New content vs game mechanic overhauls

[Cr0wst0rm]

16 hours ago, RyanX said:

What do you mean "at this point?"  I think you mean to say "starting a few years ago".  And I don't think there is anything else developmental or expansionary that's going to happen with this game.  They are clearly done putting any serious thought into it and are keeping it running for the sales.  I imagine whatever that game they said they are working on is their real priority.  And good for them, I hope the next game is great.

developmental is just another alias for milking...

[Cr0wst0rm]

2 hours ago, Cr0wst0rm said:

developmental is just another alias for milking...

I would mention that the biggest code involvement is most probably game framework related, not gameplay related. I very much welcome the terrain improvements. And props to that, that must've been the hardest part. Still I am a bit biased, because I can't seem to find that *big quantity of new features* (as I was used to in the past alphas). 

[BFT2020]

20 minutes ago, Cr0wst0rm said:

I would mention that the biggest code involvement is most probably game framework related, not gameplay related. I very much welcome the terrain improvements. And props to that, that must've been the hardest part. Still I am a bit biased, because I can't seem to find that *big quantity of new features* (as I was used to in the past alphas). 

 

In game development cycles, new content is heavy at the beginning and starts to taper off once the game gets closer to release.  This is what we are seeing with 7D2D now.  As the game is getting closer to final release, new content starts to reduce while they concentrate on working on the stuff already in the game (i.e. artwork updates).

[Uncle Al]

13 hours ago, meganoth said:

... and then there is the big guy at the drum providing the work rhythm.

 

 

[meganoth]

9 hours ago, Cr0wst0rm said:

...Still I am a bit biased, because I can't seem to find that *big quantity of new features* (as I was used to in the past alphas). 

 

Because the biggest feature they were working on didn't make it into A21, bandit NPCs, bandit AI, new armor and new player avatars

 

Edited May 28, 2023 by meganoth (see edit history)

[FA_Q2]

Honestly, anyone stating that there is not enough to do should take a look at their playtime.

 

It only seems like they have not been putting a lot of new stuff into the game because those of us with thousands of hours know the game inside and out to an insane degree.  I have no idea why you would expect new features to be as extensive at the end of the development cycle as it is in the beginning, that is just very silly.  Things are wrapping up because the game is nearing completion and this has to happen at some time.  It will be sad to see it as I really like coming back and re-experiencing the game but it is silly to think that they should continue to provide new content for players who are so seasoned they already played 1000 hours on a 14 dollar game.

 

Gamers can be a very entitled lot these days.  

On 5/25/2023 at 10:24 AM, Riamus said:

I think the first time I played a LBD system was in Morrowind back when it first came out.  The first couple of hours, I loved it.  And then I realized how much of a grind it was.  I would jump non-stop wherever I went just to improve that skill and it was the same with everything.  I quickly came to not enjoy it.  I love the concept of LBD.  Unfortunately, I have yet to see a game that implemented it in a way that wasn't grindy.  In the end, I prefer leveling up to gain skills or perks as an abstraction of having spent enough time doing something to get better at it.

This.

 

LBD has its attractions but it is universally a bad idea in my experience this far.  I really like Skyrim but the lbd system is the absolute worst part of that game.

[ijese]

On 5/25/2023 at 7:24 PM, Riamus said:

 Unfortunately, I have yet to see a game that implemented it in a way that wasn't grindy. 

Mount & Blade: Warband. It is grindy but both feels natural and can't be fooled.

[Riamus]

37 minutes ago, ijese said:

Mount & Blade: Warband. It is grindy but both feels natural and can't be fooled.

The point is not being grindy, which you said it is, so...

 

Any LBD will be natural to at least some extent because that's what it is.  However, that doesn't make it enjoyable to spam something over and over.  As I mentioned, certain things lend themselves well to LBD.  For example, fighting.  Of course, if you think of experience you get from kills as leveling up your fighting because it levels up your character, pretty much any game is LBD for fighting if there are player levels.  And that's a good indication that fighting makes sense for LBD and works well in that regard.  But other things just really do not.  Leveling up crafting by making the same things a hundred times because that's how you get better doesn't work well, imo.  Yes, it is realistic in that you would get better crafting something if you practice.  But that doesn't make it a good gameplay mechanic.  And unlike fighting leading to getting better at fighting through experience and level gains in most games that have levels, crafting is often not set up this way and is very often learned through a skill tree or something similar.  Some games have it as LBD but far fewer than games with fighting as a form of LBD (experience + level improves fighting and you get those by fighting, so it's basically LBD), showing that fewer people think this makes sense for LBD.  Jumping is even less used in an LBD format because even fewer people think that is a good option for LBD.  The problem is that games that want to do LBD beyond just standard gaining of experience and leveling up will often try to add everything to LBD and that's where they fail, in my opinion.   Because then so many things just become a grind rather than something that happens naturally.  Crafting 100 items to level up crafting isn't natural from a gameplay perspective.  Natural crafting in a game would be crafting only things that you want or need or plan to sell or give to others.  It wouldn't be crafting the same thing over and over just to level up.  Again, this is just my feeling toward LBD.  I know people like it.  I'm just not a fan.  I love the idea and if it could be done well, I'd be all for it.  But as long as it's a grind, I don't consider it to be done well.

