Jump to content

Developer Diary Discussions


Roland

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Jost Amman said:

 

 

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.

 

Not rly- the forest is the best example - you killed monster girl, you found a son but you decided to destroy a forest and your character is still alive on island but he done his job. (he is crazy now but alive).

So it can be done in 7dtd too.

If are looking for cure in one lab to destroy zombie one for all time. but mutant destroy a lab. Your are kiling this mutant. You failed to save the world but you are still alive and you must survive another day- so you ended the game but you can still play. Or if you want end tottaly you can dunno lunch nuclear bomb in lab so your character is dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Matt115 said:

Not rly- the forest is the best example - you killed monster girl, you found a son but you decided to destroy a forest and your character is still alive on island but he done his job. (he is crazy now but alive).

So it can be done in 7dtd too.

If are looking for cure in one lab to destroy zombie one for all time. but mutant destroy a lab. Your are kiling this mutant. You failed to save the world but you are still alive and you must survive another day- so you ended the game but you can still play. Or if you want end tottaly you can dunno lunch nuclear bomb in lab so your character is dead.

Which is exactly what I was saying, man!

If after "winning" you can keep playing, then you're playing a survival sandbox experience with a story, not an adventure game with an ending.

 

But what does this anything to do with "game balance" lol?? I forgot how we got here! :madgrin:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, meilodasreh said:

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?

 

 

No. Not this way. I wrote this for a reason

12 hours ago, bachgaman said:

Give the conditions in which the choice of stealth and bow will be optimal.

11 hours ago, bachgaman said:

I still do not see the conditions in which I should choose a bow and stealth, not an AK/shotgun and barter/adventurer.

By the way, I never got an answer.

 

The balance is to ensure that all perks are playable, not the same. 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. Stealth is not needed, because when u have AK-47 with 600 ammo there are no enemies who can kill you. The game does not aim to save AK-47 ammo or avoid a very strong enemy. 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. Just like solar panels, which drop out of the game because you can create 125 gas from 1 shale, just like iron tools, because you can use stone more efficiently, and so on.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, dcsobral said:

but what is being produced

Your ability to survive. It's survival game

 

Just now, Jost Amman said:

No, it's called  R O L E P L A Y N G  (I spelled it clearly since it's a very revolutionary new concept which has just hit the game industry).

Ok, why not balance the role-playing experience? I don’t understand, are you really opposed to trader that not giving you hundreds and thousands of ammo and greandes on the very first day? Do you really enjoy playing an imaginary game of hide and seek rather than a real one? Or are you just arguing because you don't want to agree that there is no balance in the game?

  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bachgaman said:

 

Linking to an article at Boardgame Geek scores you some definite points with me. However, that article on symmetry vs asymmetry is primarily from the perspective of boardgames that are directly competitive. Players start either on equal or unequal footing and have options that are the same or different (depending on how asymmetrical the design is) for the purpose of gaining more victory points faster or area domination or whatever the goals of the particular game may be and they are actively working against each other to do so.

 

In 7 Days to Die the asymmetry is not competitive between the trees. I'm not playing Intellect build against your strength build and seeing if I can be the first to reach level 50 or dominate more areas of the map or create the most efficient engine for gathering resources and crafting them into game winning prestige monuments. In this game the asymmetry is in running through the game in different ways for a different experience and different challenge. There is no one I'm competing against that makes it unfair for me to go slow with a bow vs fast with a machine gun.

 

If this game were primarily PvP with direct competition between players and TFP wanted a perception player to be able to be directly competitive with a strength player or an intellect player then I agree that they would have to do some serious rebalancing. But they're not making a PvP game in which they expect an Agility player to be able to go toe to toe and progress competitively with a player doing something else in a different way. Therefore, they can set up the different attributes to be wholly different and not equally viable in terms of efficiency and it is perfectly okay.

