10 years in development and it is still just a skeleton of a game.

[meganoth]

I posted the same suggestion a few years ago to TFP (i.e. make 2 or 3 versions of a POI to generally confuse players who think they know a POI). Whatever you all say that suggestion is quite workable because the effort is minimal compared to making a new POI.

 

In effect you just need to make a hole into one wall and close of a path somewhere else. If you have ever played a game with a labyrinth of revolving walls you would know how such a small change can have big consequences about the path. This would be a similar effect.

 

The new path is not totally different, you just switched the sequence of two parts of the path. But you can make almost any room to be end room.

 

On the other hand the effect these 2 or 3 variations would have isn't too big either. If I can remember the layout of 700 PIOs I can remember 3 variations of each POI and would soon know where to look to identify which version it is. I can understand that TFP did not follow this suggestion (if they even noticed my post or thought of it independently that is)

 

 

 

[retrogamingdev]

36 minutes ago, meganoth said:

I posted the same suggestion a few years ago to TFP (i.e. make 2 or 3 versions of a POI to generally confuse players who think they know a POI). Whatever you all say that suggestion is quite workable because the effort is minimal compared to making a new POI.

 

In effect you just need to make a hole into one wall and close of a path somewhere else. If you have ever played a game with a labyrinth of revolving walls you would know how such a small change can have big consequences about the path. This would be a similar effect.

 

The new path is not totally different, you just switched the sequence of two parts of the path. But you can make almost any room to be end room.

 

On the other hand the effect these 2 or 3 variations would have isn't too big either. If I can remember the layout of 700 PIOs I can remember 3 variations of each POI and would soon know where to look to identify which version it is. I can understand that TFP did not follow this suggestion (if they even noticed my post or thought of it independently that is)

 

 

 

This isn't a terrible idea, I like it in fact. BUT, I think the improvement on the 'problem' being discussed is really minimal for what is likely still a fairly large lift. We play the game enough, we are going to notice which of the 3 variations it is pretty quickly and we are back to being able to skip ahead through other methods. 

[zztong]

5 hours ago, tdevine said:

No, the problem is bad design.  If they were smarter devs they would have made multiple versions of the exact same POI that had the loot in different areas, or even better, random areas each time. 

 

While I acknowledge the "loot on the roof" issue is real, I think the criticism is antagonistically phrased and is somewhat ignorant of the maintenance effort involved with a large number of POIs. Multiple versions of the same POI is a major task when it comes time to bring all those variants up to a new version of the game.

 

Rather, I would say "loot on the roof" was a somewhat natural result of the design choice to have a "dungeon path", which many users like, and also lets a designer attempt to tell a story. It's a natural starting point for a dungeon path to be on the ground and buildings go up, so the natural end result was loot on the roof. Unfortunately, it also becomes predictable.

 

Dungeon paths that try to break this pattern become more convoluted with less obvious vertical transitions. Consider it's hard to come up with a number of reasons to visit floors in this order: 3 > 1 > 6 > 4 > Basement > 5 > 2 (final loot). The first is a fall to a mattress, the second is a ladder, the third is a rope in the elevator shaft, then sliding down a laundry chute, then a catapult to the 5th floor, followed by a parachute drop to the 2nd floor. Phew. Now what transitions do you use in the next POI?

 

Starting with A20, you can randomize the floors. It's a cool thought experiment that I've taken part in a couple of times now. It comes with its own quirks which is why only one POI I know of has done it. For instance, you have to standardize the transition between floors because you have no idea which floors will be above and below you. The end effect is you can probably just run the stairs to the loot floor once you know how to recognize it. Note also there is no "randomization without duplicates" feature. That is, an approach where the one, and only one, loot floor was always going to be in the mix. Thus, you could get zero loot floors, or several loot floors.

 

Or, you could plan to make 3 variants for each floor. A 6-floor building, with 3 variants per floor, would be 18 floors. In the end, 3 times the work for one POI. Players would rather have 3 unique POIs so that the world isn't as repetitive.

