New zombie forcefield

[Roland]

1 hour ago, blitzkrieg7498 said:

especially when one topic receives so much attention, and it is realistically a minor issue, and it 100% is minor.

 

Again you are extrapolating the attention given this issue by players on forums and stream chats to attention given by developers. Players talk about these things ad nauseum but very little development time is spent on it. In this case, players have been talking about it since A17 so it may seem that it has been a focus point for years. But it isn't so. The programmer spent very little time on the fix-- apparently just turning them into bars in all but appearance. You are correct that this issue is minor and was treated as minor for the devs and I can assure you there has been zero features cut due to these sorts of polishing fixes to block behavior. Now, they may decide to spend more time on arrow slits to get them to behave differently than plain bars but that will depend on whether it gets reported and whether they want to spend the time on it.

 

1 hour ago, blitzkrieg7498 said:

You're taking the "Game Master vs Players" mentality too hard, focusing too hard on a small group of players, and ruining the fun for more than just them.

 

There is no "Game Master vs Players" mentality going on here except in the minds that are cooking beneath tinfoil hats...

 

There are hundreds of ways to exploit and creatively circumvent the AI and to quickly acquire loot and speed run the whole game to oblivion and the devs will never touch those things as long as it doesn't involve what they consider to be a bug. They are content to let people play the game the way they want. I wouldn't say that three instances of direct and admitted intervention into players using the underground, using bodies of water, and using vehicles on horde night is going overboard in a vs players campaign.

 

TFP has shifted into a hybrid of optimizing, polishing, and adding the last few features they need to make the game complete and this hybrid of traditional Alpha and Beta activities will continue until they release the game. So polishing actions like fixing a block that zombies should be able to walk over but can't is not blocking them from adding new features like bandits. Those actions are all being done by different programmers who are tasked with those actions. TFP is not the tiny studio it once was when time spent polishing by the programmers was time they were not adding new features. Now they have programmers who they hired specifically to optimize and polish and other programmers are also working on the final features to be added.

 

1 hour ago, blitzkrieg7498 said:

like the Mercenaries franchise.

 

None of the games in that series were developed in an Early Access model. They were released as complete games and the first time players got to experience it was when all the polishing and editing and changes were accomplished. Somebody who starts playing 7 Days to Die once it is released in its final form will not feel ANY of the frustrations you are feeling. To them zombies will  be perceived to behave the way they are supposed to because that's their nature in this universe and these new players never knew differently. Only those who experienced the changes during development can compare previous versions to later versions and make their own judgements about which they liked best. We agreed to experience these changes. I think it is definitely helpful to express discontent with changes you don't like. What is not helpful is adding in an accusatory "They're out to get us!" slant to it. 

 

You see the change to arrow slits as an assault upon the players by the devs and implemented to punish them for playing in a way contrary to the developer's wishes.

At release, new players will just use arrow slits as they are with absolutely no negative feelings about how they can't stop zombies from pathing over them or not being able to repair traps through them.

 

Mercenaries had the benefit of all of their changes (that some might see as punitive if they had played through those changes) being made behind closed doors with just their internal play testers. 

44 minutes ago, RipClaw said:

Therefore, it is unknown if it is a bug or intentional.

 

It can be known. Report it. The QA team will either thank you for the report or inform you that it is working as intended.

 

12 minutes ago, POCKET951 said:

I'm not outraged and nor do I want to try and force people to abandon this strategy. The intent of this post was to simply inform everyone(TFP included) in a clear and quick manner(gift wrapped so to speak) so that the information was there and it would be easy to make a decision or evaluate it.

 

Yeah, I got that. I also get that those who want these strategies would be annoyed that it is being talked about and attention drawn to it if they are afraid that TFP might address it. I'm not sure that they will. Since steep slopes are not a problem any longer for zombie pathing and the road line blocks also do not bug zombie pathing they might not care that both used creatively in tandem create a "forcefield". They will evaluate it at some point (maybe) and decide what they want to do. But everyone should understand that even though this thread has stretched across three pages debating these types of exploits-- this is just player time that is being spent on this and not developer time. 

Edited March 3, 2022 by Roland (see edit history)

[JoeDaFrogman]

14 hours ago, Roland said:

 

haha..you know I can't point to an existing POI but who can say about the future. The point is that if zombies can't path over a block they are going to fix that block.

