Current state of class system

[ShellHead]

The issue with giving stats universal bonuses is it strips out most of the play style association with those stats, which removes a lot of the unique characteristics and just makes them numbers that go up.

And honestly this isn’t really an actual limitation, you can get top level crafting for both spears and ARs by level 21 if you leave the core stats at 7 and rush the weapon perks. The design is intended for players to make hybrid builds anyway, the only way someone is penalized for it is that they hit max a bit slower than if they’d gone with 1 stat but it more than makes up for it with far wider access to other perks. Ultimately I don’t really see the benefits to this over the fairly substantial downsides other than making mix and match slightly easier.

[Aldranon]

Just spit-balling...

 

Skill Trees: 

-Making all skills into numerous "Tech Trees" (Stone axe - Iron axe) with some tech trees dependent on others. 

-Some knowledge (experience) can be found unless the "Reverse Engineering tech tree" is explored.     

-Anything complex made from steel has to be scavenged (modern weapons, firearms, cars).  They can be repaired and improved, however (with a skill tree).

 

Attributes: 

-Players start with a random number of points for each attribute (can manually be selected on lower difficulty levels). 

-Each attribute can only be improved by extensive use only.

-Each attribute adds some type of bonus to the player and makes some tech trees easier to progress or can even allow high level tech trees to be unlocked.

 

Experience:

-Experience is applied to various skill trees from different sources.

-Can be gained by not dying.  A small amount of experience can be gained each day, added to Survival skill trees.

-"Learn by Killing" should be limited to skill trees that involve killing.

-Exploring new places (clearing a POI) and finding new items should stimulate the mind so can be applied to knowledge skill trees.  

 

OK that's all for now, my coffee has arrived!!

 

Edit: After drinking my coffee I spotted some spelling errors. 

Edit2: The "Class" system is BS as is the current system.  This allows for a far greater game experience and is a more accurate reflection of reality.

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Aldranon
spelling (see edit history)

[NukemDed]

i must not have explained myself correctly.

i didnt mean perking in doesnt matter or make a difference. i meant why choose to not use a weapon just because it is not a an uber god slayer. 

 

current game i am on i am using a lvl 1 pistol when char is lvl 25ish.

 

it still drops them fine is all im saying.

 

of course ill probably up a weapon speciality later on, or a few. or none.

 

or that could be the point in this play thru. mabe the base defenses have to stand on their own....

 

i have discovered that a steel axe fs them up real good with maxed miner 69er when looting.

thats 0% ammo expenditure. in fact its an ammo profit situation 🙂

 

there you go. minimumed that out the park lol

[Liesel Weppen]

7 hours ago, meganoth said:

Strange, I get a headshot damage of 270% for hunting rifle and 200% for an AK, both fairly freaking.

I'd be happy if people try to understand what i'm trying to tell instead of nitpicking on some random numbers.

 

And overall: You get 270% headshot damage for hunting rifle and 200% headsthot damage for an AK from ONE AND THE SAME skill? No? So you missed my point completely.

 

 

7 hours ago, meganoth said:

You must have some strange LBD version of the game 😁

Nope, but i don't start the game or go through the xmls every time i write a meaningless number in a post here. For being not completely wrong, i look the skills up from an online skill calculator, which may use little outdated values...

8 hours ago, ShellHead said:

which removes a lot of the unique characteristics

What you call "characteristics", i call anoying predefined limitations.

 

I do MAKE the characteristics of a character by deciding where i spend the skillpoints. The characteristics should not be predefinied by someone else on how he thinks the game should be played.

[Boidster]

12 hours ago, Aldranon said:

-Can be gained by not dying.  A small amount of experience can be gained each day, added to Survival skill trees.

 

I would like to play the game where this is the only way to gain experience. Where survival is the only goal. How you choose to survive - kill or avoid the Zs - is up to you. Probably the zombie loot drop would need to be tweaked upwards a bit to make fighting Zs more attractive. But is your inventory full from POI looting? Well, there's exactly zero reason to engage that mini-horde over there so best to avoid them. Just like in a Real Life™ zombie apocalypse.

Edited May 18, 2021 by Boidster (see edit history)

[Aldranon]

1 minute ago, Boidster said:

 

I would like to play the game where this is the only way to gain experience. Where survival is the only goal. How you choose to survive - kill or avoid the Zs - is up to you. Probably the zombie loot drop would need to be tweaked upwards a bit to make fighting Zs more attractive. But is your inventory full from POI looting? Well, there's exactly zero reason to engage that mini-horde over there so best to avoid them. Just like in a Real Life™ zombie apocalypse.

