I once loved this game...

[AtomicUs5000]

12 minutes ago, Roland said:

Some people feel the same way about the moon landing....[snip]

I mostly agree, but all of that does not make the statement true.  Essentially the AI will always be exploitable if TFP gives up.

[Roland]

5 minutes ago, AtomicUs5000 said:

I mostly agree, but all of that does not make the statement true.  Essentially the AI will always be exploitable if TFP gives up.

If they don't give up then we will have a highly restrictive game and whole subsets of the population will be disappointed that their strategies have been eliminated which THEY never felt were exploits in the first place. We have had dozens of threads over the years attempting to list the current exploits in the game and all of them dissolve into debates about which are or are not exploits and one group or another gets angry because others are trying to dictate how they play.

 

LBD discussions got so heated precisely because those opposed to it argued that it was too exploitive and made balancing the game too difficult while those who liked LBD would vehemently deny such claims. Can we get an "Amen!" on no more debates about hugging cacti?

 

TFP has made segments of the community angry whenever they have closed exploits THEY deemed important enough to pursue. We still get grumbles about people who lost their hatch elevator even though it was based upon a property of the game that universally everyone would agree counted as a glitch. I'm not saying its wrong to tighten up the game but there has to be a balance and I disagree that ALL perceived exploits should be removed and TFP should never stop in that quest.

[AtomicUs5000]

9 minutes ago, Roland said:

I'm not saying its wrong to tighten up the game but there has to be a balance and I disagree that ALL perceived exploits should be removed and TFP should never stop in that quest.

I agree here as well. As I tried to illustrate, there is a difference between exploiting and manipulating AI. The people who argue those other perceived exploits do not know the difference. It doesn't help when nobody is corrected. Instead of explaining that difference, that horrible statement is used instead. The AI should be vulnerable to manipulation. As a game player, it is your task to defeat it.

[Maharin]

In every tower defense game I've ever played, the best long term strategy was to learn how each and every bad guy worked and build your defense strategy accordingly.  With that in mind, exploiting the AI is a matter guilt not guile.

[Aldranon]

As I like ever more stacks of ammo that I will never use (Its pleasing to the Pack-Rat side of me), I will try not to "waste" my ammo on "hoard" nights.  🙂

 

If the game remains as just a simple sandbox shooter, then so be it.  But it could be more.

[eXSe]

Whatever the poor Pimps do to the AI, players will always, if they want so, find a way to cheese it. It's just human nature

 

[RestInPieces]

On 12/6/2020 at 2:09 AM, eXSe said:

Whatever the poor Pimps do to the AI, players will always, if they want so, find a way to cheese it. It's just human nature

 

Yeah, companies like CDPR get this and never bothered with the AI in the first place!

 

[babspsol]

I don't think it is a good idea to remove the mechanic that Z's attack the weakest entry point and make them spread their damage across every block in your base.  I'd rather they didn't make this game any easier. They have already killed a large part of survival in the base game by introducing traders which are ridicolously OP'd. Thankfully I can remove them when generating a world though would have liked to keep trader Jen for the RP and not sell me stuff.

 

If you are not happy with having to repair 1 block during horde night then don't use a door. That doesnt automatically make your base a cheese base. If you have to actively defend and repair your base and neglecting to do so means certain death then you are not using a cheese base but in any case why would you care if people are cheesing, you are basically asking TFP to make the game easier in your OP.

[Maharin]

3 hours ago, babspsol said:

They have already killed a large part of survival in the base game by introducing traders which are ridicolously OP'd. Thankfully I can remove them when generating a world though would have liked to keep trader Jen for the RP and not sell me stuff.

 

Traders will change significantly once they adhere more to the loot availability based on game stages.  Also, considering they will be applying a way to modify GS loot based on specific POIs and biomes they could also have that impact trader's inventory and buying habits.  Maybe drinks cost more from a trader in a desert and bullets cost more from a trader in the wasteland.  Maybe one trader is more willing to buy a certain kind of loot (and in higher quantities) than other traders.  That sort of thing should be possible, or at least I'm hopeful.

[Astronomical]

14 hours ago, babspsol said:

Thankfully I can remove them when generating a world though would have liked to keep trader Jen for the RP and not sell me stuff.

 

I don't know.. with that deep voice she used to have? Does pre op and post apoc cancel each other out? 🤔🙂

[Scyris]

I pretty much can't play vanilla 7dtd anymore as its to be frank just to boring now with the current loot setup in a19. A20 will help though I am not liking the idea of gamestaged trader inventories. Finding a nice gun or something in there in a19 was the only way I could stand a19. Though I will have to try it when a20 hits experimental and see how it is, as we've not really seen it in action at all yet just heard it discussed, but.. I'm not going to hold my breath, as TFP has made a ton of very questionable design decisions since a17 imo.