[madmole]

On 5/25/2023 at 10:58 AM, meganoth said:

 

Nope, sorry. "Placeholder" is well defined as something that is never intented to survive into gold. What is surely true is that we have no sure way to know which of their features and mechanisms were meant as placeholders or were experiments that might have turned up in the final version. 

 

One heuristic you could employ is that anything that was in the first few alphas was mostly placeholder while anything after that was experiment.

 

Some stuff was labeled clearly as placeholder stuff **by developers** and is also very likely placeholder stuff, for example all the graphics bought in the unity-store.

 

Some people on the forum said that LBD was a placeholder. I have my doubts about that, I think that was an experiment.

It was always a placeholder.

[ijese]

11 hours ago, Riamus said:

The point is not being grindy, which you said it is, so...

(...)  But as long as it's a grind, I don't consider it to be done well.

 

Well, that whole game is grindy, but in specific way. You fight a lot, and combat is pretty hard. You could switch weapons and "train" yourself in anything, but improvements are very slow. So even being aware of that, you end up mostly using what you are most comfortable with for particular situation.

 

20 hrs later you are are an expert with one-hand weapons and relatively good at throwing stuff - you could become expert in everything, no problem, but the sole real-time investment discourages that for most people.

 

With old LBD I hoped the Pimps would go in that direction, but didn't really mind they chose not to.

Edited June 14, 2023 by ijese (see edit history)

[Riamus]

13 minutes ago, ijese said:

Well, that whole game is grindy, but in specific way. You fight a lot, and combat is pretty hard. 

A grind to me is having to do something repeatedly that you would not normally do.  In the game, you normally fight so that, to me, isn't a grind.  For someone who doesn't like fighting, it would be a grind.  If you are doing something you normally wouldn't do, like crafting a bunch of stuff you don't want or need just because the game requires it so you get better, then that is a grind, imo.  If I can get better at crafting by only crafting what I would normally want to craft, then that would be different but that isn't how LBD for crafting works in games because you normally don't need to craft anywhere near enough stuff to level the skill by much.  I can think back to playing WoW years ago abd having to spam craft stuff just so I could make something I would actually need.  And everyone was doing the same thing so the auction house was full of stuff no one wanted it needed.  It just gets old fast.  I get that she people like it but I just have never liked it for anything that isn't something you'd already be doing, like fighting.  I'm fine with leveling up your fighting skills on a given weapon by using that weapon because that is what you are going to do anyhow in the game.

[ungkor]

Lots of good discussion.  Thanks everyone.

 

I guess my bottom line is, its been something like 10 years.  You'd think that after a decade, they could have decided on a the basic leveling/looting mechanics, and moved on to making the game grander and bigger.

 

Surely they must have enough money at this point to hire tons of developers and make this game move forward.  

 

As a developer myself, I've never, ever, seen any software product in an 'alpha stage' for a decade.   The excuse of "well, its just in alpha" is getting a bit tiring after 10 years.   Make a decision about the skills, perks, and basic game mechanics, and start moving the game forward in terms of content and expansions.   Stop hiding behind the idea that "oh, we are just a small team".  10 years... If they aren't making a ton of money, they are doing something wrong business-wise. 

 

They've sold 10 million copies according to wikipedia.  How can you not make a robust, expansive, finished and polished game at this point.   At this rate, it will be in alpha for the next 10 years, with every other new release completely overhauling the skills and perks each time.   

[Riamus]

17 minutes ago, ungkor said:

Lots of good discussion.  Thanks everyone.

 

I guess my bottom line is, its been something like 10 years.  You'd think that after a decade, they could have decided on a the basic leveling/looting mechanics, and moved on to making the game grander and bigger.

 

Surely they must have enough money at this point to hire tons of developers and make this game move forward.  

