It's all gone wrong, terribly wrong.

[Rotor]

1 hour ago, meganoth said:

 

 

Is this just a random "because realism" comment or is the horde night too difficult for you at the moment?

 

 

 

I do think I have a suspension of the whole realism thing.  But this one bit of flesh bugs me.

 

I guess for you super duper testers, go ape fecalmatter with your characters bare hands and find out how long it takes to go through each block difficulty.  Then pick each zombie and have them do the same.

 

If the numbers are about even or even just a hair over a player, I will just keep zombie block damage at 25% regular and 50% on horde nights.

 

Just don't take that option away from me.

 

My perception is that it is much higher.

[meganoth]

6 minutes ago, Rotor said:

 

 

I do think I have a suspension of the whole realism thing.  But this one bit of flesh bugs me.

 

I guess for you super duper testers, go ape fecalmatter with your characters bare hands and find out how long it takes to go through each block difficulty.  Then pick each zombie and have them do the same.

 

There is nothing realistic about zombie block damage. As well as many player abilities. So comparing both is as useless as comparing Marvels Iron Man to Thor and asking who is more powerful or who would win? DUH, the answer is whomever the script writer wants to win.

 

 

 

 

[Rotor]

7 minutes ago, meganoth said:

 

There is nothing realistic about zombie block damage. As well as many player abilities. So comparing both is as useless as comparing Marvels Iron Man to Thor and asking who is more powerful or who would win? DUH, the answer is whomever the script writer wants to win.

 

 

 

 

 

Well duh, never said it was.

 

I will voice against any "add more" suggestions :).  

 

Just don't hard code the final solution.

[meganoth]

28 minutes ago, Rotor said:

 

Well duh, never said it was.

 

Sorry, that paragraph about superduper testers was above my english grokking abilities. 

 

28 minutes ago, Rotor said:

 

I will voice against any "add more" suggestions :).  

 

So you are against "add more options" ?

 

28 minutes ago, Rotor said:

 

Just don't hard code the final solution.

 

I'm not an employee of TFP, if that was directed at me.

 

[Matt115]

1 hour ago, meganoth said:

 

There is nothing realistic about zombie block damage. As well as many player abilities. So comparing both is as useless as comparing Marvels Iron Man to Thor and asking who is more powerful or who would win? DUH, the answer is whomever the script writer wants to win.

 

 

 

 

 a little bit  joke offtop but... nope. Marvel Vs. Capcom Infinite have both Iron man and Thor - and who is going to win depends on player skill and balance. So no script writers here 🤪 But now hm.... well i think special "wall breaker" zombie would be good option during blood moon - no dmg into player? more chance of respawn of this type of zombie 

[Rotor]

15 hours ago, meganoth said:

 

Sorry, that paragraph about superduper testers was above my english grokking abilities. 

 

 

So you are against "add more options" ?

 

 

I'm not an employee of TFP, if that was directed at me.

 

 

It was humor attempt about those that like to do comparison in game, like when one guy made a  video about efficient mining, or noise and heat map correlations.  I consider them "super duper testers" that have more time and energy than moi.

 

I am not against more options, I am an against more zombie block damage.

 

Third was a general statement that if more zombie block damage is added, don't hard code it, so it can bet modded out.  Not that you would be doing it.

[meganoth]

1 hour ago, Rotor said:

 

It was humor attempt about those that like to do comparison in game, like when one guy made a  video about efficient mining, or noise and heat map correlations.  I consider them "super duper testers" that have more time and energy than moi.

 

I am not against more options, I am an against more zombie block damage.

 

Third was a general statement that if more zombie block damage is added, don't hard code it, so it can bet modded out.  Not that you would be doing it.

 

Why should they hard code it when they already have a separate setting for it? It just would be nice if the overall difficulty setting would be about more things than just the direct fighting with zombies.

 

Because I assume most users just increase that setting when they want it more difficult and often ignore everything else. A veteran user is vastly better at resource gathering and horde base building as a newbie, but the difficulty setting treats everyone the same.

 

My idea would be to have a settings menue like the graphics menue: You set a difficulty that changes sliders below, then you can change those sliders some more and difficulty above changes to "custom".

 

Edited June 13, 2022 by meganoth (see edit history)

[Rotor]

2 hours ago, meganoth said:

 

 

My idea would be to have a settings menue like the graphics menue: You set a difficulty that changes sliders below, then you can change those sliders some more and difficulty above changes to "custom".

