Poll - Which progression system did you prefer?

[Roland]

2 minutes ago, AtomicUs5000 said:

Freedom of choice, player classes, and maintaining RPG elements was always a driving factor for many design decisions ever since madmole took over... so seeing these changes is a bit odd.

 

Took over? Madmole has never not held the reigns...

[AtomicUs5000]

1 minute ago, Roland said:

 

Took over? Madmole has never not held the reigns...

He mostly shared the reins and held back on a lot of things.

Edited June 20, 2023 by AtomicUs5000
Forgot "of" in case you were wondering why I edited this. It is very important for you to know this. (see edit history)

[globeadue]

23 minutes ago, Auger said:

I guess if your playing with some P3 type of player then I guess that could be a problem for your group.  So we're going to overly complicate a simple system because the people you play with are jerks.

 

 

 

I should also note that the fourth player in the playgroup (I'm the OP of that linked post) has also stated that they are not really enjoying not being able to use the books themselves, he understands the need, but at the same time, feels like he's waiting for the adults to finish dinner before he can play by handing over the magazines to the daily players.

[meganoth]

2 hours ago, AtomicUs5000 said:

 
I'm just feeling for all those players who used to play a certain role in this game for many years. I'm 99% of the time solo. If anything, I would probably be P3 if I was even playing MP. I just see the complaints as valid and I see the system as less than perfect. Freedom of choice, player classes, and maintaining RPG elements was always a driving factor for many design decisions ever since madmole took over... so seeing these changes is a bit odd.
 
I wouldn't say they are jerks (in this hypothetical situation that you placed me in), but just players trying the play the game. If I was in that scenario as the person staying at base, I could easily be seen as the jerk who refuses to comply with the attempts to force me to loot while forcing others to loot specific places for me, forcing them to loot further and further away much faster because if I was out looting, I would be getting what I need at the intended rate. Then, on top of being this jerk, I can't even get decent XP through XP sharing. Taking care of others with food, drink, and meds has always been easily handled and never a big deal, but this takes far more time and effort and simply unenjoyable. I wouldn't want to be the person having to think about someone else's character progression either.
 

 

Where is your freedom for players of a group to decide their own group dynamic? Some groups might WANT to pool all recipes into one hand so someone is the crafter for the group (even if he needs to to other jobs as well to be fully occupied). Other groups want to give everyone the same number of magazines, or just distribute to whoever fits best to get the recipes.

 

I don't think the game should solve social problems. Even without magazines a player could play uncooperatively in co-op, for example by storming ahead and always looting the loot room chests while the others are still removing the zombies or using up all the steel and glue for his weapons and armor. In an MMO with random pick-up groups you need an in-game solution for this, in a game where you play co-op with people you choose to play with they can and should deal with it themselves.

 

 

[Riamus]

16 hours ago, Cadamier said:

Okay!  So there seems to be magazines that will drop no matter what, can you give us an indication of what?

Places like mailboxes are going to be random.  However, you'll get specific types of magazines from certain crates - like a working stiff crate isn't going to give you a medical journal.  Medical loot has a good chance of giving you a medical journal but no other magazines.  Kitchen cabinets have a good chance of giving you cooking magazines and food stacks also have a good chance of cooking magazines but not any other magazines.  None will drop a specific magazine every time, though.  You can get a pretty good guess to what kind of magazines you'll find based on the POI you are in and the container you are looting.  Want electrical magazines, visit an electronics store.  Want vehicle magazines, visit a gas station.  No guarantees you'll get the magazines but there is a better chance when you loot a related POI or a related container.

 

As far as getting more magazines from things you aren't perked into... well, consider where you are looting.  Most looting in the beginning tends to be houses, so you're going to level up cooking more quickly than some others.  Medical stuff is everywhere, so you'll also level those up quickly.  There's really no reason to put points into perks for those just to get them to drop faster.  On the other hand, some magazines like vehicle magazines are harder to find and so even perking into that will not make it faster than something like cooking.  You can help this by looting places where it's more likely to be found.

9 hours ago, globeadue said:

I should also note that the fourth player in the playgroup (I'm the OP of that linked post) has also stated that they are not really enjoying not being able to use the books themselves, he understands the need, but at the same time, feels like he's waiting for the adults to finish dinner before he can play by handing over the magazines to the daily players.

