What was the point of the water change?

[Roland]

Most video game worlds actually. Which is why these sorts of sketches are funny.

 

 

[pApA^LeGBa]

The real tragic is that this didn´t even make survival harder and food got buffed in loot at the same time. It´s so weird. They just made it more tedious. No additional challenge involved.

Edited July 3, 2023 by pApA^LeGBa (see edit history)

[Ailin]

Old post i saw on WoW during WotLK kinda applies in the abstract. "Dont look for logic in the game that sends you dragon mounts in the mailbox." Games gonna game even if i sorta agree, just make the water poisonous so you can scoop the water but if you drink it it kills you. Players still are ferried to the dew collectors but if you REALLY wanna get the immersion experience you can have the 7 days version of zomboids drink bleach lol.

[pApA^LeGBa]

@Ailin You don´t even need dew collectors in SP if you don´t use the rocket launcher or explosive arrows/bolts. That´s why this change is so weird.

[meganoth]

48 minutes ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

@Ailin You don´t even need dew collectors in SP if you don´t use the rocket launcher or explosive arrows/bolts. That´s why this change is so weird.

 

This argument does not make sense in a game where there are alternatives for some needs.. You don't even need farming as well, lots of alternatives. You don't even need hunting. You don't even need the gyro for travel. You don't even need run&gun perks when using heavy armor and shotgun. You don't even need lockipcking. 

 

Furthermore I would only assume veterans to get by easy without dew collector. And lastly you yourself mentioned 3 cases where you need them. 😉

 

[pApA^LeGBa]

@meganoth A lot of people don´t use those 3 cases i mentioned. Explosives aren´t exactly the meta in this game. Most people tend to avoid screamers whenever they can. Wich isn´t really possible using lots of explosives.

 

And the whole reason for this change, at least we were told so, is to make water and the survival part harder. Wich it doesn´t do. It´s just more tedious and forces you to constantly go looting, wich i assume is the real reason. Still don´t understand why they want that so bad for literally everyone instead of keeping the game in a state with various playstyles possible. The majority of players did a lot of looting anyways. Really no clue why they want everyone to play the same way.

 

And they added more food to the loot. Wich makes survival even easier.

Edited July 3, 2023 by pApA^LeGBa (see edit history)

[meganoth]

4 hours ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

@meganoth A lot of people don´t use those 3 cases i mentioned. Explosives aren´t exactly the meta in this game. Most people tend to avoid screamers whenever they can. Wich isn´t really possible using lots of explosives.

 

And the whole reason for this change, at least we were told so, is to make water and the survival part harder. Wich it doesn´t do. It´s just more tedious and forces you to constantly go looting, wich i assume is the real reason. Still don´t understand why they want that so bad for literally everyone instead of keeping the game in a state with various playstyles possible. The majority of players did a lot of looting anyways. Really no clue why they want everyone to play the same way.

 

And they added more food to the loot. Wich makes survival even easier.

 

Almost all changes have multiple reasons. In this case removing glass jars was another important reason for them.

 

I am not surprised that veteran players can adapt to whatever TFP throws at them. But even they should feel sometimes limited by the available water depending on how they play. In my SP game I did never come near dying of thirst, there were always ways to get water. But in the first days I could not do all the crafting and cooking I wanted and had to buy food and water from the trader which actually made a dent in my duke pile and didn't allow me to buy anything else. And only after I had 2 dew collectors did I actually have enough water to produce small amounts of glue. Not enough though so I bought another filter.

 

Did I do something wrong? Was I not playing as efficient as you? Probably. Was water survival harder for me than in A20. Definitely.

 

Question for you: As a veteran was food ever a problem for you? DId you ever starve?  Was there ever a time (with trader) that you couldn't find food at the trader or simply hunt a few chicken to get food? So what is the difference?

 

Have you ever played Valheim for example? Did you ever starve there? Was getting food ever a problem? If no, would you say Valheim has no food survival? My point: Survival doesn't even mean that the thing is limited, it just means you have to expend some effort to get it. And buying for it or scrounging for it is effort same as buying a filter and harvesting dew collectors

 

They may have added more food to loot because some of the early recipes need water. Or maybe they simply changed the loot tables to remove or decrease frequency of some other items and now automatically food is more common. It isn't easy to balance loot tables where any change has side effects.

 

PS: To get a bigger sample we could do a poll and ask how much avaliability of water was or was not a hindrance to forum users (and whether it was in their mind while playing) in their latest SP game. Interested?

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by meganoth (see edit history)

[theFlu]

37 minutes ago, meganoth said:

If no, would you say Valheim has no food survival?

This might be a bit pedantic, but I wouldn't call Valheim's food system "survival". It's a good system, but it's a buff system, not a threat to overcome. Being hungry won't kill you or even hinder you, different food just improve you stats. And I get that "hinder from a high baseline" and "buff from a lower baseline" are essentially the same thing.. but for survival you usually get a "hunger solved" -state that ends at your normal stats, whatever you ate. For Valheim's system you get a different state based on each and every meal, the "hunger solved" -state isn't really a thing.