 

 

Okay, if it was expressed as such I misread, my bad.

 

This option already exist though.  That is how I run .25 and .50 damage.  Unless I am misreading that as well.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Rotor (see edit history)

[meganoth]

1 hour ago, Rotor said:

 

Okay, if it was expressed as such I misread, my bad.

 

You didn't misread, I originally did not waste a single thought on implementation of any changes.

That idea came later.

 

1 hour ago, Rotor said:

 

This option already exist though.  That is how I run .25 and .50 damage.  Unless I am misreading that was well.

 

No, the option does not exist. You set block damage but as RipClaw above mentioned block damage is not changed with the difficulty setting at all. 

 

What I suggested would be a settings UI where you have a difficulty setting above and individual settings below. So you would have difficulty at "Adventurer" and below a "zombie damage against player" setting at "100%" (or 75%? Who cares).

If you now set difficulty to "Warrior" the "zombie damage against player" setting should change to display "150%" (or whatever else it is at warrior).

And if you now increase it to 175% the difficulty above should show "custom".

 

[Rotor]

Rgr,  

 

I would like option to reduce that particular damage regardless of difficulty.  Thank you.

 

Hell I will pay for the modlet that removes it :).

 

I know we are no where near there, I am just preemptively counter suggesting.

[JCrook1028]

21 minutes ago, Rotor said:

I would like option to reduce that particular damage regardless of difficulty.  Thank you.

You an already lower block damage without changing difficulty... It's in options. No mod needed.

[Rotor]

I will shut up now because I thought the proposal was to scale it up with game difficulty.  Like 25% would not be the same 25% in adventurer vs insane.

[pApA^LeGBa]

On 6/12/2022 at 6:24 PM, meganoth said:

 

Any change will basically "punish" or "reward" someone. Any difficulty increase will make some nonoptimal play option go away, in exchange for giving some difficulty to veterans. This is why such a change would better be limited to higher difficulties.

 

Even in SP I can make sure to kill most zombies and not let them be alive for 4 ingame hours on end. And if three of them escape my scrutiny and reach say double damage  after 4 hours that would effectually now be 19 instead of 16 zombies damagewise. 

But if all 16 reach double damage because you play an AFK base then something like the silo POI may be gone before horde night is over in late game.

 

 

Well make that max zombies and you have a problem. Also one demolisher that explodes could get your base wrecked way faster. It also does a lot more to people who do melee as they kill Z´s way slower.

 

And sure changes can go either way. But making it harder for people who don´t cheese, in order to prevent cheesing is the wrong way imo.

Edited June 13, 2022 by pApA^LeGBa (see edit history)

[Roland]

7 hours ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

But making it harder for people who don´t cheese, in order to prevent cheesing is the wrong way imo.

 

And this is all I was essentially saying as well but in regards to quests and building. TFP can make it harder for everyone in order to prevent those who rush questing and building or they can leave it alone and allow everyone to play as they will. Those who want more of a struggle can limit themselves much as people currently limit themselves on the type of base they design and choose not to build something they would deem "cheesy".

 

That being said, I am perfectly fine with TFP adding rules that limit any of this stuff that people do to stretch and warp the game into unnatural ways just to "win" a bit faster than anyone else they've read about online. I'm also fine with them adding top menu options that can give a spectrum of how stringent or lax those limitations might be.

 

I just think it is funny that some who lectured me that "Just don't do it" isn't a valid argument on one issue are using that exact sentiment about other issues...lol.

 

It's all the same thing. 7 Days to Die is a hybrid between game and sandbox and everyone has their pet features that are supported by one type or the other. If TFP changes things towards the game end of the spectrum by restricting and making rules then favorite sanboxish features will fade away and people will be angry. If TFP keeps or even moves things more towards the sandbox end of the spectrum which allows for people to choose their own objectives and restrictions, there will be people who want survival game rules enforced who will be disappointed that TFP has abandoned the survival genre.

[meganoth]

On 6/13/2022 at 8:06 PM, pApA^LeGBa said:

 

Well make that max zombies and you have a problem.

 

I assume you meant max horde night zombies.