 

I hereby challenge the POI designers to incorporate Arrowslits into the design of some POI(s) such that they would be used as a floor and no other block or combination of blocks would be a replacement!   ;-D

 

So, to your point about pathing, now I am thinking of how arrow slits SHOULD be used in normal practice(forget about the magical repairing and connecting electrical devices through them).  ie, arrowslits perpendicular to the human body as a wall.    If the devs were thinking of bringing back something similar to the old A15(ish) spider zombie that climbed walls, well not only would that be cool as heck, but also would be a very positive and expected use case for "we must make these blocks pathable."

 

Speaking of non pathable blocks I know a few more, will all the non pathable blocks be changed?  More importantly, can such a change still allow for melee through them(not really asking you specifically Roland, but more in general).     

 

As well, there are a few blocks that are pathable that honestly I don't feel should be such as the .05 bars (or whatever they are called.)    I mean are these infected zombie acrobats?  I jest while being serious in wondering why(but not "demanding" a change).

 

  

14 hours ago, Roland said:

If you are looking for proof that the devs are fixing pathing issues rather than just trolling players-- I guess you'll just have to trust me.   

 

I do trust you, and I don't at the same time(since I don't trust anyone).   😁

 

 

There is another possible option to consider: move the arrow slits out into their own shape helper since they are kind of specialty blocks anyway and limit the rotation(and likely remove some of the shapes(mainly the full block variant)   This assumes my above use case of no climbing zombies will come true and would also.  

 

[blitzkrieg7498]

@POCKET951 you dislike what i said, but offer no discourse? do you concede my points are valid regardless of your approval?

 

roland has. ill read through that first

Edited March 3, 2022 by blitzkrieg7498
i see roland has adressed instead (see edit history)

[JoeDaFrogman]

2 hours ago, Roland said:

 

So what if they watch streamers? I've said elsewhere that discovery is the time intensive portion of fixing bugs and so if there are a couple of guys who are dedicating their time to finding blocks that have weird and unintended properties then of course they are going to use that resource. After all, getting the community to test things and report them is a lot of what Early Access is about.

 

Watching Jawoodle and noticing how blocks are not behaving as intended is different than watching Jawoodle and then scheming together how they can stop players from using cheesy strategies. Think about all the posts we ever read on the forum from people who are outraged about cheese tactics and want changes made to force players to abandon those tactics. Those posts all come from players and not the developers. There are only three instances that I can remember that the developers, themselves, went on record stating that they were going to stop things that players were doing:

 

1) Dig down two blocks and be safe forever

2) Tread water and be safe forever

3) Drive around on vehicles and be safe forever

 

That's it. And they owned up to their feelings and their motivation. Everything else that they get accused of for going to war against players is simply conjecture and speculation and it is misplaced.

One more you missed that I can agree with being "fixed" is dynamite for digging quests.    I know Prime pretty much admitted on stream that most of the fun pimps staff utilized dynamite on dig quests and well, they are players too so they nerfed themselves.

[blitzkrieg7498]

41 minutes ago, Roland said:

 

Again you are extrapolating the attention given this issue by players on forums and stream chats to attention given by developers. Players talk about these things ad nauseum but very little development time is spent on it. In this case, players have been talking about it since A17 so it may seem that it has been a focus point for years. But it isn't so. The programmer spent very little time on the fix-- apparently just turning them into bars in all but appearance. You are correct that this issue is minor and was treated as minor for the devs and I can assure you there has been zero features cut due to these sorts of polishing fixes to block behavior. Now, they may decide to spend more time on arrow slits to get them to behave differently than plain bars but that will depend on whether it gets reported and whether they want to spend the time on it.

 

 

There is no "Game Master vs Players" mentality going on here except in the minds that are cooking beneath tinfoil hats...

 

There are hundreds of ways to exploit and creatively circumvent the AI and to quickly acquire loot and speed run the whole game to oblivion and the devs will never touch those things as long as it doesn't involve what they consider to be a bug. They are content to let people play the game the way they want. I wouldn't say that three instances of direct and admitted intervention into players using the underground, using bodies of water, and using vehicles on horde night is going overboard in a vs players campaign.

