a good chance you still wake up the sleepers.

 

So, I don't understand what your objection really is. The answer is in the details of my explanation, but both you and stallionsden just see the general argument, which you don't agree with, and then reply ignoring the important details I pointed out. Now, I can forget about that troll/clown, because he's evidently just trying to win the argument, but frankly I was expecting much more from you. 

 

11 minutes ago, Roland said:

 

And as I've said countless times, I'm not against enhancing AAZ with visual cues that show a reason why the zombies woke which wasn't your fault, making them randomly happen, or making it a response to a failed stealth check. I have zero problem with that. My objection is to the idea that AAZ are bad design and that they ruin stealth or invalidate points spent on stealth. Even in their current form, I disagree with that whole premise. This is not a stealth game. It has an agility branch with one aspect being stealth skills that can enhance what the player can already do natively without spending any perk points. The point is to explore a POI and there are a number of tactical choices the player can make as they do that. Looting a POI without a single enemy ever waking up is not one of the design goals even if it may be a personal player goal. But then that is like playing a racing sim and having a personal goal of walking around the entire track and then saying the game is poorly designed because the developers don't allow that to happen even though their goal was always to have players in cars racing and not for players to go for a stroll.

 

So I'm all in for your idea to add a stealth check to the game and make that check harder to pass in some zones and easier in others. But that won't satisfy people who be upset everytime the check fails. Most likely the stealth check won't be visible anyway so players will still get mad that the room "inexplicably" woke up. They certainly won't blame their own failure..lol

 

 

Here is where you are very very wrong. There are a few vociferous people in this forum who are calling for exactly that. They want 100% removal and no halfway compromise will satisfy them. In this very thread there are examples of people saying that AAZ should not exist at all.

 

 

Technically, they already are consistent with how the rest of the game works. There currently are zero stealth checks as in d20 style checks. It is all trigger based. If you step on the trash at a certain distance it triggers wake up. If you jump off that ledge within a certain distance it triggers. There are no probability rolls modified by your perks. There is a distance at which a zombie can see you when it is dark. If you are within that range they will see you. There is no probability roll. If you are outside the range they will not see you. The perks simply adjust the ranges and the triggers and the duration of time the zombies target you.

 

I have a feeling that if the Pimps changed from simple triggers to probability rolls it would just anger the people who want full control to remain in their own hands even more. Can you imagine the rage from someone who feels like they did everything right but then a probability roll screwed them over anyway? But I'm still on board with it since I prefer chance creating hairy situations that I must react to. I think the player being able to control every aspect of their environment is the more boring gameplay. So, yeah. Probability rolls vs stealth skills. Let's do it.

 

 

There are times when I respond to you specifically because I disagree with some specific aspect of what you wrote-- as in the idea that retreat-hide-emerge is some sort of false tactic. But most of the time I am responding to the general group who is against AAZ and want them removed and see them as stealth destroyers instead of stealth game changers. So maybe when I am speaking in general terms you think I'm still talking to you personally? <shrug> You think I'm a puppet bot of the developers anyway so I really don't care what you expect of me. Your assumptions and expectations are skewed.

honestly you both :  i think there is quiet good solution of this problem - add "careful" type of zombie - he just "stay" on wall and ceiling . he start scream when he saw you so it can work like AAZ but with "real reason " why zombie is alerted. So in dunno 3 tier of perk you have 10 sec before they scream and alert the rest of zombie.  maybe this ins not perfect idea but compromise bettwen no AAZ and AAZ

[Survager]

4 hours ago, Roland said:

4) There was no response possible to avoid or mitigate vomiting whereas with attack volumes you can respond openly or stealthily as you desire. 

You could have avoided poisoning if you took a green pill before meals) (I'm not sure if this was intended, but it always worked with me)

[Jugginator]

1 minute ago, Survager said:

You could have avoided poisoning if you took a green pill before meals) (I'm not sure if this was intended, but it always worked with me)

Yeah resist disease covered food poisoning. Also covers dysentery, for those times you want to eat 50 sham sandwiches and wash it down with toilet water

Edited August 7, 2021 by Jugginator (see edit history)

[Naz]

38 minutes ago, Matt115 said:

Well i'm think graphic is more important that frames and i hate when streamers play on warzone etc and have 100 fps but graphic looks terrible. why ? because people watch them so devs will be more focused about  at least 60 fps that good graphic. well i played a lot in mw 2 , dod and it was good. now playing in modern pvp is nightmare