 

Randomization of some loot is possible starting with A20 using Parts but with complications that keep it from being used for "final loot." Again, the dungeon path approach complicates things as the path is fixed. Regrettably, this randomization happens at World Generation time, not each time a mission is started, so on any long-term map players will memorize the loot location even if randomized.

 

So, I think everyone is with you on observation that "loot of the roof" is too frequent of a pattern, but I think the notion that the POI designers are stupid or incompetent is completely bogus. They're making trade-offs, using the tools at their disposal, and doing a nice job.

[Gamida]

Sometimes loot is not up but down.

[Kyoji]

On 3/20/2023 at 3:28 AM, edyonline said:

These are procedurally generated games. No Mans Sky finished quite quickly, but you can’t build as much, and can’t dig as deep. It’s a large universe but there’s less parts driving it’s creativity.

 

7 days is a passion project. Made by gamers for gamers. Unless you have a few million dollars you can donate, I wouldn’t expect development to go any faster.

 

These procedurally generated and entire destructible environments are uncharted waters in gaming development. The amount of power it takes to run these games is phenomenal, and it’s surprising the developers have done as well as they have.

No Man's Sky might not the best choice for comparison because what they have done is miles ahead of what 7D2D has done in terms of updates. Also I would argue that most games are made by gamers. You think people go into development for the money or great hours? Voxel technology isn't young either and it's been done before. That being said optimization can be difficult for sure.

 

On 3/20/2023 at 2:49 PM, meganoth said:

Coders just a handful I think. A lot more artists. If you start the game, there is an actual list in the credits

 

Sorry, I like the skill system. So I would assume this must be a subjective dislike in your case

 

More kinds of cars would be just graphical bling with no game-play use. I am not interested in that.

 

 

I think it is important to realize that there were quite few people working on the game for a long time so it's natural that it would have a slow start for sure.

 

I think he is referring to the continually changing and reversion of the leveling system such as learn by looting, or at least it's how I understood it. Perhaps I am wrong. I agree that the developers spend too much time changing their mind on things. For most jobs you have people in charge to direct momentum of a project to reach a conclusion otherwise you get Star Citizen where each new idea takes you two steps backwards. I can understand perfecting a system, but there is also limits on how efficient you are with your development time.

 

I think extra car skins is akin to updating the graphics or new zombie skins, much needed. But that is just my preference and can easily understand people preferring substance.

 

On 3/21/2023 at 8:12 PM, Treb said:

 

Whether the loot is on the roof, underground or in the middle of the building, you can always dig/pole up/break walls to it and avoid 95%+ of the POI. In a fully destroyable world, it is impossible to prevent cheesing the POI. The problem here is you and your family are deciding to cheese.

 

 

I don't think it would be difficult to assign random loot locations as super spawns to encapsulate loot caches we currently have which to me are not immersive and make little sense. Or you could make it like other games would have it. Bookshelves have books, gun safes have guns, etc and just update POIs to have a few random spawn areas. So basically you would have a blank space within a house and in that space the game selects from several objects or loot containers to inject into that space. Whether it be a clock or a safe or a bookshelf. You wouldn't need to do it for all the loot, but it could be done in 2-3 locations spread throughout said house. It would be less predictable due to the sheer number of POIs and loot combinations.

 

On 3/24/2023 at 2:34 PM, FA_Q2 said:

It is a limitation on what the devs want to devote their work to.  What you want, and what I want too honestly, requires a ton of work, testing and overall it would not actually increase the content of the game itself.  The majority of players are unlikely to even get familiar enough with the POI's to run to the loot rooms each time.  Particularly when the game finally releases as the number of POIs increase every alpha.  

 

I think a good idea would have been to have POIs designed like legos.  They would have a a set number of pieces that would randomly be slotted where they go essentially allowing multiple configurations.  Mind you, I am talking about pieces specific to that POI, not carbon copy pieces that would make the world pretty bland.  As there is already a proper 'rout' through the most POI, it really would not be difficult to do something like that.  The major issue is that you would, at a minimum, need to triple the number of buildings that the devs would have had to create.

 

Of note, they actually did something like this in the cities to get the downtown effect.  It really is the same idea just done at a different level.  The trade off for something like this is always dev time vs added content.  It would take a lot of work to add something that may not even be experienced by all players.