 

If max zombies is too difficult for someone he shouldn't turn on max zombies but a lesser setting. There is already a setting in the game that is called "Insane" and there are people who won't survive 10 minutes playing it. Do those people really set the game to insane nevertheless and then complain they have a problem?

 

And wouldn't it be nice if there were an overall setting nobody could survive and one everyone could survive so that everyone could find a challenging setting inbetween?

At the moment there seem to be players who are too good (or maybe too cheesy) so that the game is too easy for them in any setting.

 

If you wanted to set max zombies in a game with my proposed change I would advise to turning horde night zombie speed down accordingly. This might prove an interesting game for Alpha16-lovers.

 

On 6/13/2022 at 8:06 PM, pApA^LeGBa said:

Also one demolisher that explodes could get your base wrecked way faster.

 

Who says demo explosions have to increase likewise? In XML this is already a separate setting from his hand damage.

 

On 6/13/2022 at 8:06 PM, pApA^LeGBa said:

It also does a lot more to people who do melee as they kill Z´s way slower.

 

SP players who melee might need stronger side walls, more redundancy and/or more turrets, I agree. Depending on how they fare at the moment and whether the feature would be on in all difficulties and whether initial damage of zombies was decreased or not they might need to turn down difficulty, or adapt their design.

 

Maybe you are overestimating the results of such a feature even for a melee base though. I have played what I assume to be a melee base as single player in A19. And there were always times where I could or even had to go on top of the base and take a look around. I did eliminate stragglers hitting on walls at that time.

 

Also I'm not sure if zombies stay in destruction mode for hours on end. Don't they retarget sometimes so they eventually appear in front of the club of the player?

 

On 6/13/2022 at 8:06 PM, pApA^LeGBa said:

And sure changes can go either way. But making it harder for people who don´t cheese, in order to prevent cheesing is the wrong way imo.

 

Well, difficulty doesn't need to change for the average case if initial damage to blocks is reduced to compensate for the higher damage of some of the zombies.

 

This feature could be an option you can turn off again, or preferably a setting that only starts to work at higher difficulties. And it should be something that can be changed in xml, anyway. 

 

I am a player who uses POIs for bases. I not only use POIs from the first day in a new game, I also use them as a base for my end-game horde base most of the time. I get new challenges that way fitting my idea into a pre-existing building. Since I have to compromise some things, it often makes it more challenging in the end than a fully self-made base. And I have a different horde base every time even when I use the same ideas as a previous base.

 

I would like a mode like this as well. I always build emergency exits, secondary holding postings, they rarely get used now. If I simply increase block damage I know they will almost always breach through the front where I fight them, possibly with this mode they would have surprises for me more often. Who knows?

 

 

 

Edited June 14, 2022 by meganoth (see edit history)

[pApA^LeGBa]

Not assuming the increase of the demolisher damage, but it get´s already worse once a demo explodes and the block damage of the other zombies is increasing.

 

I really think that if that is going to be the solution against POI cheesing, the cheesing with other methods will increase and there is a quite a few of them. And TFP can´t avoid every cheesy method. Maybe if they spend a year only doing that and nothing else. Wich i highly doubt.

 

In the end you will only punish people who built hordebases without cheesing.

 

Also it´s already weird how fast they can magically break steel blocks with bare hands and somehow get bonus damage when hitting one block in a group. I can live with that, it´s understandable. But making this even more weird by adding more damage over time to a zombie, who should actually make less damage the longer it lives due to rotting, is too much.

Edited June 14, 2022 by pApA^LeGBa (see edit history)

[meganoth]

2 hours ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

Not assuming the increase of the demolisher damage, but it get´s already worse once a demo explodes and the block damage of the other zombies is increasing.

 

The demo usually explodes in your sight because you hit its trigger, his damage is usually also on blocks in your sight because of this and any zombies hitting on those blocks are in your sight and can be killed looooooong before any damage increase happens.

I'm not talking about zombies that  increase their damage as glowies increase their health if that isn't obvious. How much? I don't know, that would have to be playtested to find good values. But just as an example what values I would possibly use for a first test:

A zombies would start at 80% of its current block damage

After 1 hour alive it would be at 90%

After 2 hours it would be at 110%

After 3 hours it would be at 140%

After 4 hours 180%. Probably it should be capped, so the next 2 hours at default day length it would stay at 180%.