 

I would be fine with that.

"Experience" in a survival situation is just training up muscle memory and learning what to do, and not to do.  That all takes time.

With that you become confident in your abilities and in a subsequent crisis situation, your body is not being flooded with cortisol anymore, no longer causing your hands to shake and missing your target.

 

So three weeks into an apocalyptical situation would see you more alert, more accurate. more quite, more wise.

Or you died.

[Roland]

I made a mod for this where you gain skill points after a 24 hour timer during which you survived. If you died then the timer reset. However, I did not update it for A19 and it lies broken by changes made to A19 code. I'm just not enough of a masochistic modder to be interested in fixing the mod with each alpha release. I'm happy to just wait for the 1.0 and then update it-- unless someone wants to take it over. I'm down with that too.

 

It does really change the feel of the game. though, when nothing earns any xp and you can do anything you want and you still progress as long as you don't die. Running away or fighting is equally valid and there definitely is no incentive to hunt and feast by farming zombie hordes.

Edited May 18, 2021 by Roland (see edit history)

[Aldranon]

8 minutes ago, Roland said:

I made a mod for this where you gain skill points after a 24 hour timer during which you survived. If you died then the timer reset. However, I did not update it for A19 and it lies broken by changes made to A19 code. I'm just not masochistic modder material who is interested in fixing the mod with each alpha release. Best to just wait for the 1.0 and then update it-- unless someone wants to take it over. I'm down with that too.

 

It wouldn't be me.  My mod would delete your save files on death!  

(Yes, I know you would make a backup somewhere, so it would search your entire system for saved files.)

THEN, you would play the best game you've ever done!  🤠

[meganoth]

9 hours ago, Liesel Weppen said:

I'd be happy if people try to understand what i'm trying to tell instead of nitpicking on some random numbers.

 

It automatically distracts from the issue. Without correct facts how can we make correct conclusions from the facts? Whether you get 170% more headshot damage for one weapon or only 35% is a hell of a difference.

 

Quote

 

And overall: You get 270% headshot damage for hunting rifle and 200% headsthot damage for an AK from ONE AND THE SAME skill? No? So you missed my point completely.

 

Seems I did. I was distracted by some issue 😁. Seriously, I don't get the point. Why is it important that it is ONE AND THE SAME skill?

 

Quote

 

 

Nope, but i don't start the game or go through the xmls every time i write a meaningless number in a post here. For being not completely wrong, i look the skills up from an online skill calculator, which may use little outdated values...

What you call "characteristics", i call anoying predefined limitations.

 

I do MAKE the characteristics of a character by deciding where i spend the skillpoints. The characteristics should not be predefinied by someone else on how he thinks the game should be played.

 

Hundreds of RPG systems starting by the grandfather D&D have violated your rule and used class systems, and they are still popular.

It is a lot easier balancing skills/perks correctly in a class system than in a free choose-your-own-perks system. There are advantages and disadvantages for both.

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by meganoth (see edit history)

[ShellHead]

9 hours ago, Liesel Weppen said:

What you call "characteristics", i call anoying predefined limitations.

 

I do MAKE the characteristics of a character by deciding where i spend the skillpoints. The characteristics should not be predefinied by someone else on how he thinks the game should be played.

Yes, you do. But I’m referring to the characteristics of the trees themselves and the playstyles they represent. Those choices make it easy to pick a completely different way of play than other players in multiplayer or than your usual in singleplayer, which helps keep things fresher over time than one massive omni-tree or an LBD system.

 

Also, you still have the freedom to build how you like regardless, the current system is not stopping you.

it’s literally intended for players to get Every Skill by level cap, you’re just determining what order. And since the point costs only ratchet up with the later stat ranks, you can get whatever build you want fairly quickly without being meaningfully subjected to “predefined limitations”.

[theFlu]

32 minutes ago, meganoth said:

Why is it important that it is ONE AND THE SAME skill?

I might not be Liesel, but... partly because they are. There's an attribute called Perception, and another called Agility. They're the same skill, except one applies to long barrels and long handles, while the other applies to short barrels and short handles.. it's not exactly the most intuitive design around those names.

 

I understand the process that lead us here, but the end result is still like pineapple on a pizza.

[Aldranon]

I find it interesting that some people who criticize "Learn by Doing".

Have merely replaced it into: "Learn by killing".

Of course, Killing is Doing I guess.

Just throwing it out there...

