A20 Developer Diary Discussions

[Jost Amman]

22 minutes ago, bachgaman said:

Btw I recently played a world without a trader and with 25% loot. In the first days and weeks I had very serious problems with weapons and ammunition. But I still didn't use the bow and stealth. The first reason is the extremely low damage of stone arrows. The second reason is the need for feathers, which are very few in the beginning when playing with 25% loot. I destroyed zeds with clubs and then sledgehammer, because the game has another OP perk - TREX. Due to the instant replenishment of stamina, you can destroy groups alone with melee weapon. But i have to admit that it was the infamous warrior difficulty. But with an increased speed of 1 point for all speed settings.

 

Honestly, I don’t know what problems will arise if a trader is repaired. But now he's obviously the main balance issue, it's true. I suppose that bows and stealth will still be left behind adequate solutions, but if we are talking about pure RP, then it all depends on what the main popular roles will be. And do you need to balance the game for pure RP?

I understand that the trader impacts the game heavily, at least IF you decide to use it, but as far as I understand your critique is mostly against that and not against how the attribute and skill tree is right now. I mean, it's not like it's perfect and can surely be improved, but all in all, IMO the current skill tree can work as long as you don't come from a biased position by having played other popular games that made a different choice on skills.

 

Also, important to note, is that you're asking for balance, but you play at a level and with setting that are way out of the standard the game is balanced on.

That means that whatever TFP do to refine and improve balance, you'll never be satisfied because you already play the game outside the "normal" parameters.

 

22 minutes ago, bachgaman said:

And do you need to balance the game for pure RP?

Probably that would also be an error, since pure role playing is not good for a computer based game.

By "role playing" in 7D2D, I mean: "creating a background for your character, in your mind, that you can then translate into attributes, skills and items/weapons you use".

 

Some people, like Joel, go to the extremes of RP and REALLY role-play their character! For example, if you're playing someone who is fearful of dogs, then you won't allow yourself to fight them, and instead you'll always run away when you meet dogs in the game!

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by Jost Amman (see edit history)

[POCKET951]

51 minutes ago, Jost Amman said:

Your entire problem is with the Trader it seems, which I can agree with to some extent, but TFP have been saying for some time that traders will need to be balanced and refined, so it's a non issue for an alpha game. Now, can you take away the "trader factor", and tell me again how you would balance better the role playing part of the attribute/skill trees, assuming that the trader issue will be addressed in the future?

We only have the Alpha 19 trader to go by, but based on previous discussions, the traders have been rebalanced for A20 and we will need to play it to see how it feels and if it needs further balance. I don't see much point in talking anymore about Alpha 19 trade because it will be different.

[dcsobral]

1 hour ago, bachgaman said:

 

Apparently you have not played this game, because in this game it is impossible to die of hunger. But if you do not loot POIs, then you will be destroyed in the bloody moon. Nice try, but sarcasm failed (to put it mildly)

I'm speaking from 8000 hours experience, and you? Nah, nevermind that. Sure you can die of hunger, and sure you don't need to loot POIs. Why would you? Particularly the ones with zombies? There's POIs without zombies and you don't need anything inside a POI to make a base, and it is really trivial to make a base that will survive horde nights of any size, even without resorting to exploits. But every time you fight a zombie (or vulture, dog, etc) you risk dying. Disease, thirst, hunger, damage. If you take care of food and water and don't take damage, you don't die. By going into POIs that have zombies you risk death unnecessarily, therefore it is not efficient. It's much more fun, but not efficient.

46 minutes ago, bachgaman said:

Btw I recently played a world without a trader and with 25% loot. In the first days and weeks I had very serious problems with weapons and ammunition. But I still didn't use the bow and stealth. The first reason is the extremely low damage of stone arrows. The second reason is the need for feathers, which are very few in the beginning when playing with 25% loot.

I'm sure you are very good at playing in some ways, but you really don't know your way around 7 Days to Die. Feathers are trivial. Find a chicken, which are plentiful. Let a vulture find you, which is easy. You'll have enough feathers for any need. Oh, and the birds nest gave you too few feathers? Break it and you'll get feathers, and that's not affected by loot percentage. And why are you using stone arrows anyway? How long does it take you to make a forge? Once you have a forge, you have iron arrows. Stone arrows are just for day 1.