 

As a developer myself, I've never, ever, seen any software product in an 'alpha stage' for a decade.   The excuse of "well, its just in alpha" is getting a bit tiring after 10 years.   Make a decision about the skills, perks, and basic game mechanics, and start moving the game forward in terms of content and expansions.   Stop hiding behind the idea that "oh, we are just a small team".  10 years... If they aren't making a ton of money, they are doing something wrong business-wise. 

 

They've sold 10 million copies according to wikipedia.  How can you not make a robust, expansive, finished and polished game at this point.   At this rate, it will be in alpha for the next 10 years, with every other new release completely overhauling the skills and perks each time.   

A couple of points- many games take many years to complete.  It's just a newer thing for games to be in this early access state so that people are able to play them during that development.  In the past - and still true for most games - players wouldn't have access to the game until much closer to release.  But that didn't change how long they were working on the game.  Game development can also take a variety of turns based on what you learn (this is their first game) that works or doesn't work (in their view), what needs to be changed to fix other problems, what their long term goals are, and so on.  In order for the game to be in early access so early in development, they'd have had to put in temporary and unfinished things just to make it playable.  Those wouldn't typically be things intended to remain after they are able to take the time to put in what they actually want there.  This is what you choose when you select early access.

 

As far as finishing the game, they are in the final stages and so there won't be many big changes or features added before gold beyond what they have already stated - bandits and the clothing/armor rework, mainly.  Everything else will be the finishing touches - optimization, network improvements, new art, new UI/UX, etc.

[Lasher]

3 hours ago, ungkor said:

Lots of good discussion.  Thanks everyone.

 

I guess my bottom line is, its been something like 10 years.  You'd think that after a decade, they could have decided on a the basic leveling/looting mechanics, and moved on to making the game grander and bigger.

 

Surely they must have enough money at this point to hire tons of developers and make this game move forward.  

 

As a developer myself, I've never, ever, seen any software product in an 'alpha stage' for a decade.   The excuse of "well, its just in alpha" is getting a bit tiring after 10 years.   Make a decision about the skills, perks, and basic game mechanics, and start moving the game forward in terms of content and expansions.   Stop hiding behind the idea that "oh, we are just a small team".  10 years... If they aren't making a ton of money, they are doing something wrong business-wise. 

 

They've sold 10 million copies according to wikipedia.  How can you not make a robust, expansive, finished and polished game at this point.   At this rate, it will be in alpha for the next 10 years, with every other new release completely overhauling the skills and perks each time.   

 

This.

I know people like to respond with "games take time to develop" - but TEN years.

Ten. Think about it.

[theFlu]

4 hours ago, Lasher said:

This.

I know people like to respond with "games take time to develop" - but TEN years.

Ten. Think about it.

Weelll.. Starfield trailer was proudly proclaiming "25 years in the making". Lets see where we're at in 15 years..

[Lasher]

1 hour ago, theFlu said:

Weelll.. Starfield trailer was proudly proclaiming "25 years in the making". Lets see where we're at in 15 years..

 

So this somehow makes the 7DTD situation better?

No - it's a joke - it's and still using the "it's in early access" excuse is just poor.

[theFlu]

3 minutes ago, Lasher said:

So this somehow makes the 7DTD situation better?

Nope, but it makes your feigned aggro about game dev taking ages look a little silly. Just because you get upset about things taking time, things will still take time. It's not like Beth wouldn't have released theirs after a decade if it was anywhere near functional, but even they knew not to.

[Lasher]

1 hour ago, theFlu said:

Nope, but it makes your feigned aggro about game dev taking ages look a little silly. Just because you get upset about things taking time, things will still take time. It's not like Beth wouldn't have released theirs after a decade if it was anywhere near functional, but even they knew not to.

 

How is this about "Feigned aggro" or me being "Upset"?

I'm sorry, do you know me? I wasn't aware that you knew me personally and were appraised of my mood.

Perhaps when someone says something you don't like you should respond with a relevant argument in return instead of putting it down to thier mood.

I was making a statement - 10 years and still saying a game is in EA is both poor and a joke.

The fact that some other developer has been developing a game for ages is just a false equivalence.

Pathetic.

 

[theFlu]

38 minutes ago, Lasher said:

I'm sorry, do you know me?

No, no I don't; we're on the anonymous side of the internet. It's a place where I try to assume the best of everyone, in this case "this guy can't be serious" turned into "yeah, he's probably not, so he's just enjoying some aggravated trolling" and I went with that. But sure, feel free to stay in character.