 

I agree that the majority of players probably won't remember all of the main loot rooms outside of some larger and more unique POIs.

 

What you are suggesting can be done without having multiple POIs by using dynamics objects. Other games do this already.

 

It can still be a post-release addition. Not everything has to be done immediately. But I think it is better than re-inventing the wheel (loot system) several times over.

 

On 3/20/2023 at 3:11 AM, tdevine said:

10 years is too long, I don't care what game it is. 

 

Who thought it was a good idea to put all the good loot on the top of buildings? 

 

Still no viable skill system after 10 years? 

 

One kind of car on the road in 10 different colors after 10 years? 

 

5 pieces of meat to make one steak for 10 food?  No fishing? 

 

Sleeper zombies that are almost no challenge? 

 

Water that acts like Jello?

 

Have to take my time from the game to edit POIs to take the loot off the roof and put it in the building where there is some challenge other than building a ladder or jumping on box after box, these things should have been addressed long ago.

 

10 Years is a long time for sure, that being said the crew they have now is likely not the crew they started with. A skeleton crew likely was the majority of it early on.

 

Loot on top of buildings is indeed stupid to a degree

 

I agree, they still can't find agree on a working loot system

 

The cars have been getting updates which is nice

 

I don't think it's a big issue to have 5 pieces of meat to make 1 steak. Would you rather that or simply get meat less? A lot of balancing changes to survivial would have to be done to accomodate that which would push the game further into development which I would imagine is bad for you.

 

I don't think fishing is a deal breaker for most. It would be nice and immersive but not a huge issue for me anyway

 

I have always agreed that simple sleeper zombies are a bad design choice. There should most definately be pathing zombies or tethered-zombies that can roam within a specific POI. It would require pathing updates but other games do this just fine so I can understand why you think the AI should get some work. Sadly the developers keep patching AI to get around players avoiding them rather than making them a challenge in POIs without using sheer numbers.

 

The water does suck. Even on generation it sucks. Thankfully it should be changes in the new update.

 

I too made a massive change to POIs by adjusting loot spawns in all of the POIs on two separate occasions. A lot of work for sure.

Edited March 30, 2023 by Roland (see edit history)

[Riamus]

I think there were some good responses already about this, but just to add to what others have said, randomizing loot is not as easy as it may seem.  If you use a loot room in a POI and place that loot room anywhere other than the "end" of the POI, it would be bad design.  You don't want to find the main loot halfway through the POI.  It should be at the end (assuming you progress through the POI in what is meant to be the correct path).  This means that you either need to place the loot room at the end, which as others have said, often means either the roof or the basement, depending on how the POI is designed because it's hard to make a believable path that takes to everywhere in a POI only to place to back in the middle somewhere, especially on tall buildings.  Or you need to do away with loot rooms altogether and spread the loot out throughout the POI.  That is an option, but it takes a lot of the fun out of reaching the end after completing a POI.  And you have to ask yourself, as a POI designer, are you going to make something that has a believable path and has a reward at the end that will make most people happy, or are you going to make something odd and convoluted or with no loot room just to make the comparatively few people who want to cheese the POI and go straight to the loot room (and are upset that they can do so even though they are the ones choosing to do so) happy?  Most are likely to just ignore those who can't just do the POI the way it's meant to be done because, in the end, more people will be happy than not that way.

 

Now, keep in mind that randomization options have started to be added to the game, so it suggests that the devs are looking at ways to provide for some randomization.  So far, the options are nice, but have various limitations, such as only randomizing once for certain things.  We can assume they will continue to improve those and add more options to allow for better randomization, though it is also possible that they don't have any intention of doing so.  But I think they probably will.  Even so, you are still limited to what makes sense.  A loot room in the beginning or middle of a POI's path isn't good, as I said earlier.  But that doesn't mean they can't work on other things to improve the randomization in ways that would make sense.