 

Removal of LBD, the dungeon style poi's which at first I thought were cool, but soon after they started to grate on my nerves because they just don't mesh with the world properly, like who would setup their house like that with only 1 real path, that looks more like a way to trap themselves than anything to me. Newest questionable things was the loot in a19 (However this sounds like it'll get much better in a20) and the dumbing down of the equipment system in A20. Sorry but there is no reason the outfits could not exist and we could also keep the current gear system (they could use the armor slots), its a simple dumbing down of the game period no matter how you look at it, or what you try to say to give it an excuse for being dumbed down. Then we have the stat system, which seems to serve no real purpose other than to screw solo players. The stat system could be forgivien more if the stats did anything of value other than just headshot mult for its weapons.

 

So far in a19 I wait for the next update to become stable not to play it, but to play my favorite mod in its updated form, as its actually fun compared to vanilla these days. The mod is Darkness Falls if your curious, just a fair warning, do not go into it on insane on a first playthru, you WILL get your butt handed to you.

[Psychodabble]

On 12/4/2020 at 8:41 AM, AtomicUs5000 said:

I agree here as well. As I tried to illustrate, there is a difference between exploiting and manipulating AI. The people who argue those other perceived exploits do not know the difference. It doesn't help when nobody is corrected. Instead of explaining that difference, that horrible statement is used instead. The AI should be vulnerable to manipulation. As a game player, it is your task to defeat it.

 

There is a clear difference between the verb "to exploit", as in to take advantage of, and the noun "software exploit", as in improper use of a design flaw or oversight.

 

That distinction, however, does not exist on these discussion forums for whatever reason. People use them interchangeably and it renders these conversations completely circular and utterly pointless. I gave up trying to correct people long ago as I suspect many of them are being willfully obtuse about it. Unfortunately, that is the prime reason for the cop out argument that Roland made, which while technically correct, is horrible design philosophy.

[Roland]

3 hours ago, Psychodabble said:

 

There is a clear difference between the verb "to exploit", as in to take advantage of, and the noun "software exploit", as in improper use of a design flaw or oversight.

 

That distinction, however, does not exist on these discussion forums for whatever reason. People use them interchangeably and it renders these conversations completely circular and utterly pointless. I gave up trying to correct people long ago as I suspect many of them are being willfully obtuse about it. Unfortunately, that is the prime reason for the cop out argument that Roland made, which while technically correct, is horrible design philosophy.

 

Interesting. You say others fail to understand the distinction but then you do the same thing with my statement. Obviously, I was saying that the devs will work to close and end "software exploits" but that they will not try to stop every strategy that people use to gain an advantage over the zombies. 

 

Stopping people from improperly using flaws (such as the hatch elevator) but allowing them to use legit strategies (such as kill corridors) that ultimately give them an advantage over their enemies is horrible design philosophy? I don't think so.

 

The real problem is that some legitimate strategies work really well and people start using them to the exclusion of anything else and become bored and refer to them as "exploits" that should be nerfed all so they can be challenged again. The devs may or may not agree with that. But if they decide to "cop out" and retain some of those strategies in the game that are not software exploits but are simply effective methods of playing, I submit that it is good design philosophy because it gives more choices to players who haven't self-limited themselves by only doing those things they perceive as the most efficient and effective.

 

Regardless, any time the devs remove an advantage whether it is a legit strategy or a software exploit, there will be people who get upset at the change because they liked using it. That was my point. Therefore, the devs should only focus on actual software exploits that they deem important and not try and nerf every gameplay strategy advantage that players find. Now we may not all agree about whether a particular activity is the type of thing the devs should limit or not. That is their perogative. 

[Maharin]

PSA:  There are no exploits in a real apocalypse.

[AtomicUs5000]

4 hours ago, Roland said:

The real problem is that some legitimate strategies work really well and people start using them to the exclusion of anything else and become bored and refer to them as "exploits" that should be nerfed all so they can be challenged again. The devs may or may not agree with that. But if they decide to "cop out" and retain some of those strategies in the game that are not software exploits but are simply effective methods of playing, I submit that it is good design philosophy because it gives more choices to players who haven't self-limited themselves by only doing those things they perceive as the most efficient and effective.

False, due to even worse choice of wording.