[meganoth]

33 minutes ago, theFlu said:

I might not be Liesel, but... partly because they are. There's an attribute called Perception, and another called Agility. They're the same skill, except one applies to long barrels and long handles, while the other applies to short barrels and short handles.. it's not exactly the most intuitive design around those names.

 

I understand the process that lead us here, but the end result is still like pineapple on a pizza.

 

I myself twice suggested to TFP to change the names of the attributes to class names to no avail. So I agree on the names giving the wrong impression to newcomers. But we veterans should not be hoodwinked by names. And stealed against anything that sounds unrealistic, because gameplay trumps realism. 

 

So perception generally is the class where you have great perception and know how to handle a sniper rifle. You can shoot a sniper rifle better (which leads to more effective headshots with that gun). But in this game this does not transfer to being better with pistols, doing great headshots (instead of merely pedestrain headshots) with pistols needs you to be agil, not perceptive.

 

No idea how that works in detail but I'm fine with it. I know RPGs where you can't even use a warhammer if you haven't learned the right skill or are the right class. Skills and perks are an approximation of abilities a character has. My real life personas rifle skill can't be adequately represented by a simple number.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by meganoth (see edit history)

[ShellHead]

33 minutes ago, Aldranon said:

I find it interesting that some people who criticize "Learn by Doing".

Have merely replaced it into: "Learn by killing".

Of course, Killing is Doing I guess.

Just throwing it out there...

The issue i have with LBD is it provides no flexibility for players who have difficulty with certain mechanics.

“Learn by Killing” or in reality “Universal XP” allows for exp gained from one activity to subsidize other activities that the player may not prefer/has difficulty with or are harder to progress effectively in. If someone isn’t good at combat but is good at building and gathering, in a LBD system they’d be out of luck and would have to grind out combat skills, in a UX system they could use the exp from building and gathering to boost their combat abilities so their lack of skill doesn’t make fighting an unfun high-risk burden.

[uncle.heavy]

Edit: TL;DR never mind; forum was acting up for me. When I started this there was not even a page 2, and I am not THAT slow a writer

No point to it any more.

 

Quote

Probably not during cleaning a poi, but very relevant during bloodmoon... which as i heard is a central aspect of the game?

 

I have heard people mention that.

But pursuing ever more massive fire rates is not the only protective action people take.

Some even delve into architecture to counter certain aspects of the game.

And is it not a good thing when people feel they should be able to pump out ever more? 

As in, there is still room to improve in overall game proficiency before one is ready to turn all controls up to eleven.

 

Quote

My suggestion doesn't skill every weapon "equally". 

 

Now, this is dependent on perspective, and this is mine:

it does skill every weapon equally. It may even make very little sense at all for some of them but every weapon is assigned the same profit, though they will respond with non-equal dps gains.

 

As the respective impact is broadened, so an overall gain to damage output would have to be expected because mostly any weapon found is instantly of more use to anyone.

I will have to expressly withdraw my assumption of maximum damage output for everyone at any time, though. Wow, was I ever off base!

I did not take into account the weapon-specific perk remaining with the "original" attribute.

Also, the cost of chasing attributes.

After all you are still tied to base attributes for weapon-specific skills, so no gain for Team Free Will or your skill point wallet in that respect.

And, you are still tied to base attributes for the generic bonuses. Say, I want that faster reload on my hunting rifle because I am a beast with that thing and do not care about any other weapon?

Oh, no, you cannot have that: perception - which you need for the weapon-specific skill - gives headshot bonus. Faster reload had been out-sourced to Fortitude. Faster aiming? Agility, second floor. You will have to multiclass heavily just to become somewhat proficient with one single weapon. 

Right in there lies where I do not see the overall improvement; abolishing limits of choice - not everyone's, mind you; there seem to be several others out there chosing their weaponry based on whether I feel like using them and sometimes quality level - to introduce a different kind of choice limitation and giving it a different name.

 

Then again, to me, your approach feels much more organic because for example I always failed to see the perception requirements a spear asks for which a bow does not - and the other way around for agility.

Edited May 18, 2021 by uncle.heavy
Forum hates me (see edit history)

[Roland]

1 hour ago, theFlu said:

I understand the process that lead us here, but the end result is still like pineapple on a pizza

 

I wouldn't go so far as to call the current system divine but if you want to, I'll not disagree.

[theFlu]

3 minutes ago, Roland said:

 

I wouldn't go so far as to call the current system divine but if you want to, I'll not disagree.

Go right ahead, others will disagree and I'll just stare at the fight in disbelief ... meta-comments  

[Liesel Weppen]

14 hours ago, meganoth said:

Seems I did. I was distracted by some issue 😁. Seriously, I don't get the point. Why is it important that it is ONE AND THE SAME skill?

