A20 Developer Diary Discussions

[dcsobral]

1 hour ago, Syphon583 said:

This is a ridiculous argument. Who are you to criticize how someone else plays the game? If they get more enjoyment out of killing Zs with a bow instead of a gun, more power to them. It actually takes more skill to do it this way, so he (and the hundreds if not thousands of others who play this way) are getting more out of the experience.

That. If anything, the one who plays the game the best is the one that takes the most enjoyment out of it. This isn't a competitive game where one goes for high scores or victories over opponents.  And there are oh-so-many ways to enjoy 7 Days to Die -- from slugfest brawlers to long ranged snipers to stealthy assassins and even beyond that to making prefabs and modding and even hand crafting worlds.

 

 

[bachgaman]

1 hour ago, Kalex said:

 

Calling serious BS on this one.  I watch my husband take them out all the time with a bow using his stealth build. Hell, I've seen him sneak up on a zed and stab them in the head with a hunting knife and one shot them. And yes, we play on Warrior. So stealth and the bow works just fine. Sounds like operator error to me.

Great, I'm sure he also reaches the crucible, truck, concrete base and auger by day 7, just like me. I believe

[jorbascrumps]

9 minutes ago, dcsobral said:

That's a common trope on apocalypse fiction that just doesn't stand to scrutiny. People usually think of gas or toilet paper scarcity in times of panic, but there are two key differences. First, the people doing panicking and buying stuff are all alive to do it. Second, the scarcity is happening on the point of sale -- basically, there's people with stocks large enough to last for months or years which is why others have nothing.

 

On the traditional zombie apocalypse, though, we are talking about 99% fatality rate within days, and then up from there. People had little time to buy stuff, and no time to use it. Supplies that would last one week for ten thousand people will last 25 years for one.

 

An 8-players server on an 8k map has 21% the population density of Wyoming, less than 3% of Arizona. And 8k maps are really rather urban compared to a whole state. If we are going to go with what the setting calls for instead of what gameplay balance calls for, loot is way too scarce.

 

Let's also remember that fun/ balance trumps realism. The game will be tuned to what the developers feel is best for gameplay, not necessarily a hypothetical real life scenario.

[bachgaman]

2 hours ago, Syphon583 said:

This is a ridiculous argument. Who are you to criticize how someone else plays the game? If they get more enjoyment out of killing Zs with a bow instead of a gun, more power to them. It actually takes more skill to do it this way, so he (and the hundreds if not thousands of others who play this way) are getting more out of the experience.

 

Does Warrior difficulty require skill? Are you seriously? haha

 

It wasn't about enjoyment, by the way. It was about the usefulness of the perks. These perks are useless, because in any situation you can do without them by getting more.

[bachgaman]

7 hours ago, stallionsden said:

Well ofc you have to actually be skilled and patient to be able to use a bow and stealth.  🤔🥱😉

Not have to. Especially on the difficulty you are playing. On this difficulty, you can complete the game with a torch as a weapon. True, the speed of completing will be similar to the speed of completing with a bow.

7 hours ago, Mistwraith said:

 

I would call it "enoyable".

Sometimes I just want to murder a crapton of mobs, thats the time Serious Sam has to be dusted off again, or a game from the Borderlands series.

Another time I want my hardcore RPG strategy, and Dragon Age and the like deliver.

And another time I want my Survival/Crafting game and have the feeling I have to sneak around in zombie infested areas that are lethal to me when detected.

 

Its just a question of my current mood for me. Am I in the mood for stealth kills, sneaking away and feeling threatened? Then its 7DTD. For action, I have plenty of other games.

Am I in the mood for ripping apart gang members with mantis blades while listening to metal music? Then its Cyberpunk2077 today.

 

Different people have fun with different experiences. And handicapping yourself IS enjoyable for some players. Me included. Not every time. Not in every game. But in a survival game I was looking for survival, not for Call of Duty.