The problem comes when you develop a game and insert large game-changing features without considering the impact they will have on your existing large game features. The cop out is trying to play the card that players should have freedom when the reality is that either nobody bothered to think about it, or they simply failed to foresee the potential issues of just throwing features into the game.
For example... tower defense during a blood moon horde. Great idea in a voxel world. A game in itself. Then you add fast and strong vehicles and let a couple years go by without addressing the obvious issue and allow your players to accept using your new feature as a "legitimate strategy" to bypass the existing major game feature, until you later realize something should be done about it.
 
It is a legitimate action to jump into a vehicle and drive around. The problem here is that it is not a strategy. The effort required in the game to accomplish these results with a vehicle is minimal. Such an action cannot be deemed a "legitimate strategy" and therefore doesn't even fit into any logic someone could attempt to use to argue its existence, even using the player freedom card. Some people can complain all they want, but TFP agrees... it had to be changed some way.
 
The same goes for swimming safely in a lake all night during the horde. It was not a strategy and therefore has no place in the game. Some people can complain all they want, but TFP agrees... it had to be changed some way.

Here's some more with a current issue in the game.
People love those ramps where zombies just fall off at the end and loop around and repeat endlessly. Sorry, it might be a legitimate action to build it, but it's not a legitimate strategy and it has no place in a game. The AI shouldn't even be taking that path to begin with if they cannot reach you.
A strategy that falls into the scope of the gameplay and adds to the freedom of choice of using it, would be if you had a ramp that actually pathed to you, but along the path you have a junk sledge (or other pushing traps that do not exist for some reason), that push the zombies off the ramp so that they can take more damage from other traps or by shooting them while they are on their way back to the ramp path.

[Roland]

7 hours ago, AtomicUs5000 said:

False, due to even worse choice of wording.

  Say what? What part of what you quoted was worded badly and why do you think it was poorly worded?

 

7 hours ago, AtomicUs5000 said:

The problem comes when you develop a game and insert large game-changing features without considering the impact they will have on your existing large game features.

The game isn't done yet. What you say might be true if what we have now is intended as the final version and the recent changes don't work well with it. But it's not the final version. It is an interem version and you have no idea what the final version will be to be able to make a statement like that. I know that 7 years is a long time but, yes, the game is still in development and there are future additions still to come that will make recent changes make sense.

7 hours ago, AtomicUs5000 said:

The cop out is trying to play the card that players should have freedom when the reality is that either nobody bothered to think about it, or they simply failed to foresee the potential issues of just throwing features into the game.

Talking about player freedom is not a card I am playing to excuse anything. There is nothing needing to be excused. You have, for some reason, momentarily forgotten that this game is still in flux and there are future developments that will make recent changes make more sense. Aside from the issue of your speculations into the design process of TFP, there exists a design conversation regarding the balance between player freedom that allows for playing in different ways and rigid rulesets that define boundaries and limit that player freedom. The developers have to weigh what they want to limit against what will be fun. They will favor rigid rules when the exploit is a "software exploit" and favor freedom when the exploit is just an advantage through strategy.  I was just talking about design but I guess you thought I was trying to defend something.

7 hours ago, AtomicUs5000 said:

For example... tower defense during a blood moon horde. Great idea in a voxel world. A game in itself. Then you add fast and strong vehicles and let a couple years go by without addressing the obvious issue and allow your players to accept using your new feature as a "legitimate strategy" to bypass the existing major game feature, until you later realize something should be done about it.

 No. That is not what happened. I'm sorry. Again you are acting like each iteration was what they intended as a final version but then "oops, that doesn't work we have to patch that somehow...". If this game had no early access and all the development was behind closed doors you would never have played tower defense without vehicles, and then with vehicles, and now with vehicles that are rendered useless. It is exactly the method that features are added and then during beta those things are polished and balanced and melded. Those who play the final version will find that the vehicles and horde night are balanced mechanics and they won't know the iterations the game went through. What? You think other games you pick up and play as finished games achieved their final state simply from good planning without any back and forth balancing? Sorry to break it to you but they went through the same growing pains this game has but you were never there to witness it. By the way, Madmole did say multiple times for months and maybe even years before the change happened that driving around all night without risk on bloodmoon was not an intended game feature and would be dealt with. Seems like they did have some inkling about the obvious issue but had other priorities before they could get around to balancing vehicles and horde night closer to the way they intend it to be (not done yet).

 

7 hours ago, AtomicUs5000 said:

It is a legitimate action to jump into a vehicle and drive around. The problem here is that it is not a strategy. The effort required in the game to accomplish these results with a vehicle is minimal. Such an action cannot be deemed a "legitimate strategy" and therefore doesn't even fit into any logic someone could attempt to use to argue its existence, even using the player freedom card. Some people can complain all they want, but TFP agrees... it had to be changed some way.
 