So talk it out.  Maybe you need to consider splitting the magazines up differently or more evenly.  If people want to read magazines as well, then make sure everyone has magazines they can read.  Don't have one person doing all the crafting if more than one person wants to.  Unless someone is just adamant that they should read everything, it shouldn't be hard to come to some arrangement where everyone gets to read an equal amount of stuff and is happy.

[Cadamier]

23 hours ago, meganoth said:

 

Please be careful with prediction you make from a single run or even a few runs. Random IS random and there have been even mathematicians who made serious mistakes when trying to find statistical truths. People are also really really bad at judging events that are random.

 

You can not really make that determination above without having analyzed a hundred runs at a minimum (or peaked into the XML).

 

 

This example, you put 2 points into something and 2 quests without a drop? That is statistically so insignificant, it is like you were throwing two dice and when they show 5 and 6 you then conclude that these dice will always show at least 5.

 

Once you have played that same scenario say 20 times and never got a magazine of that type, then you are ready to voice a suspicion that maybe, just maybe the magazine could be delayed in dropping. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, I know but I play with 7 others and they've noted the same; both in their single player and our multiplayer games.  That's why I've also added Gage848; I watched his 'pre-release' and his 'after release' (but I didn't get to the one released yesterday).  I can see the same happening to him.  All if this would have been better if we've known about it before hand.  Now that I know about the randomness, location, etc. being a factor - its makes it much easier to understand and more importantly accept and will pass to our group.

 

So I take it food is one that will almost always drop?

[meganoth]

1 hour ago, Cadamier said:

Yes, I know but I play with 7 others and they've noted the same; both in their single player and our multiplayer games.  That's why I've also added Gage848; I watched his 'pre-release' and his 'after release' (but I didn't get to the one released yesterday).  I can see the same happening to him.  All if this would have been better if we've known about it before hand.  Now that I know about the randomness, location, etc. being a factor - its makes it much easier to understand and more importantly accept and will pass to our group.

 

So I take it food is one that will almost always drop?

 

If you loot many tier1 and tier2 (residential) POIs (for example because of questing) then you will usually just open a lot more containers that have a chance for a cooking magazine.

 

[AtomicUs5000]

18 hours ago, meganoth said:

 

Where is your freedom for players of a group to decide their own group dynamic? Some groups might WANT to pool all recipes into one hand so someone is the crafter for the group (even if he needs to to other jobs as well to be fully occupied). Other groups want to give everyone the same number of magazines, or just distribute to whoever fits best to get the recipes.

 

I don't think the game should solve social problems. Even without magazines a player could play uncooperatively in co-op, for example by storming ahead and always looting the loot room chests while the others are still removing the zombies or using up all the steel and glue for his weapons and armor. In an MMO with random pick-up groups you need an in-game solution for this, in a game where you play co-op with people you choose to play with they can and should deal with it themselves.

 

 

I get what you are saying, but looking at this from the reverse perspective directly after a change doesn't hold much ground. If the change never happened, the freedom for players of a group to decide their own group dynamic remains unchanged. The addition of a problem for some groups to solve does not add more freedom just because there is now a new problem.
 
The game shouldn't solve social problems, but why should the game create them? Is the fact that a player could always make things difficult for teammates a good reason to include more skewed scenarios? Strange thoughts. Besides, if this was the intention, things like shared XP would never be included in the game because it's not the game's responsibility to solve the problem of XP distribution.

[meganoth]

On 6/21/2023 at 7:10 PM, AtomicUs5000 said:

I get what you are saying, but looking at this from the reverse perspective directly after a change doesn't hold much ground. If the change never happened, the freedom for players of a group to decide their own group dynamic remains unchanged. The addition of a problem for some groups to solve does not add more freedom just because there is now a new problem.

 

The redesign of crafting didn't happen to change group dynamic. The change in group dynamic is a side product. If the redesign never happened then a few problems with crafting could not be corrected. Since the redesign had to happen anyway, the only question is whether players are expected to cooperate when playing co-op or whether that has to be solved for them.