I'd say you try to distract from what i'm talking about by nitpicking on slightly wrong numbers.

 

I want the same skill to buff ONE aspect but for ALL weapons, because... like theFlu already explained.

Better perception gives you better headshots with ALL weapons.

Higher strength gives higher melee damage no matter you us a club or a spear.

...

 

I remeber a discussion some months ago, iirc with roland also taking part into, where some claimed "there are no classes in 7d2d" where i said "well, they are not called classes, but base attributes, but in practice the effect of these things are exactly what classes are suppsed to be".

 

Even if i consider it being classes, the design of these classes is bad. They are not a whole thing and not a half. They have wrong names for what they are. They are centered about base attributes, probably because thats where they come from historically? But they are limited to specific weapon types...

Either assemble real plausible classes like "Hunter" or "Fighter" or "Medic"... that might have benefits restricted to SOME weapons, maybe a hunter for rifles (also AK) but not short weapons. A Fighter maybe buffs for melee but almost non for ranged at all. And so on. Almost every larger mod does THIS, and they do it better than the vanilla game.

 

Or make it really base attributes, but then also treat it as attributes, but not "classes".

 

14 hours ago, meganoth said:

Hundreds of RPG systems starting by the grandfather D&D have violated your rule and used class systems, and they are still popular.

Correct me, but if your "argument" is: "But others did it also wrong", this is called whataboutism, right?

 

I also did never put up a "rule", nor i said it should be universal for all games. As i said, for me it looks like you are actively trying to distract from my arguements by bringing in topics that are either completely irrelevant or thing i never said.

 

But to pick  up other games: What i have in mind is diablo. They have classes and base attributes. The class defines what skills you skill tree contains with that limits buffs to weapons that suit your class. Archer has no skills that buffs swords, knights don't have skills that buff bows, however, both can us both. The base skills on the other hand give generic buffs, independent of your class. Strength increases weapon damage, no matter you are using a bow or a sword. Even if you are an archer with points put into strength, also a sword becomes stronger. Dexterity (in 7d2d that would probably be agility?) makes both faster, still independent of class.

It still doesn't fixate how to play. If you pick knight as a class, it's still on you if you spend your points into strength for building an offensive damage dealer using a double-handed broadsword dealing slow but massive damage, or if you put your points into dexterity and build a sneaky fast attacking guerillia fighter using a shield and just a dagger.

 

No the next argument to come: But in 7d2d you are not fixed to one class, like in diablo... yes, you are not, but in comparision to diablo you have tied the classes and the base attributes together!!!!!111elf

[meganoth]

3 hours ago, Liesel Weppen said:

I'd say you try to distract from what i'm talking about by nitpicking on slightly wrong numbers.

 

If numbers are irrelevant to you, don't post them. At least two users here think if you post numbers they should be at least somewhat correct. You should realize that you are nitpicking about this correction now as much as I do about the numbers. Just accept the correction and go on.

 

Quote

 

I want the same skill to buff ONE aspect but for ALL weapons, because... like theFlu already explained.

Better perception gives you better headshots with ALL weapons.

Higher strength gives higher melee damage no matter you us a club or a spear.

...

 

You want attributes to be really attributes. Which they are not, they were once in A17, but now there is NOTHING "attributy" about them at all except for the name. Strength doesn not increase your strength in the least, fortitude does not increase your health the least bit, agility does not a jota to your agility, intelligence doesn't make you more intelligent. Only perception could be realistically argued as being an actual attribute that is improving your headshot damage.

 

If we want to be generous we could say that intelligence is actually increasing your intelligence behind the scenes because it enables you to learn the perks, but that's a rather farfetched argument.

 

And that is my argument. Attributes are not attributes, they are classes, pure and simple.

 

 

Quote

 

I remeber a discussion some months ago, iirc with roland also taking part into, where some claimed "there are no classes in 7d2d" where i said "well, they are not called classes, but base attributes, but in practice the effect of these things are exactly what classes are suppsed to be".

 

Exactly. In this we agree.

 

Quote

 

Even if i consider it being classes, the design of these classes is bad. They are not a whole thing and not a half. They have wrong names for what they are. They are centered about base attributes, probably because thats where they come from historically? But they are limited to specific weapon types...

 

For me this reads as "their names are wrong and their names are wrong" although you start with "Even if I consider it being classes".

 

And sure they are limited to specific weapon types, class systems often do this. Really consider them as classes, ignore the names and ping, there is nothing strange about them.