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by dcsobral (see edit history)

[stallionsden]

5 hours 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.

Especially from one that doesn't play the game lol

[Kalex]

9 hours ago, bachgaman said:

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

What the hell does any of that have to do with the useability of stealth and bows vs. radiated zeds on Warrior difficulty? Answer: absolutely nothing. If you are trying to imply that he is cheating things in, he is not.

[Roland]

It always comes back to the fact that min/maxing the game and focusing completely on efficiency ruins replay value of the game because for min/maxers there is simply only one conceivable way to play the game-- the single most efficient way. The irony of the min/maxer argument is that no game can be designed to have multiple absolutely perfectly balanced efficiency pathways. One method or strategy will always slightly edge out the rest and so that will become the new one and only way min/maxers can play without "lying to themselves and deceiving themselves" about how to play the game.

 

Thus the only way min/maxers can get much replay value of the game is to convince the developers to change the balance so that they have another new brief puzzle to solve. Three weeks after a new update the new most efficient strategy emerges and once again the game has no replay value for them. We have seen it time and again over the years as those who care only for efficiency complain that they are "forced" to do X by the developers. Sometimes X was upgrading blocks, sometimes spam crafting, sometimes killing zombies, sometimes spam questing, ...one time for a couple of weeks it was chopping down grass thanks to a bug.

 

I'm glad that I enjoy playing the game at a variety of settings and without regard to efficiency. The developers have designed the game to be replayable through conscious player choice --sometimes by changing settings, sometimes by choosing self-limits, and sometimes by choosing challenges and goals. When you don't care whether the way you are playing is the one solution to the efficiency puzzle you can suddenly do whatever you want.

 

And the great thing is that I'm just having fun and it isn't that I have to self-deceive at all. I just plainly don't care whether the choice I want to make is or is not the most efficient. The min/maxer can't comprehend that I simply don't think about it.

 

So, @bachgaman, there has been another balancing pass to traders for pricing of goods, types of goods sold, and rewards for quests for A20. There has also been a pretty significant change to loot in general. It might be enough of a change to create a new puzzle for you to solve. I hope so, since I want everyone to be able to have some fun with the game.

[Roland]

6 hours ago, bachgaman said:

By the way, I never got an answer. (about the conditions in which I should choose bow and stealth)

 

The answer for you is never. You cannot suspend your need for an optimal path. Bow and stealth will never be an option for you.

 

For someone else the condition would be that they wish to challenge themselves by playing a game using bow and stealth and play as that type of character. For that person it would be fine because they would not be constantly preoccupied by the opportunity costs and self deceptions over how quickly they could progress using other means. For you it would be disastrous.

 

6 hours ago, bachgaman said:

The balance is to ensure that all perks are playable, not the same.

 

They are currently balanced in such a way to anyone not obsessed with optimal efficiency.

 

6 hours ago, bachgaman said:

So that they solve special problems that must be solved in order to survive. Bow skill and stealth don't solve the problem. The bow does not solve the problem because in a normal game you get an AK-47 and several hundred ammo on day 2.

 

A player not obsessed with efficiency and who is playing stealth/bow won't have an AK-47 and several hundred ammo on day 2 because they will be going through the quests more slowly and stealthily and probably choosing other ways to spend their money. They also won't hear a voice in their head yammering on and on about a much more efficient way to play the game than they currently are playing. Instead they will be having fun taking the game at their pace, popping those day 2 zombies in the head with their stone arrows killing some in one shot and killing others with a few follow up hits but not caring in the least that maybe somewhere on earth another player started a new game at the same time they did and probably has an Ak-47 with several hundred ammo. That would kill you, we know.

 

6 hours ago, bachgaman said:

Therefore, in reality, these perks do not carry any value. You can play with them, but this is self-indulgence, not survival. They could be useful in the same form in which they exist now, but due to other balance errors they are not in demand.