The same goes for swimming safely in a lake all night during the horde. It was not a strategy and therefore has no place in the game. Some people can complain all they want, but TFP agrees... it had to be changed some way.

And as I just said, neither of these activities were considered intended allowable actions by the developers. In my poorly worded statement I specifically said that exploits that cause the player to play the game in unintended ways must be closed by the developers. Treading water safely all night and driving safely all night were not activities the developers intended players to be able to do. They warned us the change would be coming for a long time and then they made the change. So I agree that these were not legitimate strategies and that is why they were removed from the game. Kill corridors ARE considered by the developers to be legitimate strategies and so they will be staying regardless of some people's opinions that kill corridors are cheesy.

 

7 hours ago, AtomicUs5000 said:

People love those ramps where zombies just fall off at the end and loop around and repeat endlessly. Sorry, it might be a legitimate action to build it, but it's not a legitimate strategy and it has no place in a game. The AI shouldn't even be taking that path to begin with if they cannot reach you.

The developers will have to decide whether zombies should be able to path across those or whether they should fall off. If they decide the zombies should be able to path across them then they will do so and it will end that method of defending. So far, the developers have been aggressive in closing endless loop behavior in zombies when they can fix it. They have fixed a lot of it and they will continue to work on fixing those issues because endless zombie looping is not something they intend the zombies to do. It has nothing to do with trying to one-up players or stop their fun. Some players will take it that way and that is why developers do need to be careful in how far they go. When the issue is something like zombies not behaving properly (such as consistently falling off a block that players can traverse) then they will try to fix it just as they did with the steep ramp blocks. Their intention was that zombies can damage blocks and walk up the same types of ramps we can. So faatal made the change so that they could walk up those ramps and successfully attack and break those blocks.

 

7 hours ago, AtomicUs5000 said:

A strategy that falls into the scope of the gameplay and adds to the freedom of choice of using it, would be if you had a ramp that actually pathed to you, but along the path you have a junk sledge (or other pushing traps that do not exist for some reason), that push the zombies off the ramp so that they can take more damage from other traps or by shooting them while they are on their way back to the ramp path.

I agree. As long as every feature is working as the devs intend it to then there is no problem. But keep in mind that this is not the final version. More changes are coming and may require balancing. If those changes are too upsetting then the best thing is to simply wait until the game is done. At that day, you can teach your great-grandkids how to play.

[Aldranon]

The simple reason many people "exploit" during BM nights is: There currently is no reason to kill the hordes of zombies.

 

Now, if there was a reason...

-The zombies you kill, reduces the power of darkness (JC Channel uses better terminology and lore) which causes some good things to occur.

-Killing a full hordes worth of BM zombies will keep (Zombie Game Stage) at manageable levels.  Otherwise you will be seeing the green zombies very soon!

Just another reason to separate Loot GS and Zombie GS.

[meganoth]

42 minutes ago, Aldranon said:

The simple reason many people "exploit" during BM nights is: There currently is no reason to kill the hordes of zombies.

 

Now, if there was a reason...

-The zombies you kill, reduces the power of darkness (JC Channel uses better terminology and lore) which causes some good things to occur.

-Killing a full hordes worth of BM zombies will keep (Zombie Game Stage) at manageable levels.  Otherwise you will be seeing the green zombies very soon!

Just another reason to separate Loot GS and Zombie GS.

At the moment players with a wide range of good and bad players can play a single vanilla game for hundreds of hours. If you add a negative feedback loop that makes the game harder if you fail to kill enough zombies you

 

1) will make the game too hard too fast for noobs and still have veterans complain about it being too easy. Such a negative feedback loop only works well in carefully balanced tightly scripted scenario games like strategy games.

 

2) additionally remove strategies that slow down or keep the zombies occupied instead of killing them as fast as possible. This is actually a defendable design choice the devs could make. It is just my opinion that it would make the game poorer for it.

 

[Aldranon]

4 hours ago, meganoth said:

At the moment players with a wide range of good and bad players can play a single vanilla game for hundreds of hours. If you add a negative feedback loop that makes the game harder if you fail to kill enough zombies you

 

1) will make the game too hard too fast for noobs and still have veterans complain about it being too easy. Such a negative feedback loop only works well in carefully balanced tightly scripted scenario games like strategy games.

 

2) additionally remove strategies that slow down or keep the zombies occupied instead of killing them as fast as possible. This is actually a defendable design choice the devs could make. It is just my opinion that it would make the game poorer for it.

 

MP games should probably be geared for the weakest player.

However for SP, players could make the game amazing with purpose and reason for fighting the hordes of darkness. 

[Roland]

4 hours ago, Aldranon said:

Just another reason to separate Loot GS and Zombie GS.