Depends on the game, high fps also has a competitive advantage since your eye balls see more recent frames. So in a situation where 2 players come to a corner and both come into view of each other at the same time, the player with the higher framerate will see a couple of frames showing the other player first. It's not always a situation like that tho it was just an example, even in that situation a couple frames is literally the blink of an eye. So if your reaction time is slow if doesn't really do anything for you. But that is why games like warzone see players running higher frame rates, pretty much all competitive games are designed to be easy to run at high frame rates.

for singleplayer or coop games most people usually just turn up the eye candy in favour of visuals over frame rate. It just depends what type of game it is that decides what the devs choose to make a priority. I think that absolute bare minimum in general needs to be 24-30 fps. 24fps has been a standard in the tv and movie industry for donkeys. It works fine there because it's a static view, you don't control the camera so the motion is perceived as smooth to the eyes. For games 24 is pretty rough, you could technically get away with it, but it would really suck. Under that it impacts you're ability to control the game and it becomes unplayable.

[Survager]

3 minutes ago, Jugginator said:

Yeah resist disease covered food poisoning. Also covers dysentery, for those times you want to eat 50 sham sandwiches and wash it down with toilet water

But this didn’t work with other pills, so your example doesn’t quite fit )

[Jugginator]

2 minutes ago, Survager said:

But this didn’t work with other pills, so your example doesn’t quite fit )

The green pills are vitamins, which is what you were talking about. Just saying they also prevent dysentery. 

[Roland]

32 minutes ago, Matt115 said:

maybe this ins not perfect idea but compromise bettwen no AAZ and AAZ

Sure!  I’m all for the myriad compromise ideas. 
 

Now go convince the “no AAZ” crowd to accept a compromise that would still result in them sometimes not being able to loot an entire POI without waking up a single zombie. 😀

[Survager]

15 minutes ago, Jugginator said:

The green pills are vitamins, which is what you were talking about. Just saying they also prevent dysentery. 

I probably translated your message incorrectly )

[Jugginator]

2 minutes ago, Survager said:

I probably translated your message incorrectly )

Yeah that can happen easily sometimes, understandable 

[Matt115]

49 minutes ago, Naz said:

Depends on the game, high fps also has a competitive advantage since your eye balls see more recent frames. So in a situation where 2 players come to a corner and both come into view of each other at the same time, the player with the higher framerate will see a couple of frames showing the other player first. It's not always a situation like that tho it was just an example, even in that situation a couple frames is literally the blink of an eye. So if your reaction time is slow if doesn't really do anything for you. But that is why games like warzone see players running higher frame rates, pretty much all competitive games are designed to be easy to run at high frame rates.

for singleplayer or coop games most people usually just turn up the eye candy in favour of visuals over frame rate. It just depends what type of game it is that decides what the devs choose to make a priority. I think that absolute bare minimum in general needs to be 24-30 fps. 24fps has been a standard in the tv and movie industry for donkeys. It works fine there because it's a static view, you don't control the camera so the motion is perceived as smooth to the eyes. For games 24 is pretty rough, you could technically get away with it, but it would really suck. Under that it impacts you're ability to control the game and it becomes unplayable.

and that's is a problem - in old good dod if even you meet good mg guy or camper you could spam granades . now in most modern fps you have no scope guys,  or so dynamic running that if someone kill you in point a he will be somewhere else for sure before you get there.  so i'm kinda tried because honestly something just gone wrong

[Matt115]

1 hour ago, Roland said:

Sure!  I’m all for the myriad compromise ideas. 
 

Now go convince the “no AAZ” crowd to accept a compromise that would still result in them sometimes not being able to loot an entire POI without waking up a single zombie. 😀

honestly i could try but if i write something stupid don't laught😅 . okay so i see this in two "version" how AAZ zone can work:  some pois can have fake floors - protruding floors, stumbler with cans etc but it can be turn off ( like you can take off loud floor ) . and second option - some POI can have "watcher zombie" it can looks like mix of spider zombie with screemer. he just stand on wall . he will scream when he detect you. if you can't get into this room you can check another way into inside and elimate them. if you don't spot him first it is your problem. but i'm not dev so i don't know if  respawn can be on walls.  so if they fall on trap- their problem. if they want to break inside a closed room in lab before check rest of poi- their problem, if they don't have good enough weapon to one hit kill watcher or demolution zombie- their problem. so there will be AAZ zone without scripts . ofc it will need work of devs but it can work.  BUT to convice them... this must tell  or write madmole or faatal. i can have perfect idea but this doesn't matter if 80% of people will not read it. but if this same idea was writen by faatal we will get 3-4 pages about it and what can be added or works to be good.  i just don't have punitive force . even if you start topic and wrote 1:1 what i suggest more people will read this that if i do this same thing.