 

Sure, madmole made an effort to put perks in classes so they often look fitting to the attribute, but nobody would ever notice that if the classes were not named after attributes.

 

Quote

Either assemble real plausible classes like "Hunter" or "Fighter" or "Medic"... that might have benefits restricted to SOME weapons, maybe a hunter for rifles (also AK) but not short weapons. A Fighter maybe buffs for melee but almost non for ranged at all. And so on. Almost every larger mod does THIS, and they do it better than the vanilla game.

 

I agree that the class system in 7D2D is far from realistic and even a lot of RPG class systems do this better, but still far from realistic. For example a one handed hammer is almost always clearly separated from a two-handed hammer in most such systems, except for bonuses from attributes. BUT, 7d2D has NO attributes at all.

 

A17 had a class system with for example melee clustered in one class and it wasn't well liked. If you wanted to do melee in mid or late game you had to invest into that class. I don't think that system should be adopted again.

 

I don't know whether mods do it better, the only mod I played in A19 was Darkness Falls and there you can train with the club until you are the god of clubs but that helps you not one bit for the sledgehammer, so there is no melee buff for every melee weapon. But DF correctly dropped any mention of attributes, even outside the DF classes there are none. What mods are you talking about and how do they do it?

 

 

Quote

Or make it really base attributes, but then also treat it as attributes, but not "classes".

 

Correct me, but if your "argument" is: "But others did it also wrong", this is called whataboutism, right?

 

😀 If a class system is generally not acceptable to you, well, then we found the source of your problem (before you object: I talked about hundreds of systems and you practically said they all are doing it wrong. Not so serious reply to your not so serious reply) . I like class systems in any pen&paper or computer game when I want to play it more than once (or where I play a group).

 

 

Quote

 

I also did never put up a "rule", nor i said it should be universal for all games. As i said, for me it looks like you are actively trying to distract from my arguements by bringing in topics that are either completely irrelevant or thing i never said.

 

But to pick  up other games: What i have in mind is diablo. They have classes and base attributes. The class defines what skills you skill tree contains with that limits buffs to weapons that suit your class. Archer has no skills that buffs swords, knights don't have skills that buff bows, however, both can us both. The base skills on the other hand give generic buffs, independent of your class. Strength increases weapon damage, no matter you are using a bow or a sword. Even if you are an archer with points put into strength, also a sword becomes stronger. Dexterity (in 7d2d that would probably be agility?) makes both faster, still independent of class.

It still doesn't fixate how to play. If you pick knight as a class, it's still on you if you spend your points into strength for building an offensive damage dealer using a double-handed broadsword dealing slow but massive damage, or if you put your points into dexterity and build a sneaky fast attacking guerillia fighter using a shield and just a dagger.

 

No the next argument to come: But in 7d2d you are not fixed to one class, like in diablo... yes, you are not, but in comparision to diablo you have tied the classes and the base attributes together!!!!!111elf

 

7D2D is exactly like diablo only there are no attributes.

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by meganoth (see edit history)

[Liesel Weppen]

1 hour ago, meganoth said:

😀 If a class system is generally not acceptable to you, well, then we found the source of your problem.

A class system is not inacceptable for me. And in this whole thread i was all the time talking about classes. So you could have noticed that i already understood that they are not considered to be attributes. But as i explained, the current state is messup between somehow classes and somehow attributes.

 

And i already answered to your concern, you even quoted it:

5 hours ago, Liesel Weppen said:

Even if i consider it being classes, the design of these classes is bad.

 

 

Quote

7D2D is exactly like diablo only there are no attributes.

Yeah, and a motorcycle is exactly the same as a car, exept it only has 2 wheels. 🙄

 

You can't level up classes in Diablo, what you are leveling up are the attributes. The class is choosen once and then fixed. In 7d2d you level up the "classes"...

In Diablo WHAT perks you can choose depends on your class. IF you can "activate"/level them however depends on the state of your attributes (even multible attributes like "Requires 30str and 40dex").

As i said, in 7d2d this is somehow combined together/mixed up, and that is the problem. No matter if you call it "classes" or "attributes", WHAT they effect is half classes half attributes. It's neither a real class nor are they just attributes.

I can understand how it developed over time, but from the current state you can clearly see that perviously they have been just attributes. Now they are somehow considered to be classes, but this transition was only done half way.

 

I'm fine with classes, but then either make classes or make no classes. And the current "classes" are @%$#. They are mostly arbitrary grouping of perks, completely besides the absolutely wrong naming if you want it to be considered as classes. How'd you describe the purpose of the class "strength"? How does this class differ from "fortitude"? And what reasons are the differnces?