 

And the answer (for me at least) is the former. For gaming as a whole I want to find more players on the internet who act like "human beings", and for society as a whole I want more people that have learned to work well in society even if they learned all their socail behaviour in front of their PC.

 

Furthermore the same problem was in A20 as well. If say the Agility player found the auto-shotgun recipe and read it because he thought it too much trouble bringing it back then he is doing the same harm to the group as someone not bringing back shotgun-magazines, because he never will be able to craft anything better than quality 1 autoshotgun. Just that the opportunities to read magazines one should bring back are more numerous but at the same time less damaging as eventually someone will be able to craft the higher stuff.

 

 

On 6/21/2023 at 7:10 PM, AtomicUs5000 said:

The game shouldn't solve social problems, but why should the game create them? Is the fact that a player could always make things difficult for teammates a good reason to include more skewed scenarios? Strange thoughts. Besides, if this was the intention, things like shared XP would never be included in the game because it's not the game's responsibility to solve the problem of XP distribution.

 

Shared XP is different because a player can't give XP to some other player like a magazine. So if XP were not shared it would not be a motivation or opportunity for players to cooperate or share. As it is XP sharing is a motivation to group up and raid POIs together, so again it is motivating players to act socially instead of separating.

 

Edited June 23, 2023 by meganoth (see edit history)

[AtomicUs5000]

1 hour ago, meganoth said:

 

The redesign of crafting didn't happen to change group dynamic. The change in group dynamic is a side product. If the redesign never happened then a few problems with crafting could not be corrected. Since the redesign had to happen anyway, the only question is whether players are expected to cooperate when playing co-op or whether that has to be solved for them.

 

And the answer (for me at least) is the former. For gaming as a whole I want to find more players on the internet who act like "human beings", and for society as a whole I want more people that have learned to work well in society even if they learned all their socail behaviour in front of their PC.

 

Furthermore the same problem was in A20 as well. If say the Agility player found the auto-shotgun recipe and read it because he thought it too much trouble bringing it back then he is doing the same harm to the group as someone not bringing back shotgun-magazines, because he never will be able to craft anything better than quality 1 autoshotgun. Just that the opportunities to read magazines one should bring back are more numerous but at the same time less damaging as eventually someone will be able to craft the higher stuff.

 

 

 

Shared XP is different because a player can't give XP to some other player like a magazine. So if XP were not shared it would not be a motivation or opportunity for players to cooperate or share. As it is XP sharing is a motivation to group up and raid POIs together, so again it is motivating players to act socially instead of separating.

 

 
I understand your point of view. I could get into a game like that if I could manage to muster up a group of people willing to do the same, but I just don't see this level of social complexity suiting well for this game for typical players. It's just not on that level. This is the kind of thing that should be modded. I understand your point of view of XP sharing and keeping players together, but it's also pushing players to do things they do not want to do in a sandbox game that traditionally allowed you the freedom to play a specific role for your group without consequences.
 
If things were the other way around, and let's say magazines and this fake randomness were always there and removed, you wouldn't have players saying, "hey! because of this change nobody will help me clear POIs anymore!" or "man, I really wish I could spend my day finding what everybody else needs... I really miss that". It certainly wouldn't force players to be only farmers, builders, or miners just because now they are free to be that.

[Archael]

I prefer mix:
Perks for increase numbers, like increased damage etc.
Loot with books and schematics for exceptional and unique skills like finding honey in trees, ability to craft modifications etc.
LbD for increase quality for crafted gear - you have to find schematic but to be better you need to do a thing (tho not how it was previously. I mean, if you want to craft better tools you have to USE tools, not craft billion stone axes to be able to craft q6 auger).

[meganoth]

On 6/23/2023 at 6:35 PM, AtomicUs5000 said:

 
I understand your point of view. I could get into a game like that if I could manage to muster up a group of people willing to do the same, but I just don't see this level of social complexity suiting well for this game for typical players. It's just not on that level. This is the kind of thing that should be modded. I understand your point of view of XP sharing and keeping players together, but it's also pushing players to do things they do not want to do in a sandbox game that traditionally allowed you the freedom to play a specific role for your group without consequences.
 