 

If playing pure intellect is impossible to do on Insane then lower the difficulty until it is possible. Simple as that. There is no need to "buff up" intellect so that it plays out exactly like strength but just a different skin.

 

On another note, I just picked up Maracaibo and am really excited to get it to the table and hope to be able to do so a few times next week!

Edited by Roland (see edit history)
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, bachgaman said:
20 minutes ago, Jost Amman said:

No, it's called  R O L E P L A Y N G  (I spelled it clearly since it's a very revolutionary new concept which has just hit the game industry).

Ok, why not balance the role-playing experience? I don’t understand, are you really opposed to trader that not giving you hundreds and thousands of ammo and greandes on the very first day?

Yes, I agree on balancing the role playing part even more than it is.

Have you got any ideas on how to do it?

 

I don't understand why you're suddenly talking about traders: did I mention traders in any way, shape or form? I forgot, this has been a long discussion... :confused2:

 

Quote

Do you really enjoy playing an imaginary game of hide and seek rather than a real one? Or are you just arguing because you don't want to agree that there is no balance in the game?

I don't understand where the "imaginary" comes from... are you saying that stealth is completely broken?

In that case, I suggest you file a bug report detailing what isn't working and how the steps to replicate the problem. Tks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, bachgaman said:

We could call these "different styles" if they gave the same result. This is not the case. Playing with bow and stealth on Warrior difficulty is like riding a bike with square wheels.

If the result you were looking for is an A on your report card. The result I look for in games is to have fun. Warrior is not fun to me, so why would I run around using anything on that setting. I actually prefer agility and stealth with some int, but I play with settings that make it fun for me.

 

Reasonable balance is a nice goal, but you can't please everyone.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Jost Amman said:

Which is exactly what I was saying, man!

If after "winning" you can keep playing, then you're playing a survival sandbox experience with a story, not an adventure game with an ending.

 

But what does this anything to do with "game balance" lol?? I forgot how we got here! :madgrin:

Okay hm this will hard to explain in 7dtd but i will give cod 3 as example- USA army is more powerfull that Germany in MP mode. So let's say you will have 4 factions  of bandits in 7dtd-  and 1 of them is much better because give free ammo per day. So this would make almost everyone would choose this faction.  Diffrent situation- in some old games ( they usually don't get updates so this games are better example)  you could have for 90% easy game but 1 level was hard as hell because boss, level design etc. In 7dtd if for example they added random demolishion zombie after gamestage 45 most people will hate 7dtd because without ( most people don't use forum )  reason became so hard etc. 

Btw i hope we will get info about new TFP's game on christmas (the best possible gift hah)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Roland said:

 

Linking to an article at Boardgame Geek scores you some definite points with me. However, that article on symmetry vs asymmetry is primarily from the perspective of boardgames that are directly competitive. Players start either on equal or unequal footing and have options that are the same or different (depending on how asymmetrical the design is) for the purpose of gaining more victory points faster or area domination or whatever the goals of the particular game may be and they are actively working against each other to do so.

 

In 7 Days to Die the asymmetry is not competitive between the trees. I'm not playing Intellect build against your strength build and seeing if I can be the first to reach level 50 or dominate more areas of the map or create the most efficient engine for gathering resources and crafting them into game winning prestige monuments. In this game the asymmetry is in running through the game in different ways for a different experience and different challenge. There is no one I'm competing against that makes it unfair for me to go slow with a bow vs fast with a machine gun.

 

If this game were primarily PvP with direct competition between players and TFP wanted a perception player to be able to be directly competitive with a strength player or an intellect player then I agree that they would have to do some serious rebalancing. But they're not making a PvP game in which they expect an Agility player to be able to go toe to toe and progress competitively with a player doing something else in a different way. Therefore, they can set up the different attributes to be wholly different and not equally viable in terms of efficiency and it is perfectly okay.

 

If playing pure intellect is impossible to do on Insane then lower the difficulty until it is possible. Simple as that. There is no need to "buff up" intellect so that it plays out exactly like strength but just a different skin.