 

To you with your mentality it would be self-indulgence because you cannot let go of the compulsion to maximize efficiency. But we don't have this issue when we play. We aren't playing to solve the efficiency puzzle. And it most definitely is still survival. It is the survival that a particular character would go through if they survived the zombie virus and lived in the post apocalyptic world. We are playing that character and striving to survive as that character. THAT is what goes through our mind when we make choices. Trust me, we are not fighting to avoid thoughts of how to be more efficient. We are thinking about what our character would do and then make those choices to be true to that character. You are never going to understand and will always suspect that we are secretly struggling with everything we have to avoid slipping back to trying to be efficient but just indulging ourselves in our fantasy but you will just have to trust me that we just don't think that way. There is never any suboptimal angst boiling under the surface of our enjoyment of the game.

 

 

[MechanicalLens]

14 minutes ago, Roland said:

 

The answer for you is never. You cannot suspend your need for an optimal path. Bow and stealth will never be an option for you.

 

For someone else the condition would be that they wish to challenge themselves by playing a game using bow and stealth and play as that type of character. For that person it would be fine because they would not be constantly preoccupied by the opportunity costs and self deceptions over how quickly they could progress using other means. For you it would be disastrous.

 

 

They are currently balanced in such a way to anyone not obsessed with optimal efficiency.

 

 

A player not obsessed with efficiency and who is playing stealth/bow won't have an AK-47 and several hundred ammo on day 2 because they will be going through the quests more slowly and stealthily and probably choosing other ways to spend their money. They also won't hear a voice in their head yammering on and on about a much more efficient way to play the game than they currently are playing. Instead they will be having fun taking the game at their pace, popping those day 2 zombies in the head with their stone arrows killing some in one shot and killing others with a few follow up hits but not caring in the least that maybe somewhere on earth another player started a new game at the same time they did and probably has an Ak-47 with several hundred ammo. That would kill you, we know.

 

 

To you with your mentality it would be self-indulgence because you cannot let go of the compulsion to maximize efficiency. But we don't have this issue when we play. We aren't playing to solve the efficiency puzzle. And it most definitely is still survival. It is the survival that a particular character would go through if they survived the zombie virus and lived in the post apocalyptic world. We are playing that character and striving to survive as that character. THAT is what goes through our mind when we make choices. Trust me, we are not fighting to avoid thoughts of how to be more efficient. We are thinking about what our character would do and then make those choices to be true to that character. You are never going to understand and will always suspect that we are secretly struggling with everything we have to avoid slipping back to trying to be efficient but just indulging ourselves in our fantasy but you will just have to trust me that we just don't think that way. There is never any suboptimal angst boiling under the surface of our enjoyment of the game.

 

 

 

So what I take from this is that min-maxing is an ill-advised path that leads you to an iron cage that has no key, and where the door slams behind you, never to let you out again? Where even if you give yourself the illusion of escape by trying another playstyle or even banning yourself from your min-max style for a playthrough or two, that player will always naturally gravitate back towards their own persona meta?

 

This explains a lot... *Long sigh*

 

Am I correct in that there is no way to backtrack from this?

[Gazz]

2 minutes ago, MechanicalLens said:

Am I correct in that there is no way to backtrack from this?

 

Life can be a way to get away from this. I used to be far more efficiency oriented but eventually realised that this is not the root cause of "fun".

[Khalagar]

53 minutes ago, Roland said:

Thus the only way min/maxers can get much replay value of the game is to convince the developers to change the balance so that they have another new brief puzzle to solve.

 

Nah, people really misunderstand min/maxing. Most people refer to optimizers as min-maxers, but they aren't. Like with my rants about the intellect tree not making sense, it's because I'm wanting to make an optimal intellect build, but can't because there is no Tier 0, 1, or 3 intellect weapons and the design philosophy for intellect is just wonky

 

When replaying, optimizers will pick different build paths. I consider the bow and machete bad and in need of some buffs, but as a whole you can totally do a bow and machete build and do fine, because you at least have the tools to function at all stages of the game. Likewise, spears and sniper are pretty bad compared to shotgun and club, but you can totally do a perception focused build because you have the tools to do it. Intellect doesn't have those tools, so I think the intellect tree needs a TLC bandage to update it to the general standards of the rest of the trees

 

Most the balance to me isn't PvP, it's coop, with the main question of "Is this going to be fun to play compared to my friends builds". It's fairly hard to have fun doing an intellect build if you literally only have a pipe baton for the first week so you end up just having to use an off build weapon like a shotgun like everyone else.