How does master chef fit into "strength"? To bring in another term: What are the "roles" of these classes or lets call it "job" of the class?

 

For most perks i agree a relation to their "class" can be seen. Putting "Animal Tracker" to "Perception" makes sense. But if it placed there because tracking animals requires perception... we are back to perception being an attribute! Oh, but the hunter can still not cook well? Sounds somehow strange.

The penetrator however absolutely does not fit there, it just is there, because this strange "perception class" has the sniper rifle.

For real classes i'd expect even completely separating melee and ranged fight. But this system here does the opposite. All "classes" can do melee and ranged, but only with specific weapons... WTF...

 

You know from language what attributes are and what are nouns? Classes are supposed to be nouns, while attributes are... well... attributes? No, im still not refering on how it is named in the game, but the reason what perks are grouped refers to being, they require a specific ATTRIBUTE!

Other way round: Replace the current names of the "classes" with nouns. How would you name them? Do still all the perks fit into that class according to its name? If you can't find suitable names or perks don't fit there anymore, it is not really a class.

Edit: "noun" is the wrong word here. "Thing" would be better. A thing is a thing. An attribute is an attribute of a thing. Not my native language but i hope you can get what i mean.

 

And no, i do not request it being like i just said, that are just suggestions on how it would be (much) better. Basically the current arrangement of "classes" (or whatever you call them) is the worst possible case except pure random distribution. I can absolutley not comprehend why it is like this... except there is some mixup of the understanding of classes and attributes and depending on what you are trying to explain, you either refer to an "attribute" or a "class".

 

And also just to make clear: I'm just argueing for my personal view. I absolutely know i can't deceide anything. And if it stays like this it will still not stop me from playing the game. But that is ... i'd even say: what annoys me most from the current version.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Liesel Weppen (see edit history)

[meganoth]

2 hours ago, Liesel Weppen said:

A class system is not inacceptable for me. And in this whole thread i was all the time talking about classes. So you could have noticed that i already understood that they are not considered to be attributes. But as i explained, the current state is messup between somehow classes and somehow attributes.

 

And i already answered to your concern, you even quoted it:

 

 

Yeah, and a motorcycle is exactly the same as a car, exept it only has 2 wheels. 🙄

 

Let me rephrase: "7D2D' skill system is exactly like diablo only there are no attributes. "

The equivalent would be "And a motorcycles wheels are exactly the same as a car". Which isn't true, but they can be compared without making a face
 

Sure, even in the case of 7D2D and Diablo, "exactly" is an overstatement. You pinpoint the difference quite well:

 

Quote

 

You can't level up classes in Diablo, what you are leveling up are the attributes. The class is choosen once and then fixed. In 7d2d you level up the "classes"...

In Diablo WHAT perks you can choose depends on your class. IF you can "activate"/level them however depends on the state of your attributes (even multible attributes like "Requires 30str and 40dex").

As i said, in 7d2d this is somehow combined together/mixed up, and that is the problem. No matter if you call it "classes" or "attributes", WHAT they effect is half classes half attributes. It's neither a real class nor are they just attributes.

I can understand how it developed over time, but from the current state you can clearly see that perviously they have been just attributes. Now they are somehow considered to be classes, but this transition was only done half way.

 

One job of a skill system is to time or gate the progress of the player. In diablo the attributes take on that job. In 7D2D, in absence of attributes something else has to take over that job: the class. Similar to 7D2D in Pathfinder and AD&D the class does this job as well even though there are still attributes, just to point out that that is a common and successful way to do it and is NOT perceived as a fundamental problem or a generally faulty solution.

 

Quote

 

I'm fine with classes, but then either make classes or make no classes. And the current "classes" are @%$#. They are mostly arbitrary grouping of perks, completely besides the absolutely wrong naming if you want it to be considered as classes. How'd you describe the purpose of the class "strength"? How does this class differ from "fortitude"? And what reasons are the differnces?

How does master chef fit into "strength"? To bring in another term: What are the "roles" of these classes or lets call it "job" of the class?

 

The strength class I would call "The Miner". Yes, it has perks that are not really associated with a miner, but essentially this could be seen as the "Miner" class. Possibly TFP could even go further and make this a specific person, i.e. "Miner Bob" who just happens to be good at cooking. This is a method a lot of the newer fun-shooters like Overwatch employ to make a fixed character with fixed abilities.