 

On another note, I just picked up Maracaibo and am really excited to get it to the table and hope to be able to do so a few times next week!

What's the point in joking about that the site is about board games when the article discusses the game design concept that Jost Amman mentioned?

 

I told you what is common between PVE balance and PVP balance. You can read it here

So what if AI and other conditions of the world act instead of the enemy player?

 

Btw the intellect branch is the strongest branch today, so this is a bad example about intelligence. Intelligence allows you to reach endgame in first game week.

32 minutes ago, meilodasreh said:

😲

now I'm not even sure anymore we're talking about the same game.

 

I will go home and rethink my life.

Perhaps the explanation is that I do 3-4 trader quests a day while you hide in the bushes with your homemade bow

27 minutes ago, Jost Amman said:

I don't understand why you're suddenly talking about traders: did I mention traders in any way, shape or form? I forgot, this has been a long discussion... :confused2:

 

I mentioned the trader because he is the one who gives out hundreds of ammo and firearms for the first level quests, which negates the need for a bow for example.

 

32 minutes ago, Jost Amman said:

Yes, I agree on balancing the role playing part even more than it is.

Have you got any ideas on how to do it?

If the game did not have this broken trader rewards mechanic, the player would have the problem of accumulating ammo for the blood moon, and then, perhaps, bows and stealth would become the solution to this problem. Perhaps the developers would have been generous and would have presented an alternative solution of this problem. For example, you could become a courier between merchants to earn money and ammunition, or you could become an engineer and make bad ammunition from improvised means at the beginning of the game, and so on. These examples are conditional.

34 minutes ago, Jost Amman said:

I don't understand where the "imaginary" comes from... are you saying that stealth is completely broken?

In that case, I suggest you file a bug report detailing what isn't working and how the steps to replicate the problem. Tks.

The stealth is imaginary because with an conditional AK-47 on day 2 you clear out POIs and complete quests without having to avoid a direct collision.

23 minutes ago, dcsobral said:

Right, so we agree that the goal is food production while leveling up as slow as possible and avoid looting zombie-infested places.  Ok, now I have a frame of reference.

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)

  • Dislike 1
  • Prime Face Palm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Roland said:

In 7 Days to Die the asymmetry is not competitive between the trees.

The zombies just called for a meeting. They don't feel they are properly balanced against the player's skill trees. They are calling for teleportation and time travel, so they can go back and kill you as a child.

  • Like 5
  • Haha 4
  • Have a Cookie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Matt115 said:

Okay hm this will hard to explain in 7dtd but i will give cod 3 as example- USA army is more powerfull that Germany in MP mode. So let's say you will have 4 factions  of bandits in 7dtd-  and 1 of them is much better because give free ammo per day. So this would make almost everyone would choose this faction.  Diffrent situation- in some old games ( they usually don't get updates so this games are better example)  you could have for 90% easy game but 1 level was hard as hell because boss, level design etc. In 7dtd if for example they added random demolishion zombie after gamestage 45 most people will hate 7dtd because without ( most people don't use forum )  reason became so hard etc. 

Sorry, I don't play CoD-like games, so I can't really fully understand your comparison.

 

I can tell you this, however : most people who're worried about 7D2D balance have provided arguments that simply don't fit, because they're all coming from a "class system" point of view. 7D2D provides an attribute/skill system that could be considered a "soft" class system. By that I mean that, when you play SP, if you're specializing mainly in one tree you're probably playing it wrong IMO.

 

How many times I've seen people bashing the bow because they can't use it in every situation... so what? Get a gun and put a few points in it, and you're golden man! You could even use weapons, with good results, without putting ANY points in their attributes/perks.

 

In any case, when you play SP, you not only can, but SHOULD be more like a MacGyver guy and put at least three levels in several attributes other than your main one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, faatal said:

The zombies just called for a meeting. They don't feel they are properly balanced against the player's skill trees. They are calling for teleportation and time travel, so they can go back and kill you as a child.