 

TFP has shifted into a hybrid of optimizing, polishing, and adding the last few features they need to make the game complete and this hybrid of traditional Alpha and Beta activities will continue until they release the game. So polishing actions like fixing a block that zombies should be able to walk over but can't is not blocking them from adding new features like bandits. Those actions are all being done by different programmers who are tasked with those actions. TFP is not the tiny studio it once was when time spent polishing by the programmers was time they were not adding new features. Now they have programmers who they hired specifically to optimize and polish and other programmers are also working on the final features to be added.

 

 

None of the games in that series were developed in an Early Access model. They were released as complete games and the first time players got to experience it was when all the polishing and editing and changes were accomplished. Somebody who starts playing 7 Days to Die once it is released in its final form will not feel ANY of the frustrations you are feeling. To them zombies will  be perceived to behave the way they are supposed to because that's their nature in this universe and these new players never knew differently. Only those who experienced the changes during development can compare previous versions to later versions and make their own judgements about which they liked best. We agreed to experience these changes. I think it is definitely helpful to express discontent with changes you don't like. What is not helpful is adding in an accusatory "They're out to get us!" slant to it. 

 

You see the change to arrow slits as an assault upon the players by the devs and implemented to punish them for playing in a way contrary to the developer's wishes.

At release, new players will just use arrow slits as they are with absolutely no negative feelings about how they can't stop zombies from pathing over them or not being able to repair traps through them.

 

Mercenaries had the benefit of all of their changes (that some might see as punitive if they had played through those changes) being made behind closed doors with just their internal play testers. 

 

It can be known. Report it. The QA team will either thank you for the report or inform you that it is working as intended.

 

 

Yeah, I got that. I also get that those who want these strategies would be annoyed that it is being talked about and attention drawn to it if they are afraid that TFP might address it. I'm not sure that they will. Since steep slopes are not a problem any longer for zombie pathing and the road line blocks also do not bug zombie pathing they might not care that both used creatively in tandem create a "forcefield". They will evaluate it at some point (maybe) and decide what they want to do. But everyone should understand that even though this thread has stretched across three pages debating these types of exploits-- this is just player time that is being spent on this and not developer time. 

speed run the whole game? what story is there to complete?

 

i mentioned mercenaries offhandedly. i mentioned MATT COLVILLE for his work as a game creator and storyteller. you are just as capable of extrapolation.

 

and just because you dont feel the "GM vs players" mentality doesnt mean the players all feel that way.

[Roland]

1 hour ago, blitzkrieg7498 said:

speed run the whole game? what story is there to complete?

Speed run the progression and be at endgame status much faster than a natural playthrough would produce. Speed running a game doesn't require story cutscenes to skip 

 

1 hour ago, blitzkrieg7498 said:

i mentioned mercenaries offhandedly. i mentioned MATT COLVILLE for his work as a game creator and storyteller. you are just as capable of extrapolation.

 

I wasn't extrapolating. I was speaking to the example you provided. As for Matt Colville, I didn't read the link you provided but I will take a look. My point, which I believe is key to the argument is that we are playing the game concurrent to its development. The devs have a roadmap and they are going to make changes that some won't like. Taking the changes as a personal attack against your playstyle is ridiculous. Your FEELINGS are subject to the context in which you live. You feel like the devs gave you the middle finger because they made a change that affected how you like to play the game and decided that they they did it specifically because they were feeling adversarial and wanted you to stop doing what you were doing. There are other people who may pick up the game today and when they play with the current changes they will not have any of those FEELINGS because to them its just the way the game is. So can the truth be found by looking at feelings? No. The changes being made are purely to polish and tighten the game in the ways the developers want it to be done and not out of any hostility they feel towards the players and how they want to play the game.

 

1 hour ago, blitzkrieg7498 said:

and just because you dont feel the "GM vs players" mentality doesnt mean the players all feel that way.

 

But see? I'm not basing my knowledge off of my feelings. I'm basing it off my experience and in listening to the team in meetings and participating in discussions with them. Part of what I do is direct their attention to threads that I suspect they may not have seen. I've directed them to a number of these types of threads and passed on a number of exploits and every single time they didn't care how the players were using blocks to defend their bases-- unless it involved a bug. If a bug was involved then they cared about fixing the bug. These aren't my feelings I'm sharing. 

 

I understand that players may feel that the devs are out to get them and I also know that personal feelings seem to be the highest litmus test on what is good and true these days regardless of anything else. That's why I'm here dispensing what I know to be true based on my position in the company as a means of dispelling what some loudly proclaim that they believe to be true based on their feelings

[POCKET951]

2 hours ago, blitzkrieg7498 said:

@POCKET951 you dislike what i said, but offer no discourse? do you concede my points are valid regardless of your approval?