 

In that case, since we're pretending you're dead serious it's an absolute travesty for a game to be developed for a decade; it should be easy to point to a few examples of comparable games that went from kickstarter to gold in what.. three years? Fivers should be trivial.

 

If you can't find a good match, well, please do point to Something to justify the ridicule. Otherwise I'll just go on with my initial pair of assumptions

[Kosmic Kerman]

I'm always baffled when people get upset that the game isn't fully released yet.  When it releases there is no guarantee that they will like the state it's in. It could be buggy or half-baked. TFP could have settled on a progression system or game-loop that they dislike.  Enjoy the ride while it lasts. There's no guarantee as to what it will look like when it releases and there is no guarantee how long it will receive support or DLC afterwards. While it's possible there will be some performance improvements, there's only so much they can do in a game built on blocks with a fully destroyable and modifiable environment. If wishes were ponies, beggars would ride.

[meganoth]

14 hours ago, ungkor said:

Lots of good discussion.  Thanks everyone.

 

I guess my bottom line is, its been something like 10 years.  You'd think that after a decade, they could have decided on a the basic leveling/looting mechanics, and moved on to making the game grander and bigger.

 

The basic leveling didn't change, they overhauled how you learn crafting recipes.

 

[ungkor]

11 hours ago, meganoth said:

 

The basic leveling didn't change, they overhauled how you learn crafting recipes.

 

I'm more referring to the last 10  years of changes.  Not just this recent alpha 21 change.   Leveling, looting, perks, and basic game mechanics have been changing for years. 

[Lasher]

16 hours ago, theFlu said:

No, no I don't; we're on the anonymous side of the internet. It's a place where I try to assume the best of everyone, in this case "this guy can't be serious" turned into "yeah, he's probably not, so he's just enjoying some aggravated trolling" and I went with that. But sure, feel free to stay in character.

 

In that case, since we're pretending you're dead serious it's an absolute travesty for a game to be developed for a decade; it should be easy to point to a few examples of comparable games that went from kickstarter to gold in what.. three years? Fivers should be trivial.

 

If you can't find a good match, well, please do point to Something to justify the ridicule. Otherwise I'll just go on with my initial pair of assumptions

 

Go right ahead with your assumptions - only they're not assumptions - they're logical fallacies.

For a start you've attempted to straw man my argument by making it over simplified "Oh, it's just trolling" - logical fallacy number one.

It's not just that the game has taken 10 years. It's that the game has taken 10 years, still seems to be unsure about it's direction in many areas and is still using "It's in early access" as an excuse for any problems.

Secondly you've decided that it's perfectly fine for a game like 7 Days to die to take 10 years to develop - you can't believe otherwise - thats the Personal Incredulity fallacy - also present in your statement that I "can't be serious".

I'm very serious - and if you want to shill for TFP that's up to you - it's a very common modus operandi on these forums.

Thirdly you've decided to make it all about me - "Trolling", "This guy", "Stay in character" - that's what we call the Ad Hominem fallacy - supporting your argument by making it about the other party.

You know nothing about me whatsoever - but stick to your "assumptions"

Fourthly you've already used False equivalence - "It's ok for this to take 10 years because that took 10 years" - yet another failure of logic.

 

You're really building yourself quite the collection there, but if you disagree with my opinon you might want to avoid reponding in a way that makes you look quite as silly as it does.

Besides which you're clearly not someone that I want to debate with - I don't enjoy punching down.

 

Edited June 17, 2023 by Lasher (see edit history)

[meganoth]

3 hours ago, ungkor said:

I'm more referring to the last 10  years of changes.  Not just this recent alpha 21 change.   Leveling, looting, perks, and basic game mechanics have been changing for years. 

 

Ah, ok. Well, TFP's "story" is that A) most of the systems in the game were placeholders they had to include first so they had a workable game for Early Access and B) that they use EA for real alpha development (where actually experiments and redesigns seem to be quite normal) and their development method is heavily on the side of experimentation.

 

I think they never said it, but my impression from watching the development over the years is that their goal nr.1 is that they want an original game, i.e. one with features and mechanics that do not mirror other games. A player can be sad about it when he feels there are concepts out there that have proven effective, or he can be happy because he gets something different to play than elsewhere.

 

But the thing is, to make something original and make it work you have to experiment, a lot. Copycats have it easier and develop faster.

 

 

[Greymantle]

It's obvious they have no plan on the direction of the game. You only have to look at what the last 5 versions and all the system overhauls. Now we're getting to version 21 and who knows how many more. This is the issue with early access and getting all the money they did up front. They have no focus anymore to finish the game, they are just throwing stuff against the wall to see if it sticks.