 

There was some discussion about remembering where loot rooms were in POIs.  Our brains are designed to remember things, and we are more likely to remember things we are interested in.  Since we are playing this game, we can assume we're all interested in it.  That is why you will remember where the more important things are in a POI (zombies, loot, etc) without even trying.  I may not always be able to remember a POI when I'm not in the game, but put me in the POI and I'll remember where everything is after only a couple of times through.  And that is for all POI that I visit, with the exception of the low tier houses that are similar enough to one another that they aren't easy to keep track of if you aren't trying to do so.  It really doesn't matter if you triple the number of POI.  Players are going to remember where the zombies are and where the loot is in them even without trying.  It's just how our brains work.  I mean, I can go back and play a game I really liked (such as Planescape: Torment) that I haven't played in MANY years and I'll still remember where the main things are.  I know this because I played that again for the first time in probably close to 20 years not that long ago and I remembered where all the main things were in the game.  If you like something, you're going to remember it.

 

As for making multiple copies of POI to give variety... all you're really doing is making more things to remember, but as I just described, we'll still remember where things are in each of the versions and as soon as we know which version it is, we'll know where to go.  In the end, doing multiple versions just means you have to update more POI whenever you need to update them for very little actual value.  It also means that if you want to have different paths, you need to find ways to have those different paths that makes sense and any player who realizes you are doing this will likely know exactly what wall was placed where a door used to be and can just choose to break through.  I'd much rather POI designers focus on making more POI than making multiple copies of the same POI.  Multiple copies may add a slight variation in the POI, but it's still the same POI and that isn't as good as having a completely new POI.

 

What it comes down to is that players who don't like being able to go to the loot room right away (such as by using ladders) just need to stop doing that.  I've heard people say that they can't help but do the most "efficient" thing.  But that's just a lazy excuse.  Everyone has the ability to make choices and what they choose impacts the outcomes/consequences they'll have to deal with.  If you choose to cheese a POI by going directly to the loot room and ignoring the rest of the POI, then that is your choice.  You can't blame anyone but yourself for making that choice.  If that choice makes you unhappy and makes the game less fun, then why make that choice?  You can just as easily make the choice to play the game in a way that you find fun rather than what is more "efficient."  This really isn't a game where you need to be efficient in order to "win" like may be the case in other games.  This is a game where you can choose to enjoy the game rather than try to "be the best" all of the time.  In the end, the choice is yours and no one else is to blame if you make a choice that has results you aren't happy with.  Take control over your choices.  You might just surprise yourself at what you gain by doing so.

[edyonline]

3 hours ago, Kyoji said:

You think people go into development for the money or great hours?

You obviously haven’t heard of a small company called Blizzard. Started out gamers. But the people running it, are definitely not motivated by gaming enjoyment. Or how about activision, or try any EA games pay to win format. To answer your question, yes. I think it’s rare to find a gaming development company that is genuinely run by fun and enjoyment as the main motivator, and not money or the great hours…

 

No Mans Sky turned out to be fake. Hello Games sold a lie. You can’t fly from planet to planet, I tried. Can’t fly to the suns. The star system is just a 3D map, glorified. There no gigantic dinosaurs and dragon snakes. And the procedural generation is super simplistic, it’s easy to render. In other words it’s a lot easier to expand on. If you had half the customisation as 7DTD, I doubt it would have made it as far. I got it on launch, it was a let down, big time. That Sean guy acted out he was a genuine gamer, but he played me for a fool. I kept playing until the car updates, they still didn’t have any meaningful AI. Not sure how far it’s come since then, but it was a farming grindfest… over an entire universe, no thanks. The planets became repetitive and the “infinite possible life forms” all had a generic base, just with different skins.

 

7DTD real strength is it’s mods. And I haven’t even tried any yet. Except one for life bars, and one for loot locking. But some mods build an entirely new game. Vanilla, the combat is fun, and the building is far superior to No Mans. And even beats Minecraft, with blocks with different shapes and structural physics. No other game comes close.

[Ramethzer0]

On 3/24/2023 at 12:30 PM, tdevine said:

 

Excuses for bad design..........

 

Or I dunno maybe you just mad because you like being mad.     I mean, this is a lot of leaky eyes for someone who hasn't actually brought anything to the table other than.

 

Every response you've laid down is just more of how the devs hurt you.