 

Fortitude would be "the Brute" or "The Heavy", perception "The Sniper", agility "The Assassin", intelligence "The Tinkerer". Sure, 3 of them are called after their weapon use, 2 after their civil profession, if that is important to someone he may have to look for different archetypes.

 

Quote

 

For most perks i agree a relation to their "class" can be seen. Putting "Animal Tracker" to "Perception" makes sense. But if it placed there because tracking animals requires perception... we are back to perception being an attribute! Oh, but the hunter can still not cook well? Sounds somehow strange.

The penetrator however absolutely does not fit there, it just is there, because this strange "perception class" has the sniper rifle.

For real classes i'd expect even completely separating melee and ranged fight. But this system here does the opposite. All "classes" can do melee and ranged, but only with specific weapons... WTF...

 

I would rather say Animal tracker is the outlier in the sniper class. 😉

 

Quote

 

You know from language what attributes are and what are nouns? Classes are supposed to be nouns, while attributes are... well... attributes? No, im still not refering on how it is named in the game, but the reason what perks are grouped refers to being, they require a specific ATTRIBUTE!

Other way round: Replace the current names of the "classes" with nouns. How would you name them? Do still all the perks fit into that class according to its name? If you can't find suitable names or perks don't fit there anymore, it is not really a class.

 

And no, i do not request it being like i just said, that are just suggestions on how it would be (much) better. Basically the current arrangement of "classes" (or whatever you call them) is the worst possible case except pure random distribution. I can absolutley not comprehend why it is like this... except there is some mixup of the understanding of classes and attributes and depending on what you are trying to explain, you either refer to an "attribute" or a "class".

 

And also just to make clear: I'm just argueing for my personal view. I absolutely know i can't deceide anything. And if it stays like this it will still not stop me from playing the game. But that is ... i'd even say: what annoys me most from the current version.

 

What you suggest would probably be a lot better in terms of believability and realism. Why does animal tracker not fit the sniper class? Because realism. Yes, without doubt.

 

Would it be better to play? THAT is the more important question and the answer to that is rather open. Whenever you constrain your choices to better suit reality you as a designer also constrain you choices for game play. It might work, or realism and gameplay might clash.

 

7D2D is quite shamelessly optimized for gameplay (as TFP sees the optimum, any players mileage may vary), and realism or believability is merely an afterthought. Madmole (I assume) designed 5 classes that are supposed to deliver variability and fun for at least 5 playthroughs through suggesting class builds and because of class permeability a few more. And for me it works, in A15 and A16 I always played the same character, now I cycle through the classes. And not to forget, in co-op it works as well as it is usual that everyone picks a different class and takes over different jobs.

 

If the class system went your way I would fall back to a mode where I just take my prefered melee weapon and my prefered gun. Sure I still would have fun with other variable elements of the game (lets not assume the skill system is everything) but I have my suspicion that replayability would be hurt in the long run.

 

 

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by meganoth (see edit history)

[Liesel Weppen]

3 hours ago, meganoth said:

Would it be better to play? THAT is the more important question and the answer to that is rather open.

Yes, massively better because i don't like predefined classes that force me into exactly 5 different playstiles. (to anticipate your answer, yes i know you can crossover classes, but the more you crossover, the more skill points need to be wasted in things you don't use)

The class tells me what weapon to use. The class tells me which ranged and melee weapon has to be combined, the class tells me what are my miscellaneous skills.

 

If i want to use a shotgun, i choose strength. With strength im forced to clubs for melee. I can cook and mine. But i want to use a shotgun and blades and i'm not interested in mining, i want to build.

 

Quote

If the class system went your way I would fall back to a mode where I just take my prefered melee weapon and my prefered gun. Sure I still would have fun with other variable elements of the game (lets not assume the skill system is everything) but I have my suspicion that replayability would be hurt in the long run.

You got the point: YOU. For me it is a massive disadvantage, because NO ONE of these 5 classes fits my playstyle. I want to choose myself what i can do and what is dispensable for me. Without being disadvantaged by combining two things that don't inflict each other but are divided to different classes, because someone else decided so. Skillpoints are limited, i can also not simply take everything, i still need to choose.

It's your personal problem if you play always the same way if nobody forces you to different playstyles. That contradicts an open game, where you are free on what to do and how to do it.

If you need to be forced to try different things, THAT is the special requirement. That should be answered with mods, but not the games default.

 

The massive difference is: With an open system YOU CAN still try different things, it's not the games fault if YOU don't have the neccessary willpower. But with the current restricted system I CAN NOT play, like i want to. And THAT is the game's fault.