 

"I just play for fun!" or "I only play on easy mode!" isn't an excuse for the weapons to not at least be roughly balanced with each other, and honestly, I don't get the point in arguing it since the devs literally are buffing the bow which means they agree that the bow needs to be buffed, end of discussion. 

 

  

11 minutes ago, MechanicalLens said:

 

Am I correct in that there is no way to backtrack from this?

 

 

I like how half the posts are saying "How dare you say someone elses way of playing isn't fun!!!!" then immediately proceeds to say "Your way of playing the game isn't fun!!!!" to min maxers lol

 

There's a lot of us who find optimizing fun. 80% of the fun of a game can honestly be figuring out the optimal weapons and perks and choices and designing different build paths. It's just different play styles. Some of us like Factorio and Rimworld and Excel where you spend 3 hours researching for every 1 hour playing, and some people want to play a really casual game where you just roll your face on the keyboard and pick what ever items got equipped during your face roll

Edited November 19, 2021 by Khalagar (see edit history)

[Roland]

6 minutes ago, MechanicalLens said:

 

So what I take from this is that min-maxing is an ill-advised path that leads you to an iron cage that has no key, and where the door slams behind you, never to let you out again? Where even if you give yourself the illusion of escape by trying another playstyle or even banning yourself from your min-max style for a playthrough or two, that player will always naturally gravitate back towards their own persona meta?

 

This explains a lot... *Long sigh*

 

Am I correct in that there is no way to backtrack from this?

 

A variety of games is probably the best solution. If you can't have fun playing one game in a variety of ways then simply play many different games the one time you need to solve their efficiency puzzle. The problem is expecting one game to continually remain fresh if you can only accept one way to play it. So far 7 Days has offered a "new puzzle" with each update but once the game goes gold and is done then it really will be done for efficiency players.

[MechanicalLens]

2 minutes ago, Roland said:

 

A variety of games is probably the best solution. If you can't have fun playing one game in a variety of ways then simply play many different games the one time you need to solve their efficiency puzzle. The problem is expecting one game to continually remain fresh if you can only accept one way to play it. So far 7 Days has offered a "new puzzle" with each update but once the game goes gold and is done then it really will be done for efficiency players.

 

I see what you are saying. Well, with the next Minecraft update coming out very shortly, perhaps that will offer me a break.

 

Note: I'm not the type of minmaxer that is OTT about everything, for the most part. I don't clear POI's during the day and raid them at night to get the best bang for my buck. I don't (try to) use the traders as often as I can. I don't loot 4 POI's and then chug a looting candy to get the maximum benefit out of it. In fact, I've recently tried different settings - horde every 5 days, horde every night, 64 max alive (sort of a re-discovery there). I suppose my min-maxing lies in me focusing primarily on Strength and getting quality level 5 iron tools by the end of the first week, if not sooner. As for how to conquer this "need", that I am still working on.

 

(I suppose this partially stems from me constructing unnecessarily massive horde bases. :P)

Nothing is holding me back from trying out different playstyles, of course. But I suppose I'll have to deal with that voice at the back of my head for the rest of my 7D2D career.

[Roland]

22 minutes ago, Khalagar said:

Nah, people really misunderstand min/maxing. Most people refer to optimizers as min-maxers, but they aren't. Like with my rants about the intellect tree not making sense, it's because I'm wanting to make an optimal intellect build, but can't because there is no Tier 0, 1, or 3 intellect weapons and the design philosophy for intellect is just wonky

 

Min/maxing is minimizing suboptimal choices and maximizing progression in as efficient a manner as possible usually in regards to time. Of course there are many varieties and levels of obsession with optimizing but the last few years (since A11) has been a very good education. I really don't think I am misunderstanding. Bach has been very clear in describing his thought processes and he isn't the only one nor is this the first time. Pretty much all the discussions surround xp for crafting and later lbd had to do with those gamers who ultra focus on efficiency. You can call some of them optimizers and others min/maxers and some may be a bit of both but the key underlying issue is always efficiency as the governing value.