 

roland has. ill read through that first

Roland has dissected what you said better than I ever could.

I just disagree with this whole "TFP are wasting valuable dev time fixing bug X when they could be developing feature Y or rebalancing feature Z" type arguments/opinions because TFP have stated in multiple post in the forums that minor things like this don't require alot of dev time.

 

If for whatever reason it does it will get put on a back burner and solved later, as Laz said in this thread earlier,  Roadmarks being 'blocks' was a placeholder solution

 

so if TFP figure a better way to implement road markings in RWG than this problem will solve it self. if there is a simpler more elegant solution I am sure it wouldn't take to long  or alot of resources for TFP to fix either.

TLDR: I don't think your points are valid.

[Roland]

6 hours ago, blitzkrieg7498 said:

I would like to recommend Matt Colville, https://www.youtube.com/user/mcolville , who currently is a TTRPG Game Master and Freelance writer, but also worked on games like the Mercenaries franchise. He really helped me understand how to interact with the players. Obviously not all his videos will pertain to this game, but principles can be drawn and applied.

 

I watched the first two episodes and they are really good. I'm sure there will be more instruction about GM and player interactions but in the second episode it was interesting that he was talking about the setup aspect of running a D&D game and he made a map. He then said that often when running an adventure you discover something that doesn't make sense and you want to change it and sometimes  you might be able to make changes on the fly but other times you might have to wait until the next time you run that adventure and that's okay because you are always working towards becoming a better GM and creating a better adventure.

 

 

This is a screenshot where he shows that he reworked the map he made to have the trap be after the offering room because he decided it made no sense to have it before the room where people anciently would have made pilgrimages to go to that room. So he made a change. What if some player felt betrayed by that change and assumed Matt was just trying to kill them or ruin their stealthing before the room with the boss instead of the room with the underlings? Would their feelings make it so?

 

The designing of the game is where TFP is still at and just like Matt decided to change the location of his trap to make the adventure make more sense to him and hopefully his players but without any malice towards them, so is TFP making adjustments to their game during its setup phase. Thanks to the Early Access model we get to experience that process.

 

Now if there is a specific episode that speaks to the point you are trying to make in how TFP should be more like Matt in how they have the game interact with the players I would be glad to watch. They are very interesting.

[Roland]

Okay, now I watched the episode about railroading and can kind of see where you might be coming from. I agree that a GM that railroads his players into that one moment that he wants them to have and so confines their choices and their agency is a bad thing. But I also don't think this principle applies to the level we are currently at in the development of the game.

 

Right now, the developer's role is not game master players but it is to set up and create the adventure. In the video, Matt talks about how in The Lord of the Rings it could be interpreted that the Fellowship was railroaded into Moria because they were forced back from going over the mountains. He states that something like that could be railroading but it could also simply be that the Fellowship wasn't prepared and rolled really badly and that the GM didn't really do anything intentional to force them the way he wanted them to go.

 

The problem is that is not where we are. Where we are is that TFP is making the dice that will be used and every once in awhile a 20-sided dice slips into the hands of a player where instead of being numbered 1-20 the die has 16-20 repeated four times and obviously the player loves playing with that die. Once it is determined that an unfair die is being played with in the game, it is replaced with the standard die that goes from 1-20 and the player is disappointed about being punished.

 

We are still in the phase of determining the rules of the game and establishing what is going to be allowed and disallowed from a rules perspective. This is all way before looking at whether a GM is stifling player choice by insisting on his way or the highway.

 

For us who are playing while the rules are being written it can be jarring and there will be times when something ends up being more restrictive. But it isn't to punish. It is to hone in on what will make the game better in the opinion of the game creator. Every time there is a change that restricts we get posts from people who say that freedom is gone-- until they are proven wrong a short time later by others who innovate adapt and overcome. The game still has a lot of sandbox qualities to it but it also is a game with rules and those rules are being worked on while we play. There is nothing intentionally punitive about the changes any more than making sure everyone is using fair dice.