[tdevine]

On 3/25/2023 at 1:18 PM, Ramethzer0 said:

 

Or I dunno maybe you just mad because you like being mad.     I mean, this is a lot of leaky eyes for someone who hasn't actually brought anything to the table other than.

 

Every response you've laid down is just more of how the devs hurt you.

 

 Or i dunno, maybe your toxic spew is empty of any substance to the discussion of improving the game.

Edited March 28, 2023 by tdevine (see edit history)

[BFT2020]

17 hours ago, tdevine said:

 

 Or i dunno, maybe your toxic spew is empty of any substance to the discussion of improving the game.

Sorry, based on your topic title and rant about the game (and not to mention your insults hurled at the developers) most people probably just thought this was just another rant filled post rather than a civil discussion on pros and cons of the game.

[Roland]

Personally, I think they could get rid of the loot room and just have that stuff scattered around the POI so that those who fully explore get everything. The true "loot room" is the quest reward when you return to the trader. Why do we need the loot room treasure AND the trader reward treasure anyway? That combo usually leads to the player getting well beyond the difficulty curve of the game anyway.

 

If the containers are scattered around, those spawn points CAN be easily randomized so there isn't just two or three possibilities. I know the loot rooms were originally conceived as the treasure room for a dungeon but there's really no need. The trader reward is plenty especially if there is a nice crate of goodies still present in the POI but just in a random location.

[Old Crow]

21 minutes ago, Roland said:

Personally, I think they could get rid of the loot room and just have that stuff scattered around the POI so that those who fully explore get everything. The true "loot room" is the quest reward when you return to the trader. Why do we need the loot room treasure AND the trader reward treasure anyway? That combo usually leads to the player getting well beyond the difficulty curve of the game anyway.

 

If the containers are scattered around, those spawn points CAN be easily randomized so there isn't just two or three possibilities. I know the loot rooms were originally conceived as the treasure room for a dungeon but there's really no need. The trader reward is plenty especially if there is a nice crate of goodies still present in the POI but just in a random location.

 

Y'know.. it's not often we agree on something. I like the idea of loot containers scattered around the POI rather than one big loot room at the end.

[FA_Q2]

4 hours ago, Roland said:

Personally, I think they could get rid of the loot room and just have that stuff scattered around the POI so that those who fully explore get everything. The true "loot room" is the quest reward when you return to the trader. Why do we need the loot room treasure AND the trader reward treasure anyway? That combo usually leads to the player getting well beyond the difficulty curve of the game anyway.

 

If the containers are scattered around, those spawn points CAN be easily randomized so there isn't just two or three possibilities. I know the loot rooms were originally conceived as the treasure room for a dungeon but there's really no need. The trader reward is plenty especially if there is a nice crate of goodies still present in the POI but just in a random location.

I agree.  

 

The dungeon style of the POI's is, IMHO, to the game's detriment.  I think the POIs should have mostly just been actual buildings rather than short mazes to treasure cashes.  Use the larger POIs to have more of a path style layout but more for flavor or story elements like Bob's boars does.

 

Do you think that is even a possibility though?  I feel like there is actually enough loot already spread around that removing the end cash and doing nothing else would not be a bad thing but the devs do seem to like the loot room concept.  At least the idea has done nothing but maximized over new alphas rather than minimized.

 

[RipClaw]

4 hours ago, Roland said:

Personally, I think they could get rid of the loot room and just have that stuff scattered around the POI so that those who fully explore get everything. The true "loot room" is the quest reward when you return to the trader. Why do we need the loot room treasure AND the trader reward treasure anyway? That combo usually leads to the player getting well beyond the difficulty curve of the game anyway.

 

If the containers are scattered around, those spawn points CAN be easily randomized so there isn't just two or three possibilities. I know the loot rooms were originally conceived as the treasure room for a dungeon but there's really no need. The trader reward is plenty especially if there is a nice crate of goodies still present in the POI but just in a random location.

I see the problem elsewhere. Many players distinguish between "good loot" and "garbage". A weapon is good loot, mechanical parts are garbage for most players because they can't do anything with them. If you approach a POI with such an attitude then it is clear that you will not search it from top to bottom.