 

If you enjoy the Call of Duty style in 7DTD, if its fun to you, then go for it and let me wish you fun and good loot.

But its not always about efficiency. Games are also about emotions.

Okay, so in theory you could enjoy playing the game without improving perks. Would that make unimproving perks useful?

[Jost Amman]

1 hour ago, JCrook1028 said:

Guess what? People play the game in different ways? That does not make their way wrong as you imply here. If we all played the same way what a boring world we would live in.

I'd also add that this is exactly the example of asymmetrical balanced gameplay.

The fun is purposefully found in NOT playing in the most efficient way.

[bachgaman]

12 minutes ago, Jost Amman said:

I'd also add that this is exactly the example of asymmetrical balanced gameplay.

The fun is purposefully found in NOT playing in the most efficient way.

For a game with developmental asymmetry to be interesting, the developmental options must also be balanced against one another, so they are all valid choices (с) 😂

[Jost Amman]

9 minutes ago, bachgaman said:

For a game with developmental asymmetry to be interesting, the developmental options must also be balanced against one another, so they are all valid choices (с) 😂

That probably depends on your definition of "valid". Example: maybe for some, a valid choice must be something efficient and as good as any other choice. For others, like me, it's a valid choice if it provides me with a different and fun new way to play the game, even if, compared to other play styles, it may seem under powered.

[bachgaman]

1 minute ago, Jost Amman said:

That probably depends on your definition of "valid". Example: maybe for some, a valid choice must be something efficient and as good as any other choice. For others, like me, it's a valid choice if it provides me with a different and fun new way to play the game, even if, compared to other play styles, it may seem under powered.

This article is about efficiency

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/636692/game-balance-symmetry-vs-asymmetry

[Jost Amman]

4 minutes ago, bachgaman said:

This article is about efficiency

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/636692/game-balance-symmetry-vs-asymmetry

Seems to me, that doesn't apply to the way I play: all of that is about balancing two opposed players, not about a single player adventuring in a sandbox survival game world.

[meilodasreh]

13 minutes ago, bachgaman said:

This article is about efficiency

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/636692/game-balance-symmetry-vs-asymmetry

This is interesting, thx.

Although I can see it's mainly focused on PvP (boardgames) where your whole strategy also depends on how your opponent adapts to your behaviour (trying to exploit your weaknesses)

So I'm not sure if that's 100% applicable to singleplayer/PvE in 7D2D (game doesn't adapt/react to your choices),

but nonetheless, some interesting ideas.

 

edit: @Jost Amman I see we had the same thought there 😀

Edited November 18, 2021 by meilodasreh (see edit history)

[bachgaman]

Just now, Jost Amman said:

Seems to me, that doesn't apply to the way I play: all of that is about balancing two opposed players, not about a single player adventuring in a sandbox survival game world.

In PVP you will suffer from inefficiency due to the fact that you will lose to other players, in PVE you will suffer from inefficiency due to the fact that you will lose to external factors

 

If we continue the analogy, then playing with an ineffective method at lower difficulty settings is equivalent to playing on a smurf account in competitive games against obviously weaker players. In such games, the obviously stronger player can play according to an ineffective but fun strategy and still win. This does not make an "ineffective" strategy balanced to an "effective" one and it is not the result of "balancing the game", it is the result of deception and self-deception.

[Jost Amman]

Just now, bachgaman said:

In PVP you will suffer from inefficiency due to the fact that you will lose to other players, in PVE you will suffer from inefficiency due to the fact that you will lose to external factors

 

If we continue the analogy, then playing with an ineffective method at lower difficulty settings is equivalent to playing on a smurf account in competitive games against obviously weaker players. In such games, the obviously stronger player can play according to an ineffective but fun strategy and still win. This does not make an "ineffective" strategy balanced to an "effective" one and it is not the result of "balancing the game", it is the result of deception and self-deception.