 

And in a normal game this would happen to only the few zombies you never killed. If zombies change their target from time to time players wouldn't even notice a change from now. If not then the zombies still have to change target after destroying a block, and I remember that they very often do not continue on the hole they made before.  

 

 

2 hours ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

 

I really think that if that is going to be the solution against POI cheesing, the cheesing with other methods will increase and there is a quite a few of them. And TFP can´t avoid every cheesy method. Maybe if they spend a year only doing that and nothing else. Wich i highly doubt.

 

In the end you will only punish people who built hordebases without cheesing.

 

I don't get this "punish". In a game this is called a challenge, a task. 

 

I wouldn't survive any melee combat in insane difficulty (or at least die a lot, not sure, never really tried it), but I think it is almost trivial for me to build a base that would easily withstand those zombies (whether from a POI or I build it myself doesn't matter). I don't see how this is balanced at all.

 

2 hours ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

 

Also it´s already weird how fast they can magically break steel blocks with bare hands and somehow get bonus damage when hitting one block in a group. I can live with that, it´s understandable. But making this even more weird by adding more damage over time to a zombie, who should actually make less damage the longer it lives due to rotting, is too much.

 

And isn't it equally magical how the player can construct buildings with those same steel blocks? Maybe this is a hoax. Those are flimsy wood blocks painted with silver and TFP just calls them steel. But we can carry them like balsa wood blocks and the zombies likewise can destroy those fake blocks 😉

 

Edited June 15, 2022 by meganoth (see edit history)

[Khyron]

I think it's pretty hilarious that in a game where the player can craft a motorcycle out of 4 lbs of nails worth of iron and can use a NAILGUN to somehow... nail concrete to cobblestone? Or somehow smashing a plywood block with an axe manages to turn it into reinforced wood complete with nails, despite no nails actually being consumed? The physics behind all basebuilding is mind-boggling to the nth degree.

 

Anyway, in a game with all that magical stuff, a gigantic mutated evil zombie attacking and breaking a steel door seems comically minor in comparison.

 

So maybe we should just leave it at "It's just a game and it's there to be more fun " rather than try to dissect it all down into the nitty gritty.

 

Not trying to be confrontational here, just pointing out that when the subject of realism comes up the game's basically as fantastic as Harry Potter if you start looking at it from the right angles 😛

Edited June 15, 2022 by Khyron (see edit history)

[pApA^LeGBa]

@meganothI am not a fan of carrying tons in my backpack. Absolute realism wouldn´t fit here, you would have to make a ton of trips. But i wouldn´t mind not beeing able to carry a ton of steel or concrete blocks.

 

But i don´t even start that suggestion because most people wouldn´t enjoy an at least somewhat realistic carry restriction. Same with beeing able to simply put my car into the inventory. Not a fan. Not a popular opinion either.

 

The change you suggest would mean you will need to kill fast. Wich doesn´t fit every playsyle, dumbing down the game in terms of variety even further and it would promote the rushing playstyle wich you guys always look down at. 

 

And it would mean that 64 zombies on hordenight are way more difficult. The only occassion in the game where you have that much zombies, wich is lackluster in the rest of the game. Would make the subtitle "horde" of the game even more riddiculous if people turn down zombies due to that change tbh.

Edited June 15, 2022 by pApA^LeGBa (see edit history)

[RipClaw]

10 hours ago, Khyron said:

Anyway, in a game with all that magical stuff, a gigantic mutated evil zombie attacking and breaking a steel door seems comically minor in comparison.

A giant steel wall-smashing behemoth would be a problem for two reasons, and they have nothing to do with realism.

 

The first problem is pathing. As far as I know, the idea of the Behemoth was dropped because it was not compatible with the new pathing to have a 5 block behemoth in the game. I see these problems all the time in mods that integrate such titans.

 

The second problem is that you force players to play a certain way. Traps would be ridiculously ineffective against such a monster and what should a melee player do? Put a ladder in front of the zombie, climb up and hit the monster on the head? Basically, everyone will be forced to use firearms.

 

[meganoth]

4 hours ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

@meganothI am not a fan of carrying tons in my backpack. Absolute realism wouldn´t fit here, you would have to make a ton of trips. But i wouldn´t mind not beeing able to carry a ton of steel or concrete blocks.

 

But i don´t even start that suggestion because most people wouldn´t enjoy an at least somewhat realistic carry restriction. Same with beeing able to simply put my car into the inventory. Not a fan. Not a popular opinion either.