If things were the other way around, and let's say magazines and this fake randomness were always there and removed, you wouldn't have players saying, "hey! because of this change nobody will help me clear POIs anymore!" or "man, I really wish I could spend my day finding what everybody else needs... I really miss that". It certainly wouldn't force players to be only farmers, builders, or miners just because now they are free to be that.

 

I am a bit confused about your post.

 

For example if say magazines and fake randomness(?) were removed, of course players would not say "because of this change nobody will help me clear POIs anymore!" because that was a result of the shared xp, not magazines or a fake randomness, right?

 

And which of the things we talked about forces players to be farmers, builders or miners ???

 

Edited June 24, 2023 by meganoth (see edit history)

[AtomicUs5000]

On 6/24/2023 at 6:22 PM, meganoth said:

 

I am a bit confused about your post.

 

For example if say magazines and fake randomness(?) were removed, of course players would not say "because of this change nobody will help me clear POIs anymore!" because that was a result of the shared xp, not magazines or a fake randomness, right?

 

And which of the things we talked about forces players to be farmers, builders or miners ???

 

What I am saying is that if things were the other way around and we were currently discussing the removal of the system that attempts to decide for players what magazines they find, there would be no people complaining that the removal is causing a lack of togetherness clearing POIs (because people who want to do it together will still do it together. The removal would not force people apart, where the addition is attempting to force togetherness)

 

The removal also would not force players into solo roles. (where the addition is attempting to force players out of them).

 

Nobody would complain that the removal took away their favorite hobby of having to bring back magazines in order to have a successful group. (First off, it would not be someone’s favorite hobby and secondly because the removal does not force people to stop helping, where the addition attempts to force players to help out group members who are trying to simply enjoy the game their preferred way).

 

 

Edited June 27, 2023 by AtomicUs5000 (see edit history)

[Skaarphy]

I'm not a fan of incremental upgrades in RPGs. I love the sweet, sweet agony of having one skill point and three equally desired skills to put it in. That's why it's learn by perks for me.

The current system, not a fan. On paper it sounded like an approximation of natural progression: You want to find more stuff for X, you put skill points into X.

In-game though it made for some akward moments. Just need 3 more points to get to tier 5 of X? Put a point in it to up the chances for finding them, disregarding any progression that would feel more "natural." To me this comes off as a bit forced and gamey.

And I'm not really sure about the point of it all. For large parts of the game, being strong in some aspects and weak in others has been a thing already. This just seems to be a different approach, without actually improving anything, doesn't it? But maybe it just feels to me that way because I don't really like it.   

[Lasher]

On 6/25/2023 at 8:02 AM, Skaarphy said:

And I'm not really sure about the point of it all. For large parts of the game, being strong in some aspects and weak in others has been a thing already. This just seems to be a different approach, without actually improving anything, doesn't it?

 

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to Alpha 21...

[unholyjoe]

On 6/15/2023 at 4:37 PM, Lasher said:

A little poll to see which of the progression systems players liked most...

my choice isnt there... "none"

 

i miss the days where we didnt have number game within the game.

 

[AtomicUs5000]

38 minutes ago, unholyjoe said:

my choice isnt there... "none"

 

i miss the days where we didnt have number game within the game.

 

 
I could dig it if the survival and crafting aspects were strong again and the tower defense aspect was the primary focus. Progression would simply be your real life skill playing the game, making the correct preparations, time management, and building decisions in between each horde.

[RipClaw]

12 hours ago, unholyjoe said:

i miss the days where we didnt have number game within the game.

Sounds to me a little bit like Subnautica where progress is about making better equipment and better means of transport.

 

[caatalyst]

I much preferred the Alpha 15/16 skill system.

Learn by doing feels a lot more organic and rewarding. As you go out and do things in the world you get better at them.

It's a shame how gameplay has been dumbed down so much since then. The game looks so much better now, combat feels great but the overall gameplay just feels meh.

Fortunately we do have Undead Legacy mod which has the best progression system that 7D2D has seen so far IMO. A mixture of learn by doing and schematics unlocking.

I'm holding off on playing A21 until the mod is updated.