[blitzkrieg7498]

@Roland there wasnt a particular video i had in mind; ive watched only about half of his videos so i cant remember where i heard what, but basically "retaliatory behavior," JUSTIFIED or not, can have long lasting implications on the relationship between the player and creator, and any changes need to be transparent and/or talked about outside of session (in this case patch notes {i.e. no more sneaking in "all random gen workbenches and chem stations are broken," that leads to further distrust}). In the example used, Matt realized that the trap made NO GOD DAMN SENSE (as austin from game theory would say) because normal people would traffic through the area. People just coming for pilgrimage are ok; people sneaking into the back area are not. He made a change to keep verisimilitude in tact... unlike zombies going into "engineer mode." When people stop to go "wait why....." its not good in most instances. I do realize that Matt would be akin to dev and mod in a video game analogy. I also have GM'd a sandbox module and know exactly how "oh ill change this next time i run this campaign" works. Theres also another video of his going over that if one player receives a lot of attention, by default, you alienate others, and can make them feel less important than others. Whether thats true or not doesnt affect how the player feels. And sure theres players saying "whatever, doesnt bother/affect me," but thats no reason to dismiss how other players feel, were all a part of this.

 

On your die analogy, what about handing out dice that only roll nat 1s? As others have said, now the arrow slits dont even function as they should. So how do you justify "taking away a little fun for some" to "ruining a mechanic for all?" (and bro dont get me started on dice probabilty, ive witnessed Wil Wheaton not roll above a 10 for 6 hours and watched my buddy roll nat 20's like he had loaded dice). Hell, this past wednesday in the game I play in (not GM) my character rolled low on initiative (so i went last in turn order) and got stunned repeatedly until i was out of HP. I didnt claim the GM was out to get me, nor did i make a big stink that RNGsus was not on my side that day. The GM was doing what made sense, and acted accordingly. Now conversely, one of the people we were fighting had "unlimited ki" (im not going to bother explaining, just imagine infinite ap bullets vs 100 normal bullets), but the GM didnt nerf that even after a couple other of us who GM pointed out it was imbalanced. That was something that "should not have been allowed," but the GM here is new and learning still.

 

I have dabbled in programming so i know these fixes are no where near as immediate as they can be in D&D, and that one line of code can stop a whole method from executing correctly. Im not saying they need to be "fixed yesterday."

 

i still stand behind my statement of there really isnt a speedrun when theres no ending; no major objective other than survive and "git gud." I can concede the "reaching endgame status" as part of being endgame, but miss

 

TFP need to properly compensate Jawoodle for his time. Time is money and hes spent a lot of time breaking things for TFP to fix. You wouldnt dare put up a Network without paying hackers to stress test it first.

 

All this still just proves my first point that this is detracting from more important issues, whether it be the players or devs, or, as you said, its being talked about "ad naseum"

 

On a side note, im glad youre enjoying Matt's videos as well, and appreciate that you invested the time to watch just for discussion purposes.

[Boidster]

1 hour ago, blitzkrieg7498 said:

but basically "retaliatory behavior," JUSTIFIED or not, can have long lasting implications on the relationship between the player and creator, and any changes need to be transparent and/or talked about outside of session

 

Except, using the P&P RPG analogy, we are actually in the room when the GM is designing the adventure we're supposed to play next week. We are sending our party through the dungeon while the GM is still sketching it out on his graph paper. The feedback we give is useful, but everything right now is "outside of session" and it's about as transparent as it can be, since we get to see almost every iteration of the game adventure as it progresses to "ready to play" status.

[Roland]

3 hours ago, blitzkrieg7498 said:

no reason to dismiss how other players feel, were all a part of this.

 

I'm not discounting your feelings. I'm saying that just because you have a feeling that the devs are retaliating against player strategies doesn't make it true. Reporting your feelings of fun or frustration in reaction to what the game delivers for you is important and we want to hear about that. But you are chasing a mirage if you think your feelings are a good basis for the true motivations of other people.  Feelings are only a reality in your own heart and mind and have nothing to do with objective facts about reality external to your own point of view.

 

3 hours ago, blitzkrieg7498 said:

On your die analogy, what about handing out dice that only roll nat 1s? As others have said, now the arrow slits dont even function as they should.

 

This is all normal in development. Fixing one thing inadvertently breaks another. Unintended results creep into new code. As participants in early access we have to be willing to roll with things. The whole question on the table here is whether the devs are doing things to punish, railroad, and retaliate against players. Did they hand us a die that rolls all natural ones to spite us and punish us or was it an unintended side effect of fixing the die that was unfair in a different way. I'm not denying that dev decisions can have results that are frustrating to a lot of players. That is undeniable. I am trying to dispel the myth propagated by some individuals that the devs are purposely punishing the players and forcing them away from certain playstyles.