 

In the Undead Legacy mod you not only have a much more diverse loot but you also need this "garbage" to upgrade e.g. workbenches or items. There you have a reason to search everything and not just grab the main loot.

 

[BFT2020]

3 hours ago, RipClaw said:

I see the problem elsewhere. Many players distinguish between "good loot" and "garbage". A weapon is good loot, mechanical parts are garbage for most players because they can't do anything with them. If you approach a POI with such an attitude then it is clear that you will not search it from top to bottom.

 

Yeah once you find that weapon and can easily repair it, the other items becomes less important (either junk or sell to trader).  After awhile, people stop looking in trash as they see it as a waste of time based on what they will find.

 

It changes when you still need those items late game if you have to constantly replace your gear.

[8_Hussars]

9 hours ago, Roland said:

Personally, I think they could get rid of the loot room and just have that stuff scattered around the POI so that those who fully explore get everything. The true "loot room" is the quest reward when you return to the trader. Why do we need the loot room treasure AND the trader reward treasure anyway? That combo usually leads to the player getting well beyond the difficulty curve of the game anyway.

 

If the containers are scattered around, those spawn points CAN be easily randomized so there isn't just two or three possibilities. I know the loot rooms were originally conceived as the treasure room for a dungeon but there's really no need. The trader reward is plenty especially if there is a nice crate of goodies still present in the POI but just in a random location.

I had a very similar thought; loot containers scattered around with randomized "better loot" instead of the "end loot".  Obviously, there is wiggle room for discussion.

But I have to disagree with equating and linking the "loot room" treasure to a "trader quest reward".  It is a major restriction with an obvious downside.  Not all players do quests and they enjoy it that way.  I for one prefer no loot respawn and no trader quest runs.

[meganoth]

31 minutes ago, 8_Hussars said:

I had a very similar thought; loot containers scattered around with randomized "better loot" instead of the "end loot".  Obviously, there is wiggle room for discussion.

But I have to disagree with equating and linking the "loot room" treasure to a "trader quest reward".  It is a major restriction with an obvious downside.  Not all players do quests and they enjoy it that way.  I for one prefer no loot respawn and no trader quest runs.

 

If you ignore parts of the game it is your task to adapt the rest to be balanced again, just saying.

 

And for A20 I would even say that removing the loot rooms would balance the game much much better for experienced players, they would not need to decrease the loot abundance setting anymore.

 

[8_Hussars]

13 minutes ago, meganoth said:

 

If you ignore parts of the game it is your task to adapt the rest to be balanced again, just saying.

 

Sure, I don't disagree with that stance in principle.  Although, I may argue that only applies based on an unstated assumption the current game mechanic is balanced. 

I was specifically responding to Roland's theory crafting of linking "end loot" to "trader quest rewards" and the imbalance that would introduce in the context of the discussion around end loot placement and alternatives via randomization.  A comment which I believe is still valid.

[meganoth]

2 hours ago, 8_Hussars said:

Sure, I don't disagree with that stance in principle.  Although, I may argue that only applies based on an unstated assumption the current game mechanic is balanced. 

I was specifically responding to Roland's theory crafting of linking "end loot" to "trader quest rewards" and the imbalance that would introduce in the context of the discussion around end loot placement and alternatives via randomization.  A comment which I believe is still valid.

 

But the normal player WILL take quests and therefore get the quest reward and it has nearly the same effect as end loot. Roland was talking about the current situation (using present tense all through), not something introduced by any changes and he seems to say that currently end loot and trader rewards fill the same niche (they do almost as not all quests are clear quests). So not sure what you are saying here.

 

[Roland]

3 hours ago, 8_Hussars said:

Sure, I don't disagree with that stance in principle.  Although, I may argue that only applies based on an unstated assumption the current game mechanic is balanced. 

I was specifically responding to Roland's theory crafting of linking "end loot" to "trader quest rewards" and the imbalance that would introduce in the context of the discussion around end loot placement and alternatives via randomization.  A comment which I believe is still valid.