Edited August 7, 2021 by Matt115 (see edit history)

[Jost Amman]

3 hours ago, Roland said:

<shrug> You think I'm a puppet bot of the developers anyway so I really don't care what you expect of me. Your assumptions and expectations are skewed.

That was stallionsden's interpretation of what I said (troll)... what I actually said was quite different: I said that since you're a moderator and the main spokesperson for TFP, you already mostly agree with TFP's point of view. So I'd expect from you the same kind of response the devs would give in defense of the "status quo". It's very different being part of a group and (mostly) agreeing with their shared view vs. "being their puppet" (which I'd never think of you, of course). 

[Matt115]

17 minutes ago, Jost Amman said:

That was stallionsden's interpretation of what I said (troll)... what I actually said was quite different: I said that since you're a moderator and the main spokesperson for TFP, you already mostly agree with TFP's point of view. So I'd expect from you the same kind of response the devs would give in defense of the "status quo". It's very different being part of a group and (mostly) agreeing with their shared view vs. "being their puppet" (which I'd never think of you, of course). 

honestly joet the main problem is ( this is not personal attack on you ) : most people on this forum have 2 states : support or hate someting . if support will defence this idea and talk that another way is stupid. if they hate idea they will attack it only . so people must learn thing : if you don't know logical arguments, solution or alternative don't attack this solution or idea.  For example i'm honestly dissapointed about small number of variants of zombie so i was checking for alternative - maybe way to generate them randomly like l4d2. i wont work?  okay i understand at least i was trying to find solution. but  one of dev quiet disspoint me when i ask him about new zombie variants and he wrote it will be 18 bandits . well this was something like i asked about shoes but i get answer about socks- well both on feet but they are diffrent. So i'm talk about it sometimes just to prove it is important - i'm looking which variants can be added how it can work etc. i will stop if any devs will say - in next alpha ( maybe 21) there will be few new variants. but i'm not just complaing until this time but i'm trying to give ideas etc. honestly i can't say anything interesting about making pois, coding , lighting( honetly hl1 was good enough about it and raytracing is waste of time in my opinion but well who cares about my opinion) so i give ideas what should be added or changed and how

[samljer]

8 hours ago, Fanatical_Meat said:

 

Pretty much this. Smooth edges are nice but overall not super noticeable while playing if it is an either or I’d prefer more zombie variety even if it is the same zombie with different colored clothes and maybe more walk/run profiles so they appear even more different.

 

I agree, Honestly I turn that @%$# off. the frame rate hit isnt worth it, i dont notice it enough at 1440p

[Matt115]

okay i will spend some time ( i know this will be waist of time like most things what i'm doing in my life) and wrote to all members how to do something which can help devs :

i will write some ideas some of them controversial some of them not but people have diffrents point of view so it will be good example . assumption : idea have enough of followers and people againt it enought to be considered for devs

 

1. add more guns  

 

what  "proarguments" are bad - "this is f34cking boring because there is not enough stuff" , " normal people want to add more weapons " ,  " this is USA so  weapons should be everywhere lol" 

what "antiarguments" are bad - "who is stupid enough to add more guns" , "  this is post apo so there is small amount of weapons"

 

what " proarguments" are good -  " well more guns will make this game more interesting because you will need find more guns . you maybe can get them doing quest or fighting with boss zombie which need time to prepere = more time spend on playing"

 

what "antiarguments" are good - " more guns will broke pvp and make more and diffrences, and honestly better to be simpler tier progresions because it will allow to get better quality guns and this is not terraria so you don't have more more powerful enemies and you have perks"

 

usefull ideas for devs : 1. add more models guns like "shiny pokemons" - like colt as magnum , m16 with this same stats like ak ,  thompson with this same stats as mp5 . add rare quest items. 3 make a poll about it

 

2. add medival mode to 7dtd

 

what  "proarguments" are bad -  " this will make 7dtd more interesting" , "i think people want  to be 7dtd dead  XD" , "this will add more content your idiots! so only stupid don't want more stuff in game lol"

what "antiarguments" are bad -  "this will need money lol XDDD" , " you should wrote  this in 2013 not today" 

 

what " proarguments" are good - " this mode can make 7dtd more famouse and more people will buy it right? and maybe this can be intersting" , " ofc it will need time to add this mode but base to add this are in game - so it need just change pois, weapons enemies but some props , system can be used easly"

 

what "antiarguments" are good - "this is good idea for standalone game but it will make making 7dtd even longer" , " well this will need a lot of money and time so add this for free wont will works guys, it is just unrealistc unfortunatly"

 

usefull ideas for devs : add this mode as purchased exspansions similar to ark or conan, annonce another game in this setting.