 

I've never thought of you as a min/maxer in your arguments for what you want for intellect. You see a particular model that was used for the other builds and you want intellect to follow the same model. You aren't talking about playing in an optimal way in regards to efficiency, you are talking about a build that has holes and imperfections when compared to the structure followed by the other builds. That is a different issue and I do disagree with you on the premise that all the builds must be organized and structured the same but it is a different conversation.

 

22 minutes ago, Khalagar said:

When replaying, optimizers will pick different build paths.

 

That right there disqualifies you. You are willing to play different paths and try to play as best you can within the limits of that path. Efficiency players would call that "self-indulging" and "lying to yourself" and "pretending to make up for design deficiencies" because to them it really is like that. They can't not think of how they "should" be playing while they try playing in a less efficient manner.

 

You may often wish the path you are playing had better options associated with it but you still replay the game trying out different builds whether they are imperfect or not. A true efficiency player doesn't do that if the build isn't the most efficient way to progress. They couldn't care less if there are a couple perks missing or a tier 0 weapon missing if adding those components won't bring that build up to the pinnacle of best most efficient path because they would be pointless to be chosen anyway otherwise. If the devs filled out intellect and then it became the most efficient path they would all switch to playing it....a couple times to confirm....and then once again demand a rebalancing of the game to "fix" the fact that there is no replay value.

Edited November 19, 2021 by Roland (see edit history)

[MechanicalLens]

@Roland Since you're being very enlightening right now (I mean that with complete honesty, there isn't a condescending tone there at all), if you would be kind enough to sacrifice some extra time, I would enjoy reading your perspective on my experience.

 

Regarding min-maxing from my experience, it's only ever related to perks, and generally one particular mold. Seeing me with level 5 iron tools by day 4 or 5 would not be unusual; I actively choose to focus my initial points on Miner 69er, Sex Rex, and Mother Lode. It comes down to both the small things (investing that next point into Miner 69er will allow me to destroy noise traps and garbage piles with one less swing) to the consequence of me always going grand with my bases, at least in terms of scale. I openly acknowledge that I am going overboard with this investment, especially for the point of the game where I am at, and I am always intrigued by people who make alternate decisions.

 

Traditionally, I never venture into the Intellect tree unless I'm doing a stealth focused build. I rarely dig deep into the Perception or even the Fortitude trees unless I'm focusing on the weaponry within either tree respectively. Old habits die hard I suppose - Intellect and Strength are my match made in heaven.

 

Nevertheless, I am still open to taking the path of a less specialized approached. Perhaps I should study the perks from each tree and attempt to recognize their individual worth without comparing them to others. (Ex. Salvage Operations, Run and Gun, Parkour, The Huntsman, etc.)

 

Note: In regards to weapons, I switch it up every world, and I plan it out ahead of time. This world I'll be using shotguns, this one will be bows/crossbows/pistols & explosives/rifles, etc.

[Blake_]

Perk Min-Maxing is viable and not at all a bother to me. Choosing the most performant path in that particular system always gives me the same cool benefits that I want. But that's it : 7dtd has quests and loot and build and emergent gameplay to keep the flame alive. No need to hear about a condescending Roland defending that perk variety is fun because at the end of the day I'll eventually have it all if I play enough. I play for the experiences, the npcs, the encounters, the flavour, the playing part in the adventure, which is not enough and not yet there. I don't lie and pretend to be a walking lettuce with wings and laugh at my absurdity, because whatever rol I pretend to choose, It'll always be ME, the guy who plays for experiences and likes to be surprised by emergent gameplay and not by make-believe.

 

Roleplaying is a radical and proved way to have fun, but I don't like to not be me at all. Would you read a kamasutra novel in your free time if you like sci-fi?

 

No. My opinion. 

[Roland]

42 minutes ago, MechanicalLens said:

@Roland Since you're being very enlightening right now (I mean that with complete honesty, there isn't a condescending tone there at all), if you would be kind enough to sacrifice some extra time, I would enjoy reading your perspective on my experience.