 

Oh, and in multiplayer we divide also. But not because of this classes. We would divide the perks among players anyway. There is no need 3 players skill for cooking or farming. But it's the same restriction. The player that wants to be a farmer has to use automatic weapons, no matter he likes to use them or not. Or the other way round, that player that wants to use automatics, has to do the farming, if he likes it or not. Imho in multiplayer it's even worse.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Liesel Weppen (see edit history)

[Liesel Weppen]

3 hours ago, meganoth said:

I would rather say Animal tracker is the outlier in the sniper class. 😉

That's what i meant by try to name the classes and then see what not fits anymore. And no matter what name you choose, some of the skills do not fit anymore. And that's imho not about realism, it's about pure logic. A game doesn't need to be realistic, but i expect some logic in the mechanics. And the current logic can only be explained by the biasing between attributes and classes.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Liesel Weppen (see edit history)

[meganoth]

4 hours ago, Liesel Weppen said:

Yes, massively better because i don't like predefined classes that force me into exactly 5 different playstiles. (to anticipate your answer, yes i know you can crossover classes, but the more you crossover, the more skill points need to be wasted in things you don't use)

The class tells me what weapon to use. The class tells me which ranged and melee weapon has to be combined, the class tells me what are my miscellaneous skills.

 

If i want to use a shotgun, i choose strength. With strength im forced to clubs for melee. I can cook and mine. But i want to use a shotgun and blades and i'm not interested in mining, i want to build.

 

You got the point: YOU. For me it is a massive disadvantage, because NO ONE of these 5 classes fits my playstyle. I want to choose myself what i can do and what is dispensable for me. Without being disadvantaged by combining two things that don't inflict each other but are divided to different classes, because someone else decided so. Skillpoints are limited, i can also not simply take everything, i still need to choose.

It's your personal problem if you play always the same way if nobody forces you to different playstyles. That contradicts an open game, where you are free on what to do and how to do it.

If you need to be forced to try different things, THAT is the special requirement. That should be answered with mods, but not the games default.

 

Sure I am talking about me as you are talking about you. Lots of other players are a bit like me or you, and I suspect a lot more players are rather imperfect like me.

 

I don't think unrestricted modes are typical for base games. Usually the base game is more limited to guide new players while advanced modes or mods remove limitations that might unbalance the game. If there are restrictions in advanced modes it is only for additional challenge and not as guidance or for balance.

 

Quote

 

The massive difference is: With an open system YOU CAN still try different things, it's not the games fault if YOU don't have the neccessary willpower. But with the current restricted system I CAN NOT play, like i want to. And THAT is the game's fault.

 

There is no "can't" in this system. Did you ever calculate the perk costs? To crossover between two classes and to be able to learn any perks to 4 takes exactly as many points as learning one class up to perk level 5. And you don't want to tell me that the difference between say clubs learned to 4 or to 5 is so fundamental that playing with 4 is impossibly harder, especially when you can select the best perks of both classes as compensation. The only exception might be the turret perk where the difference between 4 and 5 is quite large.

 

Quote

 

Oh, and in multiplayer we divide also. But not because of this classes. We would divide the perks among players anyway. There is no need 3 players skill for cooking or farming. But it's the same restriction. The player that wants to be a farmer has to use automatic weapons, no matter he likes to use them or not. Or the other way round, that player that wants to use automatics, has to do the farming, if he likes it or not. Imho in multiplayer it's even worse.

 

You got a point there, in co-op the task usually get divided anyway. But in my own experience playing with 3 other players, each one of them is like me and tends to gravitate to always use the same weapons and do the same tasks. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by meganoth (see edit history)

[ShellHead]

Because these aren’t Classes, they’re Archetypes.

Archetypes are less defined and more malleable than Classes, as they represent larger concepts, so the perks within them are going to be associated with different ideas of what those archetypes do. For example Strength could be interpreted as the miner (strong back), the berserker (unrestrained strength), or the tank (strength of resolve).

This approach is well-suited for a system that is focused on balancing mix and match with more defined playstyles, a Strength player mixing in Fortitude looks quite different than one mixing in Agility.

Additionally these archetypes are designed so that they function in every aspect of the game: gathering, crafting, surviving, fighting, building. Some are better in some regards than others and so they take a “if all you have is a hammer” approach, Perception is going to mostly rely on looting and hunting to survive, whereas Fortitude is going to focus on farming and reducing their needs, so complete mix and match would just incentivize hyper-specialization to the point of neglecting the other aspects of the game.

 

so yeah, Archetypes are bad at being Classes because they’re busy being Archetypes.