 

3. add zombies teen to 7dtd

 

 

what  "proarguments" are bad -  " kiling them will be fun " , "well controversy will make this game good lol"

what "antiarguments" are bad -  " YOUARESOMEPSYCHOSTOKILLKIDS??" , "what the hell is wrong with people?" , " this game will be baned idiots lol XD" , " devs say no in 2014 so no"

 

what " proarguments" are good - "well this game is for mature players and more games have zombie kids and teens as enemy so it is not controversial as it was in the past" , "this can add some immersion to this game and make it more depressing" , " well more enemies are good idea and if don't like it it could be turn off and on like dogs or vultures"

 

what "antiarguments" are good - " this will make this game bad PR and in some contries this game will be baned so people will lose access to this game. they spend money so they want to play it and this is not fault that this countries laws are stupid" , " it will not suits to 7dtd because this is post apo in american style like rage 2 so this is not place for controversial things like that because this game have light setting"

 

usefull ideas for devs : create poll about it on  forum, chech if law of this countries changed since 2013, add it only to versions when this it is allowed with option to turn it on and off , add this as "mod" on page by one of dev as his mode - it will be legal and who want it can downland and instal mod with teen zombie which will works good and have good quality models.

 

 

i know it will change anything and i spend hour doing this was pointless and probably nobody will care about it but at least i tried to help moderators and make this forum more "civilized"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 7, 2021 by Matt115 (see edit history)

[hiemfire]

1 hour ago, Matt115 said:

honestly joet the main problem is ( this is not personal attack on you ) : most people on this forum have 2 states : support or hate someting . if support will defence this idea and talk that another way is stupid.

 

While I can see how it can appear this way, the different "states" are allot more distributed and granularly different than that. Using the current disagreement as an example:

 

I believe that Attack Volumes are a ham fisted and lazy dramatic event kludge that should have never been implemented in the first place. Since they are in the game I'd love to see them replaced with something along the lines of a more consistent challenge for stealthers (Stealth actually needs some tweaking to becoming a bit more difficult period but that is another issue). But I'm willing to accept TFP implementing an adjustment that keeps the dramatic effect for other play styles while also tweaking the trigger conditions to reference what the player has invested in From The Shadows (FTS) and having something subtle and easily missed in game that indicates there is something off (Please don't tie it to the game music. I have that turned of since it has a very bad tendency to drown out the sounds I depend on to know when an enemy is near).

 

I think Jost Ammon, Survager and dscobral are somewhere in that vicinity, though they may not hold the same opinion I have on the original implementation.

 

Gamida is completely neutral from what I can tell and would enjoy it either changing or remaining as it is.

 

pApA^LeGBa doesn't like them because there is no explanation to the player about what just happened when an Attack Volume triggers, but is fine with them existing otherwise. In fact I think they agree with me that some tweaking is needed to stealth aside from Attack Volumes.

 

Roland, if I have been reading their posts correctly, loves Attack Volumes, is iffy about having them reference FTS for their triggering and is willing to accept a subtle indicator that there is one there or something that gives a quick visual reference explanation to the player about what happened if the player is paying attention.

 

Stallionsden loves the attack volumes and doesn't want anything changed about them since they get a thrill out of the sudden adrenalin rush from the unexpected combat. Erroneously thinks that the point of our issue with Attack Volumes is that they stop us from having an easy path to the end loot. (The craptacular rng cookie fests at the end of the POIs are really nothing more than an indication I finished the POI to me. The best loot is the scrap you find on the way there.)

Edited August 7, 2021 by hiemfire (see edit history)

[Matt115]

23 minutes ago, hiemfire said:

 

While I can see how it can appear this way, the different "states" are allot more distributed and granularly different than that. Using the current disagreement as an example:

 

I believe that Attack Volumes are a ham fisted and lazy dramatic event kludge that should have never been implemented in the first place. Since they are in the game I'd love to see them replaced with something along the lines of a more consistent challenge for stealthers (Stealth actually needs some tweaking to becoming a bit more difficult period but that is another issue). But I'm will to accept TFP implementing an adjustment that keeps the dramatic effect for other play styles while also tweaking the trigger conditions to reference what the player has invested in From The Shadows (FTS) and having something subtle and easily missed in game that indicates there is something off (Please don't tie it to the game music. I have that turned of since it has a very bad tendency to drown out the sounds I depend on to know when an enemy is near).