 

Regarding min-maxing from my experience, it's only ever related to perks, and generally one particular mold. Seeing me with level 5 iron tools by day 4 or 5 would not be unusual; I actively choose to focus my initial points on Miner 69er, Sex Rex, and Mother Lode. It comes down to both the small things (investing that next point into Miner 69er will allow me to destroy noise traps and garbage piles with one less swing) to the consequence of me always going grand with my bases, at least in terms of scale. I openly acknowledge that I am going overboard with this investment, especially for the point of the game where I am at, and I am always intrigued by people who make alternate decisions.

 

Traditionally, I never venture into the Intellect tree unless I'm doing a stealth focused build. I rarely dig deep into the Perception or even the Fortitude trees unless I'm focusing on the weaponry within either tree respectively. Old habits die hard I suppose - Intellect and Strength are my match made in heaven.

 

Nevertheless, I am still open to taking the path of a less specialized approached. Perhaps I should study the perks from each tree and attempt to recognize their individual worth without comparing them to others. (Ex. Salvage Operations, Run and Gun, Parkour, The Huntsman, etc.)

 

Note: In regards to weapons, I switch it up every world, and I plan it out ahead of time. This world I'll be using shotguns, this one will be bows/crossbows/pistols & explosives/rifles, etc.

 

I'd read you as someone who just has strong preferences as to how you like to play and which perks are important to you for your enjoyment so you tend to gravitate to those in general. It sounds like you are willing to play different builds and focus on different approaches. 

 

What it comes down to is whether you are happy and having fun. If you are then you are doing it right. If you are not and if the developers don't change things in the way you want them to be then your choices are to mod the game to your liking, try to change your own perspective on how you are playing, or move on to another game.

2 minutes ago, Blake_ said:

No need to hear about a condescending Roland

 

Who's that? New guy with a cool last name?

5 minutes ago, Blake_ said:

I don't lie and pretend to be a walking lettuce with wings and laugh at my absurdity

 

Nobody would call it lying or pretense in your case...

[MechanicalLens]

32 minutes ago, Roland said:

...or move on to another game.

 

Oh no, I'm playing 7D2D until the day I die and probably beyond that, believe me.

[Gazz]

Well, there goes Roland's plan to get rid of you. =P

[bachgaman]

7 hours ago, Jost Amman said:

I understand that the trader impacts the game heavily, at least IF you decide to use it, but as far as I understand your critique is mostly against that and not against how the attribute and skill tree is right now. I mean, it's not like it's perfect and can surely be improved, but all in all, IMO the current skill tree can work as long as you don't come from a biased position by having played other popular games that made a different choice on skills.

You must understand that balance is relative. If now the main imbalance is in the trader, then fixing the trader everything will change places. However, I have already mentioned many obvious non-trader balance errors here and in other threads.

 

Many perk balance bugs can be fixed indirectly. For example, the "Well Insulated" and "Iron Gut" perks are extremely useless right now. Due to the fact that the game does not have a penalty for hunger and weather. If they were, then these perks would probably come in handy.

7 hours ago, Jost Amman said:

Also, important to note, is that you're asking for balance, but you play at a level and with setting that are way out of the standard the game is balanced on.

That means that whatever TFP do to refine and improve balance, you'll never be satisfied because you already play the game outside the "normal" parameters.

I would like to play on the default settings, but if I beat the game on Hard difficuiltes in 7 days and lose interest in 12 days, what if I start on Adventurer. If you're talking about 25% loot, then I don't always play with it. It was an experiment and I liked it overall.
In general, where did you get the idea that such settings are something non-standard? Are they in the game menu? Yes. So what's the complaint? Am I changing the xml files?

7 hours ago, Jost Amman said:

Probably that would also be an error, since pure role playing is not good for a computer based game.

Yes, but people play RP online, SAMP for example and many other games

7 hours ago, Jost Amman said:

By "role playing" in 7D2D, I mean: "creating a background for your character, in your mind, that you can then translate into attributes, skills and items/weapons you use".

In this case, I have already answered all your questions.

7 hours ago, POCKET951 said:

We only have the Alpha 19 trader to go by, but based on previous discussions, the traders have been rebalanced for A20 and we will need to play it to see how it feels and if it needs further balance. I don't see much point in talking anymore about Alpha 19 trade because it will be different.

The game has a huge number of other balance errors besides the trader

7 hours ago, dcsobral said:

I'm speaking from 8000 hours experience, and you?