 

3 hours ago, blitzkrieg7498 said:

i still stand behind my statement of there really isnt a speedrun when theres no ending; no major objective other than survive and "git gud." I can concede the "reaching endgame status" as part of being endgame, but miss

 

You are standing behind your own definition which you have a right to do. The reality is that people are playing the game in unnatural ways in order to level up as quickly as possible and get rich in Dukes as quickly as possible in order to have all the endgame gear and skills as fast as possible. If you don't want to call that "speed running" then lets call it something else but it amounts to the same thing.

 

3 hours ago, blitzkrieg7498 said:

All this still just proves my first point that this is detracting from more important issues, whether it be the players or devs, or, as you said, its being talked about "ad naseum"

 

Yes, but so what if the players are distracted? How does our attention matter in the development of the game? Forum chatter doesn't negatively or positively affect the workflow of the developers. 

 

3 hours ago, blitzkrieg7498 said:

On a side note, im glad youre enjoying Matt's videos as well, and appreciate that you invested the time to watch just for discussion purposes

 

It's a very cool series. I plan to watch more episodes this weekend. I am not really in a season of life that lends itself to the whole P&P roleplaying time commitment right now but I plan to get into it once I retire. My first grandchild is going to be born in October and I was thinking that in about 10-15 years running some adventures for my grankids would be a fun way to spend time with them

[Boidster]

2 hours ago, Roland said:

I am not really in a season of life that lends itself to the whole P&P roleplaying time commitment right now but I plan to get into it once I retire.

 

*knucks* All my D&D friends moved away or were sent to prison* and I haven't touched the dice bag in many years. My books are 3E I think. One of the old crew is my 7D2D (and all other games) co-op partner tho. He still uses his D&D character name in any game he plays.

 

*Not even kidding.

[meganoth]

Many think that after 3E it went downhill anyway, especially 4. I can recommend pathfinder (a successor to 3E from a different company) if you ever want to switch to a "newer" system.

 

[JoeDaFrogman]

9 hours ago, meganoth said:

Many think that after 3E it went downhill anyway, especially 4. I can recommend pathfinder (a successor to 3E from a different company) if you ever want to switch to a "newer" system.

 

I loved 4E.   I would still be playing it if WotC had left their digital tools available, I loved it that much.    To me, it was the perfect system based on how I want to experience a fantasy role playing game.

 

 

[PoppaSmirk]

8 hours ago, meganoth said:

Many think that after 3E it went downhill anyway, especially 4. I can recommend pathfinder (a successor to 3E from a different company) if you ever want to switch to a "newer" system.

 

*eyes darting to the left and right, checking if anyone is directly watching*...errm...I still get together with a group of D&D players once a month,  and 1 of them is actually a player from My Dads younger days.,  so playing a bit of a homebrew version of D&D 5th, with some adjustments made to harken back to 3.5 (since the Ranger class in 5th edition is total orc feces, among other things),  with every gameplay break filled with talk of 3-4 games that We play online,  of course I often bring up 7D2D.

 

ahem,  on the issue of the "forcefield',  I don't really go in for a lot of the special gimmicks,  although I enjoy seeing them designed and tested.   I will say that I have kept a "garage" location, usually within 3-4 "squares/Poi locations" in distance from My Main Base location and that is used for storing all of the vehicles that My group of players have for the days between hordenights.  So that garage is empty for six days but We button up our vehicles there on hordenight and dash the short distance to our Base and prep for the battle.   So I have used some tricks to keep that garage secure.  I am considering using a forcefield around My next garage,  since My group is finally getting to the point of being able to have a motorcycle, and a form of SUV (using Bdubs great vehicle mod).  Coming up on Day 84 so possibly after this coming Hordenight I may very well try setting up a garage with a forcefield.  But from personal choice between Myself and My usual group of survivors, we prefer sticking to using spike traps , barbed wire, and LOT of gunfire to get through a horde night --- with the aid of some explosives, some dart traps, and several blade trap arches.

[Boidster]

*Adjusts onion* Well in my day we had THAC0, see...

[8_Hussars]

*ADnD best DnD*