I understand where you're coming from, but hear me for a moment.

 

From what I understand, all that analysis is based on two premises:

1. Two (or more) opposing "forces" that should, theoretically, be human players
2. The goal of the game is to win

IMO, this is the reason why that paper doesn't fit in this case (7D2D SP), specifically because:

1. The AI, however good faatal can make it, can't even begin to compete with a committed and experienced player. It can be a fun challenge, sure, but has nothing to do with the level of challenge you get in a (e.g.) PvP game. That's why I don't think the PvE can represent something you'll never be able to overcome if you don't choose the most efficient tree in the game.
2. The other aspect where that model doesn't work, IMO, is that this is a sandbox survival game. As long as you're surviving, YOU ARE winning. I would also add that in this case, you are already winning when you are having fun with the play style you chose.

So, all in all, this come down to how you approach this game: using a less efficient perk tree, for you, is self-deception, for other types of players is just "having fun".  

I hope you understand that I'm not bashing in any way that author/article, that guy is very smart and has good points.

I just think they don't apply to my 7D2D SP game experience and the way I see "balance".

 

Oh, also, about "balance"... I see that you talk about balance when applied toward having "the same efficiency". My point of view, is that balance should also be focused on the specific play style you choose. Example: if you want to play as a hunter/archer/trapper, then you'll want to have fun with stealth kills, tracking and surviving in the wild. If you're a brawler, you'll want to be able to brawl your way into POIs and drink beer to get tougher and use cool knuckle dusters. Every role you play must be balanced to be unique and fun! That's the kind of balance we need and like.

[Mistwraith]

2 hours ago, bachgaman said:

Not have to. Especially on the difficulty you are playing. On this difficulty, you can complete the game with a torch as a weapon. True, the speed of completing will be similar to the speed of completing with a bow.

Okay, so in theory you could enjoy playing the game without improving perks. Would that make unimproving perks useful?

 

Its not useful, of course. And I personaly improve them. Improving your skills is part of games and the reward for your troubles. But if someone likes it that way, why not?

 

But I really dont understand why you cant live with the fact, that different people enjoy different stuff. Some people like rap, others dont. Some people like movies ... others dont.

Thats the way it is. Nobody is superior or inferior because of his or her choice of entertainement. Whats so hard about that?

 

If we talk efficiency or PvP .... thats another matter. I will totally shoot your sorry ass with an M60 in PvP, but in PvE I have another taste. Like everyone else. But I see, that you cannot take it, that other people are different from you. So, just believe that others are inferior to you. Good bye, have a nice day, have fun playing the game and good loot to you. I am out of the discussion with you.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Mistwraith
Additional stuff (see edit history)

[Matt115]

2 hours ago, dcsobral said:

That's a common trope on apocalypse fiction that just doesn't stand to scrutiny. People usually think of gas or toilet paper scarcity in times of panic, but there are two key differences. First, the people doing panicking and buying stuff are all alive to do it. Second, the scarcity is happening on the point of sale -- basically, there's people with stocks large enough to last for months or years which is why others have nothing.

 

On the traditional zombie apocalypse, though, we are talking about 99% fatality rate within days, and then up from there. People had little time to buy stuff, and no time to use it. Supplies that would last one week for ten thousand people will last 25 years for one.

 

An 8-players server on an 8k map has 21% the population density of Wyoming, less than 3% of Arizona. And 8k maps are really rather urban compared to a whole state. If we are going to go with what the setting calls for instead of what gameplay balance calls for, loot is way too scarce.