Speaking on behalf of the zombies, I do acknowledge that they are unbalanced in against the player's skill trees. They need adding intelligence and numerical advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, faatal said:

The zombies just called for a meeting. They don't feel they are properly balanced against the player's skill trees. They are calling for teleportation and time travel, so they can go back and kill you as a child.


oh good, because I have Skynet on conference call. Patch them through. 

  • Prime Bless You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jost Amman said:

Get a gun and put a few points in it, and you're golden man! You could even use weapons, with good results, without putting ANY points in their attributes/perks.

 

In fact, investing in specialized weapon perks is also useless, in part because of the trader, again. Because by investing points in barter, you will get more damage due to the fact that you will acquire more advanced weapons and will not be tied to one type of weapon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, bachgaman said:
52 minutes ago, Roland said:

What's the point in joking about that the site is about board games when the article discusses the game design concept that Jost Amman mentioned?

 

I told you what is common between PVE balance and PVP balance. You can read it here


You misunderstand me. BGG is one of my favorite sites. I was glad of your reference— not joking. When I answered my screen had not refreshed and I was unaware of the other replies. I’ll need to go back and read them but I did read the article and it was most definitely talking about competitive game design. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, faatal said:

If the result you were looking for is an A on your report card. The result I look for in games is to have fun. Warrior is not fun to me, so why would I run around using anything on that setting. I actually prefer agility and stealth with some int, but I play with settings that make it fun for me.

 

Reasonable balance is a nice goal, but you can't please everyone.

I think fun is the ultimate goal of most players. The question is what is fun for you. I enjoy solving difficult problems, I'm sure someone likes to crush midgets being a giant, and someone likes to hang themselves on a chandelier by the balls

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bachgaman said:

In fact, investing in specialized weapon perks is also useless, in part because of the trader, again. Because by investing points in barter, you will get more damage due to the fact that you will acquire more advanced weapons and will not be tied to one type of weapon.

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?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, faatal said:

The zombies just called for a meeting. They don't feel they are properly balanced against the player's skill trees. They are calling for teleportation and time travel, so they can go back and kill you as a child.

Steve Connor. Darlene Connor. Moe Connor. Now it all makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Jost Amman said:

Sorry, I don't play CoD-like games, so I can't really fully understand your comparison.

 

I can tell you this, however : most people who're worried about 7D2D balance have provided arguments that simply don't fit, because they're all coming from a "class system" point of view. 7D2D provides an attribute/skill system that could be considered a "soft" class system. By that I mean that, when you play SP, if you're specializing mainly in one tree you're probably playing it wrong IMO.

 

How many times I've seen people bashing the bow because they can't use it in every situation... so what? Get a gun and put a few points in it, and you're golden man! You could even use weapons, with good results, without putting ANY points in their attributes/perks.

 

In any case, when you play SP, you not only can, but SHOULD be more like a MacGyver guy and put at least three levels in several attributes other than your main one.

Welll i usually put in "crafting connected perks," survival perks- mother loot top chef, quest etc. i Mean people are looking for Meta in almost every game- in skyrim they find how to upgrades weapons so much that everything is one hit kill, "pearl" Bordelands 1 weapons etc.  7dtd have something similiar- shotguns are usully op and doing quest. 

Well i know most things can't be changed (too late) but i hope guns will be rare 

  • Have a Cookie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 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?

Man, didn't I answer this here?

34 minutes ago, bachgaman said:

If the game did not have this broken trader rewards mechanic, the player would have the problem of accumulating ammo for the blood moon, and then, perhaps, bows and stealth would become the solution to this problem. Perhaps the developers would have been generous and would have presented an alternative solution of this problem. For example, you could become a courier between merchants to earn money and ammunition, or you could become an engineer and make bad ammunition from improvised means at the beginning of the game, and so on. These examples are conditional.

 

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?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...