[meganoth]

35 minutes ago, theFlu said:

This might be a bit pedantic, but I wouldn't call Valheim's food system "survival". It's a good system, but it's a buff system, not a threat to overcome. Being hungry won't kill you or even hinder you, different food just improve you stats. And I get that "hinder from a high baseline" and "buff from a lower baseline" are essentially the same thing.. but for survival you usually get a "hunger solved" -state that ends at your normal stats, whatever you ate. For Valheim's system you get a different state based on each and every meal, the "hunger solved" -state isn't really a thing.

 

I would agree if the buff were something you could ignore. But surviving in higher biomes and especially the biome you are currently farming at any one time is almost impossible (for normal players) without having eaten the appropriate buff food. The dozen of times I was killed by "low level" monsters simply because I went somewhere without eating or forgot to rebuff is probably a lot more than most players because I often forget to look down at the food UI, but I assume everyone has a few deaths of that sort happen to him.

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by meganoth (see edit history)

[theFlu]

1 minute ago, meganoth said:

But surviving in any higher biome is almost impossible (for normal players) without having the appropriate buff food.

But you don't have to go there, for any reason ever. Much akin to the claims against spamcrafting, just chill..

 

I can't remember dying to a lack of food, home always is a portal away. I have died a few times to lack of food at base; when surprisingly taking a better look at the current building project from the ground level.

*splat*

[AtomicUs5000]

6 minutes ago, meganoth said:

I would agree if the buff were something you could ignore. But surviving in any higher biome is almost impossible (for normal players) without having the appropriate buff food. The dozen of times I was killed by "low level" monsters simply because I went somewhere without eating is probably more than most players because I often forget to look down at the food UI, but I assume everyone has a few deaths of that sort happen to him.

 
Just goes to show that both the food and water systems for this game isn't the best it could be... I mean, if Valheim can pull off the necessity for food without hunger, something's not right here.

[meganoth]

10 minutes ago, theFlu said:

But you don't have to go there, for any reason ever. Much akin to the claims against spamcrafting, just chill..

 

Are we playing the same game?  To advance you need to "farm" the current biome where you eventually have to kill the end boss. For example we are at the moment collecting materials from the plains. Any measly firefly will kill me if I have no buff food into and she gets the first hit in. With buff food neither fireflies nor the goblins (whatever they are really called) are a thread except in big numbers), but without I would not be able to do anything in the plains without multiple corpse runs a day.

 

Yeah sure, I could instead sit in meadows forever and never die. That's not playing the game.

 

6 minutes ago, AtomicUs5000 said:

 
Just goes to show that both the food and water systems for this game isn't the best it could be... I mean, if Valheim can pull off the necessity for food without hunger, something's not right here.

 

And I hate Valheims food system. I am so happy that 7D2D doesn't copy it. Their progression system for weapons and armor is great though

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by meganoth (see edit history)

[AtomicUs5000]

4 minutes ago, meganoth said:

And I hate Valheims food system. I am so happy that 7D2D doesn't copy it. Their progression system for weapons and armor is great though

 
I don't think it's that great either, but at least it does its job.

[theFlu]

2 minutes ago, meganoth said:

Are we playing the same game?  To advance

"to advance" != "survival". Usually you sort out the survival first and then get to advance over time.

 

4 minutes ago, meganoth said:

Any measly firefly will kill me if I have no buff food

Deathsquito. And learn to dodge! (Yeah, it's real rough without foods, might even be impossible, but ... just might )

 

8 minutes ago, meganoth said:

Yeah sure, I could instead sit in meadows forever and never die. That's not playing the game.

Indeed. You'd never starve.

Playing the game? What's that to do with survival features?

[Lasher]

I'm still at a complete loss as to why TFP never implemented a simple set of options to control things like hunger, thirst and the availabilty of things like food and water.

Doesn't that just keep everybody happy?

Want to play as TFP intended? - leave the sliders alone.

Don't care about survival as much and are more in it for zombie slaying? - Drop the sliders so it's not a problem.

Want to go hardcore survival-death? - Crank it up so you're like a man in the Sahara.

 

Options would let everybody play however they felt - and yes, I know there's mods but surely a variable and a slider isn't that tough to implement?

 

[meganoth]

17 minutes ago, theFlu said:

"to advance" != "survival". Usually you sort out the survival first and then get to advance over time.

 

Deathsquito. And learn to dodge! (Yeah, it's real rough without foods, might even be impossible, but ... just might )

 

Indeed. You'd never starve.

Playing the game? What's that to do with survival features?