Yeah but navezgane looks like small "country" and poor state-  and is mostly destroyed by nukes and artilery- so  guns, parts etc  would rust quiet fast. We don'tt have bandits in game yet but let say they exist as lore. So are powerfull enough to scavenging a big military bases , shop centres etc.  So small houses would be left for "rats groups". So i agree not every house would be looted but 60-70% yes and 90% of military bases , police stations etc. hospitals would be left ( too much zombies). So - traders would have tons of things and group but could be find things in secret miltary bases, destroyed bandit camps random corpses and backpacking etc. But in big shop would stay spoiled food, toys, clothes , random "house accesories" etc

[Morloc]

1 hour ago, bachgaman said:

For a game with developmental asymmetry to be interesting, the developmental options must also be balanced against one another, so they are all valid choices

 

"Interesting" is very subjective. Play Rimworld for example, and you'll find both challenge and freshness in being presented with builds that'd you'd never choose on your own. Sometimes you might start with some real survivalist gems in your group, other times a casserole of offbeat skills prove their strength in an unforeseen symbiosis.....and then there's times when you crash and burn so ridiculously that you can't help be entertained....which is fortunately gaming goal #1 (outside of professional gaming). 

 

-Arch Necromancer Morloc

[bachgaman]

36 minutes ago, Mistwraith said:

 

Its not useful, of course. And I personaly improve them. Improving your skills is part of games and the reward for your troubles. But if someone likes it that way, why not?

You contradict your own logic

 

ME: perks X and Y are useless because there is always a better alternative

 

YOU: That it is not, because people enjoy using them. **That is, utility is determined not by efficiency, but by getting pleasure**

 

ME: By this logic if someone does not use the perks, getting enjoyment from it, it makes the unspent perk points useful

 

YOU: Its not useful, of course.

 

=)))

 

  

36 minutes ago, Mistwraith said:

But I really dont understand why you cant live with the fact, that different people enjoy different stuff. Some people like rap, others dont. Some people like movies ... others dont.

Thats the way it is. Nobody is superior or inferior because of his or her choice of entertainement. Whats so hard about that?

 

If we talk efficiency or PvP .... thats another matter. I will totally shoot your sorry ass with an M60 in PvP, but in PvE I have another taste. Like everyone else. But I see, that you cannot take it, that other people are different from you. So, just believe that others are inferior to you. Good bye, have a nice day, have fun playing the game and good loot to you. I am out of the discussion with you.

The conversation is not about who should do what, I don't care what others are doing, conversation is about how balanced the power of the perks is

Edited November 18, 2021 by bachgaman (see edit history)

[Matt115]

1 hour ago, bachgaman said:

In PVP you will suffer from inefficiency due to the fact that you will lose to other players, in PVE you will suffer from inefficiency due to the fact that you will lose to external factors

 

If we continue the analogy, then playing with an ineffective method at lower difficulty settings is equivalent to playing on a smurf account in competitive games against obviously weaker players. In such games, the obviously stronger player can play according to an ineffective but fun strategy and still win. This does not make an "ineffective" strategy balanced to an "effective" one and it is not the result of "balancing the game", it is the result of deception and self-deception.

Not always you will lose in PVP by diffrent player only. Sometimes map can be enemy too- sarrlac in sw , scripted explosion of rocket in bf,  random artilery shell in cod 1 etc

35 minutes ago, Jost Amman said:

I understand where you're coming from, but hear me for a moment.

 

From what I understand, all that analysis is based on two premises:

1. Two (or more) opposing "forces" that should, theoretically, be human players
2. The goal of the game is to win

IMO, this is the reason why that paper doesn't fit in this case (7D2D SP), specifically because:

1. The AI, however good faatal can make it, can't even begin to compete with a committed and experienced player. It can be a fun challenge, sure, but has nothing to do with the level of challenge you get in a (e.g.) PvP game. That's why I don't think the PvE can represent something you'll never be able to overcome if you don't choose the most efficient tree in the game.
2. The other aspect where that model doesn't work, IMO, is that this is a sandbox survival game. As long as you're surviving, YOU ARE winning. I would also add that in this case, you are already winning when you are having fun with the play style you chose.

So, all in all, this come down to how you approach this game: using a less efficient perk tree, for you, is self-deception, for other types of players is just "having fun".  