 

I think Jost Ammon, Survager and dscobral are somewhere in that vicinity, though they may not hold the same opinion I have on the original implementation.

 

Gamida is completely neutral from what I can tell and would enjoy it either changing or remaining as it is.

 

pApA^LeGBa doesn't like them because there is no explanation to the player about what just happened when an Attack Volume triggers, but is fine with them existing otherwise. In fact I think they agree with me that some tweaking is needed to stealth aside from Attack Volumes.

 

Roland, if I have been reading their posts correctly, loves Attack Volumes, is iffy about having them reference FTS for their triggering and is willing to accept a subtle indicator that there is one there or something that gives a quick visual reference explanation to the player about what happened if the player is paying attention.

 

Stallionsden loves the attack volumes and doesn't want anything changed about them since they get a thrill out of the sudden adrenalin rush from the unexpected combat. Erroneously thinks that the point of our issue with Attack Volumes is that they stop us from having an easy path to the loot. (The craptacular rng cookie fests at the end of the POIs are really nothing more than an indication I finished the POI to me. The best loot is the scrap you find on the way there.)

yeah some people defence this another attack this. Well i don't care  about attack zones - this is not something i'm interested and i don't defend this idea or attack. but problem is : nobody suggested any alternative to this which make both "factions" happy - wrote my idea as example that how it can be change to make (almost) everyone happy.  if it can be work? idk i'm not dev but finding solutions is better idea that play in forum ww1 .  this "topic" is jut one of many ideas which create argue and honestly rare sitations was when someone suggest how to change this idea.

 

I  honestly want to add zombie teens - people can say it is good idea another ones this is bad idea. Devs doesn't want to add this ( negative solution  part of people are bad about that)  but some of devs could make mod and put on site similiar as skyrim devs done - who want it can install this if someone doesn't want well do nothing , there is any problem with law etc ( positive alternative solution when everyone is happy)

i hate drons - so i want to throw this idea to bin - someone can support me someone can say that is bad idea. devs want to add  this  (negative solution part of people are bad about it) but it can be suggested to put option to doesn't allow make them on server (positive solution - dev's works wasn't wasted and everyone is happy)

Edited August 8, 2021 by Matt115 (see edit history)

[hiemfire]

This one?

5 hours ago, Matt115 said:

honestly you both :  i think there is quiet good solution of this problem - add "careful" type of zombie - he just "stay" on wall and ceiling . he start scream when he saw you so it can work like AAZ but with "real reason " why zombie is alerted. So in dunno 3 tier of perk you have 10 sec before they scream and alert the rest of zombie.  maybe this ins not perfect idea but compromise bettwen no AAZ and AAZ

 It is similar to some suggestions that have popped up previously, in other threads on the subject, and is one I don't have an issue with. While adding more zombies may not be in the cards, your idea could make an interesting alt spawn and AI package for the spider zombie. I do recall someone bringing something up along these lines to faatal a month or so ago, not as part of the ongoing Attack Volume disagreement but more as building on the game's theme, and I think he replied that setting up spawn locations like that would be tricky to do with how they have the sleeper spawning coded. I'm not 100% on that though.

Edited August 8, 2021 by hiemfire (see edit history)

[TWORDY]

Just a few thoughts on skyboxes and weather. I believe that with time there will be an improved weather system, so foliage could react to the so-called "wind effect, etc". Some foliage or part of it might bend also under harsh weather conditions or explosions just to make the world more alive in some sense 😃. 

 

Skybox pretty much spins all around the sky in current builds. I would rather see clouds moving from point A to B, from south to the west, slower or faster, and so on. Probably asking for volumetric clouds is too much when it comes to Unity engine including clouds projected shadow. High resolutions like 8K as the skybox would be extremely appreciated.

 

During Blood Moons, I would rather have emerald green/bluish (sky before the eye of the storm) like sky instead of a single colour that is present now. The red color harms our/human nervous system, purely simplifying, the case with the current Blood Moons color palette. For me, only the Moon might be red, sometimes yellow, etc. I would personally feel much more comfortable with such settings. Thanks.