[meganoth]

On 6/25/2023 at 8:20 AM, AtomicUs5000 said:

What I am saying is that if things were the other way around and we were currently discussing the removal of the system that attempts to decide for players what magazines they find, there would be no people complaining that the removal is causing a lack of togetherness clearing POIs (because people who want to do it together will still do it together. The removal would not force people apart, where the addition is attempting to force togetherness)

 

The magazines do not force people to clear POIs together.

 

On 6/25/2023 at 8:20 AM, AtomicUs5000 said:

 

The removal also would not force players into solo roles. (where the addition is attempting to force players out of them).

 

Nobody would complain that the removal took away their favorite hobby of having to bring back magazines in order to have a successful group. (First off, it would not be someone’s favorite hobby and secondly because the removal does not force people to stop helping, where the addition attempts to force players to help out group members who are trying to simply enjoy the game their preferred way).

 

 

 

I am reminded of the other thread where you brought up Learn-by-example and someone replied that it would be a fun addition and encourage teamplay. Now if that feature were in the game and were being removed, would players complain? I don't know. But even if they didn't, wouldn't having that feature still be "nice" and "fun" in a small way?

 

I can only say, we are used to bringing back the book series for our co-players and we got used to giving magazines to our co-players and find it another nice way to support and interact with our co-players.

Lets see, in A20 we found lots and lots of glass jars and empty cans and paper, paper and paper in our loot. I hated to find paper. Now you often find magazines instead of paper, and let me tell you: If they removed magazines and let me find paper instead, then yes, I would complain. 

 

 

[AtomicUs5000]

3 hours ago, meganoth said:

I am reminded of the other thread where you brought up Learn-by-example and someone replied that it would be a fun addition and encourage teamplay. Now if that feature were in the game and were being removed, would players complain? I don't know. But even if they didn't, wouldn't having that feature still be "nice" and "fun" in a small way?

 

I can only say, we are used to bringing back the book series for our co-players and we got used to giving magazines to our co-players and find it another nice way to support and interact with our co-players.

Lets see, in A20 we found lots and lots of glass jars and empty cans and paper, paper and paper in our loot. I hated to find paper. Now you often find magazines instead of paper, and let me tell you: If they removed magazines and let me find paper instead, then yes, I would complain. 

 

Yes, I suppose I might find that feature of "learn by example" nice in a small way. It has the potential of balancing group dynamics a bit by encouraging the players who would normally go out looting to stick around and help the builder build, the miner mine, the hunter hunt, or the farmer farm once in a while. No matter what kind of player you are, you always have the potential to help someone else out who tags along, even if that builder, miner, hunter, or farmer tags along with the looters. 

I don't have a problem with the magazines, nor of sharing them. All that is fine in my opinion and I don't request their removal. The problems I see are how the chances of specific magazines (or any loot for that matter) are skewed by our perks which makes finding the ones to share with our base-dwellers much harder and it continues to get even harder as time goes on. Sorry if that wasn't clear. It's what I meant by "fake randomness" and "the system that attempts to decide for players what magazines they find." I find this feature to do more harm than good in relation to group dynamics. I also find it to do harm to the overall game experience. Gamestage and lootstage already have their hands on the steering wheel that drives the course of the gameplay... add more hands and you eventually lose control completely.

[meganoth]

24 minutes ago, AtomicUs5000 said:

Yes, I suppose I might find that feature of "learn by example" nice in a small way. It has the potential of balancing group dynamics a bit by encouraging the players who would normally go out looting to stick around and help the builder build, the miner mine, the hunter hunt, or the farmer farm once in a while. No matter what kind of player you are, you always have the potential to help someone else out who tags along, even if that builder, miner, hunter, or farmer tags along with the looters. 

I don't have a problem with the magazines, nor of sharing them. All that is fine in my opinion and I don't request their removal. The problems I see are how the chances of specific magazines (or any loot for that matter) are skewed by our perks which makes finding the ones to share with our base-dwellers much harder and it continues to get even harder as time goes on. Sorry if that wasn't clear. It's what I meant by "fake randomness" and "the system that attempts to decide for players what magazines they find." I find this feature to do more harm than good in relation to group dynamics. I also find it to do harm to the overall game experience. Gamestage and lootstage already have their hands on the steering wheel that drives the course of the gameplay... add more hands and you eventually lose control completely.