I hope you understand that I'm not bashing in any way that author/article, that guy is very smart and has good points.

I just think they don't apply to my 7D2D SP game experience and the way I see "balance".

 

Oh, also, about "balance"... I see that you talk about balance when applied toward having "the same efficiency". My point of view, is that balance should also be focused on the specific play style you choose. Example: if you want to play as a hunter/archer/trapper, then you'll want to have fun with stealth kills, tracking and surviving in the wild. If you're a brawler, you'll want to be able to brawl your way into POIs and drink beer to get tougher and use cool knuckle dusters. Every role you play must be balanced to be unique and fun! That's the kind of balance we need and like.

Well 7DTD doesn't have bosses unfortunatly but i will give terraria as example- this is sandbox too right? so you are winning when you kill last boss ( updates add more and more so last boss is best "name"). This same situation with the forest and diffrent sandboxes.

Honestly i think balance must be connected not with "style of gameplay" but with setting- you need to fight melee because it is almost imposible to find ammo so you are forced to play in "right" way if you want survive. So this would be even more fun because it would forced people to find way how to be as efficent to survive  - ofc some people will like bows some spears but this they need to be more "effective"

8 minutes ago, bachgaman said:

You contradict your own logic

 

ME: perks X and Y are useless because there is always a better alternative

 

YOU: That it is not, because people enjoy using them. **That is, utility is determined not by efficiency, but by getting pleasure**

 

ME: By this logic if someone does not use the perks, getting enjoyment from it, it makes the unspent perk points useful

 

YOU: Its not useful, of course.

 

=)))

 

  

The conversation is not about who should do what, I don't care what others are doing, conversation is about how balanced the power of the perks is

Honestly hm sometimes some perks, weapons can be useless for 99% of time but better to be because it is too op in some situations- in Bordelands 3 one shotgun is quiet useless but op against 1 boss, one of shield are op againt 1 type of enemy in baldur's gate etc

[dcsobral]

2 hours ago, Perlin_Worm said:

I tend to look at balance by ability trees, not specific weapons. Agility seems to be in a good place but could use some fleshing out. Bows have good synergy with stealth but would like to see some bleed broadheads to compliment melee blade bleeds. Bows should not try competing with guns, so a bleed arrow would give a light armor stealther the ability to kite and inflict damage over time, then go in with the melee finisher. 

Funny, I like Agility but I find it the worse tree in the game by far. That's because I don't invest in fighting skills until mid or late game. So look at Agility, remove everything that's about zombies and combat, and see what's left. Parkour.

 

Perception improves looting and harvesting, Strength improves stamina, cooking and mining, Fortitude improves farming and long distance traveling, Intellect improves trading and crafting. Agility improves jumping. 😶

1 hour ago, meilodasreh said:

Dude, you're doing it wrong.

 

Not the bow of course...but the exploding arrow? Oh YES!

 

 

 

...just mind the distance. safety first

I usually don't have those available in the first seven days. Besides, they attract attention.

[meilodasreh]

7 minutes ago, bachgaman said:

The conversation is not about who should do what, I don't care what others are doing, conversation is about how balanced the power of the perks is

So you would consider the game to be truly balanced when every perk/power/skill/weapon you chose has an equal chance in succeeding?

 

Meaning bow/arrow should be an equal weapon choice for horde night compared to an AK47,

a hand grenade should be equally suitable to kill a zed over distance, and so is a sniper rifle when you fight a bunch of Zs in close quarters?

 

I mean, I know you don't want to say that, but.

 

Especially perks are per se a very individual thing, giving advantages only for some situations, whilst you have to accept that you won't be that good in other aspects (because of limited point to spent ) and that's a big part for adding to variety/replayability.

Otherwise, wouldn't it get boring when you realize that your choices don't really matter, cause the different weapons for example are - at the bottom line - really only different textures over the same DPS mechanics?