 

All I was saying is that if the treasure room was removed and the only way to get the end dungeon reward was to visit the trader once the quest was over that would solve the problem of "loot on the roof". I'm not against distributing the existing treasure room loot around the poi for folks who don't do quests so they get good stuff without having to quest but I also think that the trader quest reward is plenty reward for doing the quest and combining the end treasure room loot with the trader rewards is usually pretty OP rewards.

 

I don't want anyone to feel forced to do quests if they don't want to.

[OzHawkeye]

On 3/31/2023 at 5:51 AM, Roland said:

 

I don't want anyone to feel forced to do quests if they don't want to.

 

Yes, on my (admittedly short) playthrough of A20, I felt locked into:

 

1. Get quest from trader.

2. Loot POI treasure room.

3. Reset POI via the quest.

4. Loot POI treasure room again.

5. Return to trader for reward.

6. Goto 1.

 

It just seemed like the fastest way to loot up (and XP too).

[Ramethzer0]

On 3/28/2023 at 12:03 PM, tdevine said:

 

 Or i dunno, maybe your toxic spew is empty of any substance to the discussion of improving the game.

Let's not forget the energy you brought with you.  I have this knee-jerk tendency to return that kinda thing back to sender.  I mean so far its been formulaic that you have pointed fingers at everyone else, even going so far to do it again when responding to me.  Rest assured, if the whole world smells like dookie to you, its prolly time to check your shoes.

 

But do go on about how the ills of your experiences are totally everyone else's fault.

Edited April 1, 2023 by Ramethzer0 (see edit history)

[tdevine]

10 hours ago, Ramethzer0 said:

Let's not forget the energy you brought with you.  I have this knee-jerk tendency to return that kinda thing back to sender.  I mean so far its been formulaic that you have pointed fingers at everyone else, even going so far to do it again when responding to me.  Rest assured, if the whole world smells like dookie to you, its prolly time to check your shoes.

 

But do go on about how the ills of your experiences are totally everyone else's fault.

 

Bring something to the discussion or don't say anything at all.  We don't need a keyboard warrior or a useless troll on the forum.  Quit personally attacking me while hiding behind your screen.  Also, some of my complaints are being addressed in Alpha 21, so I guess some of my complaints are legit huh?  It is good that you don't decide where this game goes, and your opinion of my complaints are also worth ZERO.

Edited April 1, 2023 by tdevine (see edit history)

[Riamus]

10 hours ago, OzHawkeye said:

 

Yes, on my (admittedly short) playthrough of A20, I felt locked into:

 

1. Get quest from trader.

2. Loot POI treasure room.

3. Reset POI via the quest.

4. Loot POI treasure room again.

5. Return to trader for reward.

6. Goto 1.

 

It just seemed like the fastest way to loot up (and XP too).

My feeling is that if you enjoy doing it that way, go for it.  But if you don't and you find that way of cheesing the system, then don't.  It didn't matter if it is "more efficient" or "faster xp/loot" or whatever other reason.  If it makes the game less enjoyable, simply don't do it.  No one ever forces someone to play only in the "most efficient" way possible.  At least, not unless you are in rather toxic guilds in multiplayer games like MMOs.  It is a game.  Have fun.  If it is more fun playing less efficiently, then go for it.

 

There are people who really do enjoy min/max and speed runs and other ways of playing that require such efficiency.  They like having that challenge.  But if that type of gameplay bores you, why do it?  Just how I look at things. 😁

[OzHawkeye]

3 hours ago, Riamus said:

My feeling is that if you enjoy doing it that way, go for it.  But if you don't and you find that way of cheesing the system, then don't.  It didn't matter if it is "more efficient" or "faster xp/loot" or whatever other reason.  If it makes the game less enjoyable, simply don't do it.  No one ever forces someone to play only in the "most efficient" way possible.  At least, not unless you are in rather toxic guilds in multiplayer games like MMOs.  It is a game.  Have fun.  If it is more fun playing less efficiently, then go for it.

 

There are people who really do enjoy min/max and speed runs and other ways of playing that require such efficiency.  They like having that challenge.  But if that type of gameplay bores you, why do it?  Just how I look at things. 😁

 

It's a fair statement to be sure, but then part of me just can't help doing things the most efficient way possible.