Wait...what was the first reason?!?

[Aldranon]

10 minutes ago, Roland said:

Wait...what was the first reason?!?

I'm SHOCKED you (and everyone else in the world) don't hover over every word I type (for spellchecking mostly).

 

 

Under "The Game should Be more hardcore"  I wrote:

 

Well, a person cant argue very convincingly against success. 

That 7D2D is up so high on the charts proves that its not a bad game for many people.  At the very least.

 

So the only valid question is what, if anything, can be improved?  If in fact, it IS an improvement.

 

Problem? #1

Currently, after game options are set, the games level of difficulty for each individual player usually stays the same throughout the game.  Getting key weapons and skills changes the games difficulty somewhat.  As does the introduction of stronger opponents.

 

Possible improvements:

-Being able to have a curve to the current flat-ish difficulty arc as the game progresses.  One possible solution would be to disconnect Game-Stage from the quality of loot. 

[AtomicUs5000]

On 12/19/2020 at 2:24 AM, Roland said:

  Say what? What part of what you quoted was worded badly and why do you think it was poorly worded?

Addressing these things as legitimate strategies... you should have known what I meant because you pointed it out later in your reply.
Tell me then, Roland, since I have presented already three issues where players complain and/or have complained. What exactly are these so-called legitimate strategies players are using that some might call exploiting the AI? Note that these player actions should be "legitimate strategies" and that these exploits should be truly "exploits" and not manipulations within the scope of the intended gameplay.

Previously you also mentioned the hatch elevator. You state that people complain it is gone. I might have seen a post or two in the forums, but since when does someone's voice in here hold that much weight? We've been told countless times it does not, as we do not in any way represent the majority of players. I do see the hatch elevator as an exploit because it steps out the scope of the intended gameplay as defined by the developers of the game. Obviously TFP agrees, and it had to be changed some way.
 
You stated that no matter what, the AI will always be exploitable. I'm saying this statement is pure garbage. I would at least like to know exactly what evidence there is within the history and future plans of this game that anybody could use to draw this conclusion. What I've been saying goes against it, and now what even you've been saying goes against it. You are even saying that what the devs say and do goes against it. So where does this come from and why is it even said? Is it just something to say because you want to avoid using the player freedom card? Is the player freedom card used to avoid using the game isn't done yet card? Isn't it so much easier to simply say that the game isn't done yet? That's the only real fact here after all.

[Noctoras]

On 12/18/2020 at 3:31 PM, Scyris said:

I pretty much can't play vanilla 7dtd anymore as its to be frank just to boring now with the current loot setup in a19. A20 will help though I am not liking the idea of gamestaged trader inventories. Finding a nice gun or something in there in a19 was the only way I could stand a19. Though I will have to try it when a20 hits experimental and see how it is, as we've not really seen it in action at all yet just heard it discussed, but.. I'm not going to hold my breath, as TFP has made a ton of very questionable design decisions since a17 imo.

 

This is true, but TFP have shown that they can backpaddle, if things go really awry. I agree that a lot of game design decisions starting from A17 have been questionable and I think a lot could have been avoided by taking the community aboard. That said, some is rectified later (hard level gating). And maybe they also will deviate from one-way-to-lootroom-POIs. It would definitely be worthwhile. 

 

As for exploits, TFP are targeting the worst exploits and a sandbox environment has tons of options for cheesing, which linear games don't have. Granted, the dungeon POIs you mentioned are a bad example, since they are calling for cheesing, but other than that, most designs tried to reduce cheesy exploits. 

[faatal]

On 12/19/2020 at 11:23 AM, Aldranon said:

MP games should probably be geared for the weakest player.

However for SP, players could make the game amazing with purpose and reason for fighting the hordes of darkness. 

The best reason for fighting anything is not dying. Granted our death penalty is not that bad, but maybe someday.

[Roland]

14 hours ago, faatal said:

Granted our death penalty is not that bad, but maybe someday.

ooh.....baby!

On 12/20/2020 at 12:48 PM, AtomicUs5000 said:

Note that these player actions should be "legitimate strategies" and that these exploits should be truly "exploits" and not manipulations within the scope of the intended gameplay.

That is the problem. Depending on the person you ask you will get different answers. When TFP decides they've covered all the exploits they are going to cover there will be people who will be outraged that they didn't go farther. <shrug> How can I speak for others on what they believe to be a legit strategy rather than an actual exploit. There have been threads devoted to such debates in the past. All I am saying is that TFP is not going to make everyone happy in regards to "exploits". Some will believe they went too far and ruined their favored gameplay and others will believe they didn't go far enough because the game is too easily cheesed.