 

[dcsobral]

30 minutes ago, bachgaman said:

 

The conversation is not about who should do what, I don't care what others are doing, conversation is about how balanced the power of the perks is

Power for what? Efficiency is the ratio of production to consumption. The consumption here is points, of course, but what is being produced? Sometimes you say things that leads me to believe you want to get experience as fast as possible, though the goal is to gain experience as slow as possible, so I'm not sure what you are talking about.

[Jost Amman]

30 minutes ago, Matt115 said:

Well 7DTD doesn't have bosses unfortunatly but i will give terraria as example- this is sandbox too right? so you are winning when you kill last boss ( updates add more and more so last boss is best "name"). This same situation with the forest and diffrent sandboxes.

Honestly i think balance must be connected not with "style of gameplay" but with setting- you need to fight melee because it is almost imposible to find ammo so you are forced to play in "right" way if you want survive. So this would be even more fun because it would forced people to find way how to be as efficent to survive  - ofc some people will like bows some spears but this they need to be more "effective"

As I said, some people find efficiency fun. Others, like me, find even unbalanced and awkward challenges fun.

You may think that killing a Boss monster is your win. For me, "winning" is (e.g.) building a nice base with all comforts where I can "rest" at the end of the day.

 

If you're talking about official win conditions of a game, then you should also add that the game ends after you win.

If it doesn't end, then it's a sandbox survival experience, not an adventure game which ends when your story ends.

 

But we're just splitting hairs here, it's evident that the definition of balance is not the same between me and others, so it's pointless to keep arguing on this I guess.

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by Jost Amman (see edit history)

[Blake_]

1 hour ago, Jost Amman said:

 

1. The AI, however good faatal can make it, can't even begin to compete with a committed and experienced player. 

Well, ugh.... mhmm. I was playing Insane nightmare always run the other day and digging a buried supplies with a "backup-wooden-4 block-high" stand to protect my butt and then I took the supplies and activated the Zds. 

 

I went up the stand and I felt like The boss. Not even was I having my club out of the belt to kill those 3 MF friends when a horde came running straight towards me. And a mountain lion and a lumberjack too, Did I mention I was in the snow?. 

 

Was that the AI in itself or an incredible reactive Matrix simulation that just wants to kill you no matter what? Spoiler: I did not get out of there alive.

 

Anyways, I blame faatal for that emergent gameplay just in case. He can't do a perfect AI, but if you mix a lot of "imperfect" systems, the experience is wonderful.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Blake_ (see edit history)

[Falcon197]

1 hour ago, Eighmy_Lupin said:

Imagine writing a novel about how bad it is that others dare play differently than you. Imagine being this angry about a video game.

 

Which is why at the end of the day, these virtual fits aren't worth acknowledging.  Trolls only get worse if you feed them.

 

Redirecting, I wanted to bring up the new upgrade chain for building materials in A20.  Will it be possible to place fully upgraded concrete or steel blocks straightaway if you have the mats on hand, or would we have to place the plywood / corkboard frames first and upgrade from there?

Edited November 18, 2021 by Falcon197 (see edit history)

[Jost Amman]

1 minute ago, Blake_ said:

Well, ugh.... mhmm. I was playing Insane nightmare always run the other day and digging a buried supplies with a "backup-wooden-4 block-high" stand to protect my butt and then I took the supplies and activated the Zds. 

 

I went up the stand and I felt like The boss. Not even was I having my club out of the belt to kill those 3 MF @%$#s when a horde came running straight towards me. And a mountain lion and a lumberjack too, Did I mention I was in the snow?. 

 

Was that the AI in itself or an incredible reactive Matrix simulation that just wants to kill you no matter what? Spoiler: I did not get out of there alive.

 

Anyways, I blame faatal for that emergent gameplay just in case. He can't do a perfect AI, but if you mix a lot of "imperfect" systems, the experience is wonderful.

I said committed and experienced player!