8k hours and you still take Treasure Hunter in every game. My condolences.

7 hours ago, dcsobral said:

Sure you can die of hunger

Nope

7 hours ago, dcsobral said:

There's POIs without zombies

Very few and very poor

You will meet them on the street anyway

7 hours ago, dcsobral said:

really trivial to make a base that will survive horde nights of any size, even without resorting to exploits

Not sure, but if so, then I congratulate you if you enjoy this gameplay. I'd rather make direct contact instead of running away

7 hours ago, dcsobral said:

By going into POIs that have zombies you risk death unnecessarily, therefore it is not efficient. It's much more fun, but not efficient.

Let's admit that this is so. In this case, I am not playing according to the most optimal macro strategy. So what? How does this relate to the discussion on the effectiveness of perks?

7 hours ago, dcsobral said:

I'm sure you are very good at playing in some ways, but you really don't know your way around 7 Days to Die. Feathers are trivial. Find a chicken, which are plentiful. Let a vulture find you, which is easy. You'll have enough feathers for any need. Oh, and the birds nest gave you too few feathers? Break it and you'll get feathers, and that's not affected by loot percentage. And why are you using stone arrows anyway? How long does it take you to make a forge? Once you have a forge, you have iron arrows. Stone arrows are just for day 1.

This is true. I'm sorry, I forgot that this was an Undead Legacy mod that removes the recipe from perks.

 

To be honest, I had more important tasks than chasing chickens for arrows in the early days. Then I found a weapon that was very competitive with bows.

4 hours ago, Kalex said:

What the hell does any of that have to do with the useability of stealth and bows vs. radiated zeds on Warrior difficulty? Answer: absolutely nothing. If you are trying to imply that he is cheating things in, he is not.

Let's put it this way, while your husband sits in the bushes with his wooden bow and rags by the end of the first week, I ride a truck full of ammunition and weapons and live in concrete base. I'm talking about the results of this or that gameplay, about the speed of the game when i compare the variants of character development. This has a direct relationship with the usefulness of the bow and stealth. Bows and stealth do not allow you to complete the game in 7 days, but barter and adventurer do.

[dcsobral]

3 minutes ago, bachgaman said:

Let's admit that this is so. In this case, I am not playing according to the most optimal macro strategy. So what? How does this relate to the discussion on the effectiveness of perks?

You said that efficiency was being measured in terms of survivability per skill points. The effectiveness of the perks then should be measured by how suitable they are to that strategy.

[bachgaman]

2 minutes ago, dcsobral said:

You said that efficiency was being measured in terms of survivability per skill points. The effectiveness of the perks then should be measured by how suitable they are to that strategy.

Okay, let me know when you think through and test your strategy on Insane Nightmare and we'll talk about it.

[Kalex]

14 minutes ago, bachgaman said:

 

Let's put it this way, while your husband sits in the bushes with his wooden bow and rags by the end of the first week, I ride a truck full of ammunition and weapons and live in concrete base. I'm talking about the results of this or that gameplay, about the speed of the game when i compare the variants of character development. This has a direct relationship with the usefulness of the bow and stealth. Bows and stealth do not allow you to complete the game in 7 days, but barter and adventurer do.

There is no completing the game in 7 days because there is no endgame. And unless you have xp gains seriously jacked up, you aren't completing skill trees in 7 days either.

[bachgaman]

1 minute ago, Kalex said:

There is no completing the game in 7 days because there is no endgame. And unless you have xp gains seriously jacked up, you aren't completing skill trees in 7 days either.

For me, endgame is getting a base from improved concrete, reinforced doors, a truck, an auger, an electric fence, and so on. When you have no options for further development.

I did it easily on my last run through Pure Intelligence on Survivalist difficulty, 100% loot / XP, 1 point zombie speed boost, 1 hour = 1 in-game day

 

[bachgaman]

3 hours ago, Roland said:

It always comes back to the fact that min/maxing the game and focusing completely on efficiency ruins replay value of the game because for min/maxers there is simply only one conceivable way to play the game-- the single most efficient way. The irony of the min/maxer argument is that no game can be designed to have multiple absolutely perfectly balanced efficiency pathways. One method or strategy will always slightly edge out the rest and so that will become the new one and only way min/maxers can play without "lying to themselves and deceiving themselves" about how to play the game.