 

Ok.

 

4 hours ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

 

The change you suggest would mean you will need to kill fast.

 

For me "fast" means something like the speed with which you have to kill a glowy to be faster than its self-healing. Fast may mean a few dozen seconds real-time. But in my example I am talking about more than an ingame hour aka more than 6 minutes real-time before a specific zombie even reaches the block damage he does now in A20.

 

I.e. since a zombie starts with lower damage than now he can live 10-15 minutes real-time (nearly 3 hours in-game) before he even reaches the cumulative damage he would have done now (which may even be too long, come to think of it).

I don't know how your horde nights go, but in my horde nights 90% of zombies have a lifespan of less than 30 seconds. 

 

4 hours ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

Wich doesn´t fit every playsyle, dumbing down the game in terms of variety even further and it would promote the rushing playstyle wich you guys always look down at. 

 

The feature is "designed" so it makes not that much difference to normal playstyles and only gets noticable on a playstyle that leaves all or almost all zombies alive on horde night. In my view you are warning about what could happen if the feature were misbalanced. I'm assuming the feature would be balanced after a few iterations. 

 

4 hours ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

 

And it would mean that 64 zombies on hordenight are way more difficult.

 

Not if they stand correctly in line to their execution 😁. Seriously, that also depends on how you fight that 64 zombie horde. And whether you make other changes, for example their speed OR turning base block damage down somewhat.

 

4 hours ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

 

The only occassion in the game where you have that much zombies, wich is lackluster in the rest of the game. Would make the subtitle "horde" of the game even more riddiculous if people turn down zombies due to that change tbh.

 

They don't need to. They already change one option to increase zombies to max, why would they have a problem to turn down another option a notch to accomodate their playstyle? If that is necessary at all, a sizable part of those 64 zombies have to live much longer than 3 hours to make a difference.

 

[Matt115]

3 hours ago, RipClaw said:

 

The second problem is that you force players to play a certain way. Traps would be ridiculously ineffective against such a monster and what should a melee player do? Put a ladder in front of the zombie, climb up and hit the monster on the head? Basically, everyone will be forced to use firearms.

 

Well... that's a reason why perk tree is so bad  idea. Yes, that's point of guns - avoid risk of being hit by enemy and do a lot of damage. Melee weapons are early game neccesity , tool and ammo saver. So make melee weapons and range weapons "good" was bad idea

15 minutes ago, meganoth said:

 

I.e. since a zombie starts with lower damage than now he can live 10-15 minutes real-time (nearly 3 hours in-game) before he even reaches the cumulative damage he would have done now (which may even be too long, come to think of it).

I don't know how your horde nights go, but in my horde nights 90% of zombies have a lifespan of less than 30 seconds. 

 

Well few times i had 1-3 zombie that's stuck in too "big" walll for them so they were hitting them for so long time. So this was annoing because we were forced to finding them after longer whiler during blood moon. So change their dmg in time would be more annoing because even now zombies are too smart. So spawn of new "destroyed" zombie typ would be much better option that this

[RipClaw]

49 minutes ago, Matt115 said:

Melee weapons are early game neccesity , tool and ammo saver. So make melee weapons and range weapons "good" was bad idea

I use melee weapons even in the late game. Not to save ammo but because they are much more fun than guns.

A gun is just point and click. When I use a melee weapon I have to move around, make sure I don't get hit too much by the zombies, don't get pushed into a corner, and so on.

 

[Khyron]

4 hours ago, RipClaw said:

A giant steel wall-smashing behemoth would be a problem for two reasons, and they have nothing to do with realism.

 

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean 'gigantic' in that manner. I was mostly referring to the larger zombies - the Demolisher, the cop, the lumberjack, etc. I guess Gigantic was the wrong word to use - I just meant that zombies bashing steel vault doors or hatches or blocks with their bare hands and eventually making their way through isn't "realistic" but it is good from a gameplay standpoint.

[Rotor]

12 minutes ago, RipClaw said:

I use melee weapons even in the late game. Not to save ammo but because they are much more fun than guns.

A gun is just point and click. When I use a melee weapon I have to move around, make sure I don't get hit too much by the zombies, don't get pushed into a corner, and so on.

 

 

Cassius is that you?