 

It is possible that I am already agreeing with you, see my post in another thread an hour ago: https://community.7daystodie.com/topic/32424-a21-is-definately-better-but/?do=findComment&comment=527137

 

At the moment I expect TFP to release a patch with more balance fixes in the near future, i.e. it is their move now. Whatever it is, it will change things somewhat, maybe solve some problems, maybe create new 😉.

 

[Riamus]

Could be get clarification on how the perk bonus to magazines works?  There seem to be 2 ideas about how it works right now and no clear idea which is correct.  And I think this is causing some of the issue.

 

1) Perks adjust the loot that is found by increasing the percentage of one magazine over others.  So if you have 3 magazines in a container and they would normally be Forge Ahead, Southern Farming, and Shotgun Messiah, if you had perked into Miner 69'er, one of those would have a chance to get changed to Tools Digest (I think that's the Miner 69'er magazine).  This reduces the chance of finding other magazines because the magazines are being changed into what you perk into.

 

2) Perks adjust the loot by adding a chance of finding an additional magazine on top of what would normally be there.  So if you had those same 3 magazines in a container and you perked into Miner 69'er, you would have a chance to get those same magazines PLUS a Tools Digest magazine.

 

If it's the first option, then this is definitely going to cause issues for finding magazines you aren't perked into.  If you are perked into 3 magazines and the loot contains 3 magazines, then you have a chance of getting the 3 you perked into and nothing else.  If you're perked into 4 or 5 magazines, then that means the chance of finding anything else will be even lower.

 

On the other hand, if it's the second option, then you will always get the same loot but just have a chance to get an extra magazine on top of that from your perk bonus.  This wouldn't reduce the chance of you from getting magazines for stuff you don't perk into.

 

So if it's the first, I think we do have a problem in the design.

[CapnCookie]

9 minutes ago, Riamus said:

Could be get clarification on how the perk bonus to magazines works?  There seem to be 2 ideas about how it works right now and no clear idea which is correct.  And I think this is causing some of the issue.

I actually have a comment on a Steam thread that clarifies this specifically, as I wanted to understand some of the lines found in the progression xml and how it works within the game. It can be found here: https://steamcommunity.com/app/251570/discussions/0/3810656323976142561/

[Riamus]

26 minutes ago, CapnCookie said:

I actually have a comment on a Steam thread that clarifies this specifically, as I wanted to understand some of the lines found in the progression xml and how it works within the game. It can be found here: https://steamcommunity.com/app/251570/discussions/0/3810656323976142561/

I assume you're Cookie on there?  What you posted adds a third option that is almost the same as the first in my post.  Instead of a chance to replace an existing magazine directly, you are increasing the number of chances and total chances for each loot.  This also will remove a magazine you would have gotten if the bonus takes effect and so has the same effect as what I mentioned.

 

I'll point out that your math is a bit off in the 200%, 400%, 600% that you were mentioning.  That's not quite correct.  Your number of chances in the pool is increased but so is your total pool size.  So 6/10 vs 1/5 is 6x the chances but because the pool also increases, you are only increasing by 300% for probability, which bears out in your results... 153 is roughly 3x 50.

 

This example does seem to suggest replacing what you would have gotten and therefore reducing chances of getting magazines you aren't perked into.  If that really is the case, then that's a bad thing.  The bonus should be a chance of getting 1 extra magazine of something you are perked into.  Example:  I loot a container and get 3 magazines.  If I had no perk bonus or a lot of perk bonuses, I'd always get those same 3 magazines from that same roll of the dice.  But if I do have perk bonuses, then it will roll a separate time and determine if I get one extra magazine from those perks.  In other words, that second roll would be a separate loot table - X% chance per loot level per perk bonus, so let's say I have 1 bonus for cooking and 3 bonus for forge ahead.  This new roll will have 3 chances of forge ahead, 1 of cooking, and X of nothing.  If it's 2% per perk point, then you'd have 6% of forge ahead, 2% of cooking, and 92% of nothing.  If you succeed in this roll, then you get that magazine in addition to the original 3 you would have gotten without a perk bonus.  This, I think, would give a better outcome so you aren't missing out on magazines you don't perk into because of your perked magazines replacing everything else.