 

We simply may have a different definition of survival in mind, but we are not having a meaningful discussion right now (sure, I see your smilies, the answer is to your first sentence which seems to be serious(??)). Food production and eating is survival in my book and I have enough food and good enough food in my game. As I said I have no problem being in the plains IF I have eaten my three meals. But to do that I have always to do my survival part of procuring and eating foods at appropriate times.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by meganoth (see edit history)

[theFlu]

6 minutes ago, meganoth said:

We simply may have a different definition of survival in mind, but we are not having a meaningful discussion right now

Indeed, I opened with "this might be pedantic" for a reason ..

[AtomicUs5000]

Valheim was probably one of the worst choices to use as a comparison. There is plenty of debate that it should even bear the survival tag in the first place. I personally don't consider it a survival game. If you can sit still in a game without maintaining any aspect of your being, it isn't survival in my eyes. My friends and I flagged the tag right in the beginning, but kids these days think just staying alive in a game means survival... which is basically 99% of games.

[meganoth]

1 minute ago, AtomicUs5000 said:

Valheim was probably one of the worst choices to use as a comparison. There is plenty of debate that it should even bear the survival tag in the first place. I personally don't consider it a survival game. If you can sit still in a game without maintaining any aspect of your being, it isn't survival in my eyes. My friends and I flagged the tag right in the beginning, but kids these days think just staying alive in a game means survival... which is basically 99% of games.

 

Ah yes, I understand why people would protest it being survival. Though that view will **literally** die out 😉. Really, nothing is as fluid as the definition of game genres.

 

 

 

 

[pApA^LeGBa]

@meganoth Basically only starved when i started playing and since then i wish the survival would be harder and i voiced that opinion quite a few times over the years. It is a bit of a problem early game in MP Coop when playing actual Coop and doing the looting together. And no i never starved in Valheim. But Valheim has a difficulty progression that is still challenging after a few hundred hours playing vanilla with every new playtrough. So ofc the easy survival part hits harder for 7 days.

 

@AtomicUs5000 True you can´t starve to death in valheim. But not eating means you can´t do anything even only remotly dangerous. Not even fall 2 meters without dying. If you don´t eat you are either an immobile peace of meat or dead really quick.

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by pApA^LeGBa (see edit history)

[AtomicUs5000]

14 minutes ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

True you can´t starve to death in valheim. But not eating means you can´t do anything even only remotly dangerous. Not even fall 2 meters without dying. If you don´t eat you are either an immobile peace of meat or dead really quick.

 
Sure, but in my view, that does not justify a survival game tag.
If it were the case that using food to improve your chances of progressing constitutes survival, then PacMan would be a survival game. You could avoid eating a power pellet to get through a level, but the fact that you can eat a power pellet to make it easier doesn't make it survival. Super Mario Bros would also be a survival game if such a loose definition was allowed. You could get through levels without a mushroom, but just because you can and should use a mushroom isn't enough.

 

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by AtomicUs5000 (see edit history)

[pApA^LeGBa]

I don´t think survival is only defined by eating and drinking. It´s the crafting and building aswell. If you add food and drinks to doom plus the ability to starve to death it still wouldn´t be a survival game.

[ZehMatt]

I keep saying this, cooking muddy water should have resulted muddy water, not sure how cooking water clears it of dirt.

[AtomicUs5000]

1 minute ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

I don´t think survival is only defined by eating and drinking. It´s the crafting and building aswell. If you add food and drinks to doom plus the ability to starve to death it still wouldn´t be a survival game.

 

I think it would be about the same amount of debate as Valheim, but I would probably let it slide in my mind just a very small tad more than Valheim. Building and crafting alone wouldn't work as survival, but if you have the need to do so or die, then that survival tag becomes a very strong label.... so I put a just little more weight on maintaining yourself over the things that make doing so easier. Another thing to look at is that in most Doom games, player death is punishing and often means a true end to your game. That combined with the starvation would give more strength to survival than Valheim's loss of skills. 
 
Consequences of death must at least partly influence what I consider to be a strong survival game, which explains why I'm always fighting for more here.
 
Interestingly, ECO Survival has building and crafting, but it also has eating and drinking that is not required, and most importantly, it is impossible to die. Also interestingly, I let this pass in my mind because the game does have a single threat of a meteor that must be destroyed before it crashes into the planet and the only way to achieve that in time is through all of those activities. I must equate this impending doom with the concept of maintaining yourself because the end result of neglect is the same. Whether or not that is enough for others to consider it survival, I do not know. 
 
Either way you want to look at things, within the context of water and its importance for survival in 7D2D, all of these games and hypothetical games are bad choices to use for comparison (at least at this time). It's a good thing in my opinion, at this time, because the ability to make these comparisons rightfully means that 7D2D truly is shifting away from true survival and that truly saddens me.

28 minutes ago, ZehMatt said:

I keep saying this, cooking muddy water should have resulted muddy water, not sure how cooking water clears it of dirt.

It doesn't. It results in muddy water free of pathogens.

[ZehMatt]

36 minutes ago, AtomicUs5000 said:

It doesn't. It results in muddy water free of pathogens.

Still not safe to drink in reality. Either way the whole glass jar change is nonsensical in my opinion.