 

Thus the only way min/maxers can get much replay value of the game is to convince the developers to change the balance so that they have another new brief puzzle to solve. Three weeks after a new update the new most efficient strategy emerges and once again the game has no replay value for them. We have seen it time and again over the years as those who care only for efficiency complain that they are "forced" to do X by the developers. Sometimes X was upgrading blocks, sometimes spam crafting, sometimes killing zombies, sometimes spam questing, ...one time for a couple of weeks it was chopping down grass thanks to a bug.

 

I'm glad that I enjoy playing the game at a variety of settings and without regard to efficiency. The developers have designed the game to be replayable through conscious player choice --sometimes by changing settings, sometimes by choosing self-limits, and sometimes by choosing challenges and goals. When you don't care whether the way you are playing is the one solution to the efficiency puzzle you can suddenly do whatever you want.

 

And the great thing is that I'm just having fun and it isn't that I have to self-deceive at all. I just plainly don't care whether the choice I want to make is or is not the most efficient. The min/maxer can't comprehend that I simply don't think about it.

 

So, @bachgaman, there has been another balancing pass to traders for pricing of goods, types of goods sold, and rewards for quests for A20. There has also been a pretty significant change to loot in general. It might be enough of a change to create a new puzzle for you to solve. I hope so, since I want everyone to be able to have some fun with the game.

Man, you put the minmax label on me again as you understand it. But if I was minmax I wouldn't run without traders, I guess I would not ignore the obvious exploits that allow me to get an advantage, I would not drop LCB at the beginning of the game, and so on. You don't need to think that the world is black and white

 

I understand what you are talking about, you are partly right, but there are different degrees of deepening in minmax. You are talking about the most extreme form of the fulfillment of this desire

3 hours ago, Roland said:

The answer for you is never. You cannot suspend your need for an optimal path. Bow and stealth will never be an option for you.

 

For someone else the condition would be that they wish to challenge themselves by playing a game using bow and stealth and play as that type of character. For that person it would be fine because they would not be constantly preoccupied by the opportunity costs and self deceptions over how quickly they could progress using other means. For you it would be disastrous.

Thus, you admit that bow and stealth are notoriously worse perks than barter and adventurer. Thanks. This was the topic of discussion.

3 hours ago, Roland said:

They are currently balanced in such a way to anyone not obsessed with optimal efficiency.

And here you amusingly avoid admitting that they are simply unbalanced.

3 hours ago, Roland said:

A player not obsessed with efficiency and who is playing stealth/bow won't have an AK-47 and several hundred ammo on day 2 because they will be going through the quests more slowly and stealthily and probably choosing other ways to spend their money. They also won't hear a voice in their head yammering on and on about a much more efficient way to play the game than they currently are playing. Instead they will be having fun taking the game at their pace, popping those day 2 zombies in the head with their stone arrows killing some in one shot and killing others with a few follow up hits but not caring in the least that maybe somewhere on earth another player started a new game at the same time they did and probably has an Ak-47 with several hundred ammo. That would kill you, we know.

Individual examples of bad players do not help you in any way to prove that there is a balance in the game. I'm not obsessed with efficiency, I just like making good choices. And I enjoy playing well.

 

 

[Jost Amman]

2 hours ago, bachgaman said:

Many perk balance bugs can be fixed indirectly. For example, the "Well Insulated" and "Iron Gut" perks are extremely useless right now. Due to the fact that the game does not have a penalty for hunger and weather. If they were, then these perks would probably come in handy.

I agree, but, again, not a perk/skill problem per se.

2 hours ago, bachgaman said:

In general, where did you get the idea that such settings are something non-standard? Are they in the game menu? Yes. So what's the complaint? Am I changing the xml files?

Ask @Gazz, AFAIK the game is balanced (spreadsheets and all) around the default difficulty level.

2 hours ago, bachgaman said:

10 hours ago, Jost Amman said:

Probably that would also be an error, since pure role playing is not good for a computer based game.

Yes, but people play RP online, SAMP for example and many other games

Still. It is my opinion.