Fundamentals of Survivor

[pApA^LeGBa]

On 12/7/2023 at 8:10 AM, RStarphoenix said:

I get the feeling the crying about jars/cans isn't because of mechanics, it's because people lost easy-mode survival with infinite water.
The more I hear justifications about why they should exist, the less reason they should exist. And we never needed them based on how the

game plays now. Water is still way too easy to collect & produce.

 

Logic would also mean we'd have empty jerry cans for gas, empty plastic bottles for oil, dirty dishes & bowls along with forks, knives & spoons, empty paper boxes for candy, coffee cans for the loose coffee grounds we find, containers for glue, syringes for meds, etc......

 

It's weird and illogical we don't have those in a real world environment, but in a fictional environment that logic don't apply.

 

Not entirely true. Water is still easy af, in SP you don´t need a dew collector at all if you deceide to loot all the time. It´s that the new system makes absolutly no sense and does force a certain playstyle. They want to see their POI´s used all day long. Don´t know any other reason why you would turn in a sandbox game into a linear experience, but here we are. 

 

 

Edited December 13, 2023 by pApA^LeGBa (see edit history)

[meganoth]

 

14 hours ago, meilodasreh said:

Yes I get that.

But then again, there's no need to try and convince people that they're wrong when they say they don't like that change.

They had it, they liked it how it was, it was taken away from them, they don't like that change. That's it.

Maybe that's just what they wanted to express, nothing more. But take a look who is first to make a longgoing story of it.

 

Take this thread as a good example.

The OP titled it "fundamentals of survival" (well he wrote "survivor", but of course he meant survival)

He even emphazized his main point by using capital letters: "BUT removing bottles/cans etc means also removing the absolute BASIC FUNDAMENTAL ESSENCE of SURVIVAL."

So he explicitly was complaining about the fact he did like to follow intuitive survival logic (find empty container, get water), which is now gone.

 

This is actually answering my question in a roundabout way. If you see the complete process as one BASIC FUNDAMENTAL as you say then only going back to the old ways will fully satisfy you (which we know is unlikely to happen). Though the question remains if the ability to get water from a lake, even without jar, would help you with immersion or not. And the same question could be posed to the OP if he still were discussing here with us.

 

In other words, you described this as a two step process, "find container, get water". Now lets suppose that TFP were only willing to re-add one of the two steps and the other would be an absolute no-go. Wouldn't it then be interesting to know if people have a major problem with only one of those two steps or both?  For TFP as well, since they probably won't change anything without being sure it would help.

 

All this further discussion was not with the OP by the way, but because theFlu and I have been discussing exactly these motivations, though in a way that didn't get us any step further. Even you seemed absolutely adament to not answer the simple question I posed to you about the "what if"

 

Was my reply to the OP helpful? I very much doubt in hindsight. But on the other hand I still believe that making people understand why some change happened and how it fits can help when that change likely won't go away.

 

 

15 hours ago, meilodasreh said:

You didn't even acknowledge that point by one single word, but immediately took the discussion away by giving examples that there are not any other containers in the game too, e.g. for getting/storing fuel.

 

Neither did any of the other poster before me acknowledge that point or refer to it in a way the OP could understand. So what? This is a discussion forum and everyone can chime in and give him HIS opinion about the case, even theFlu could just give the OP a better answer than mine instead of endlessly discussing with me (which we know by now will lead to nothing as our views are just too different). I just talked about one specific issue that I see happening with the change where just the right perception might help.

 

In a game where there are no containers (and a player never playing it WITH containers) the absence of such containers even for water will feel natural. Not as natural as if you had containers for everthing, but natural enough that this isn't discussed in forums again and again. Hundreds of RPGs (I hope you have played a few of those at least) show that nobody will complain about missing empty potion bottles, unless they are suddenly removed from the game. The maximum is a video making fun of that. Is water the great exception? I doubt that.

 

15 hours ago, meilodasreh said:

But again, that's not the topic people are complaining about. It's just about that basic survival thing (meaning "getting water, making fire, finding shelter"), that you can't do in the most basic/logic/intuitive way anymore.

 

Again suppose TFP changed the game so you could simply get water from a lake, but without any empty jars in the game. I say there is a good chance new users would find it very natural/intuitive to just go to a lake without any containers and get water from it. You maybe won't or only after a long time, as you are used to needing a jar from previous alphas. OP won't at the moment as he has played 700 hours with jars. 

 

16 hours ago, meilodasreh said:

You cannot discuss that away, especially not by ignoring the central/original point of discussion, but instead take it to other logic contexts that are not really comparable (or even to other games).

 

That's what I meant with my post, by saying "just tell them "yes, you're right, regarding that context the decision sucks". Then you at least acknowledge that you get their point. Instead immediately bringing up "no containers at all" and "water scarcity"...I think In the end you are contributing to a good extent that this whole topic keeps being so "wildly" discussed over long periods of time, no pun intended.

 

Ok, this is a culture clash problem as people in my country are used to more direct speech than US citizens. Saying "yes, you are ..." before starting my argument is essentially small talk that says "If you feel that way then you feel that way" and it in no way says anything about my understanding of his issue, but if it helps, ok, I can try to add this next time.

 

 

[meganoth]

18 hours ago, theFlu said:

Valheim's forums don't have complaints about missing dinner plates.

Valheim's forums don't have complaints about missing water jars.

Yes, that game never had either and never needed either and didn't break logic by removing either. My horrible "retaliation" is pointing out that the comparison to a different game, in a different situation, is pointless. Sure, it's a sleazy way to draw your attention to the problem, but at least you noticed ...

 

I disagree. To be a "correct" survival simulation Valheim would need plates and bowls for the food, and flask for the potions. It doesn't and leaves that to the imagination just like 7D2D does now for all containers. Maybe this doesn't create a problem in the same degree as with water for the average player, but the parallels are there and quite obvious. And you are intelligent enough to do that abstraction if you wanted. So I have proven that it is you doing the sleazy 😉. Now, since we are at the point to throw the first mild insults at each other it is also a good point to stop the discussion. I am sure you can agree to that at least.

 

Edited December 13, 2023 by meganoth (see edit history)

[theFlu]

 

10 minutes ago, meganoth said:

Now, since we are at the point to throw the first mild insults at each other

I fail to recall throwing insults at you. I called my own tactic "sleazy", but that's not At You.

 

14 minutes ago, meganoth said:

I disagree. To be a "correct" survival simulation Valheim would need plates and bowls for the food.

Why? Why would players of Valheim expect it to be a "correct" survival simulation as it never has been nor tried to be? For one, you won't die or suffer for not eating.

And how is that related to 7dtd first having a fundamental get-water-from-lake-and-clean-it -mechanic and then removing it? It's just a distraction from the OP's point about basic survival.

Valheim can do and be whatever they want; they seem to have done their work right for not having a silly discussion about icon realism. This thread here was not about icon realism until you started forcing it in. ("icon realism": the only place where Valheim refers to any "plates" is in the icons)

33 minutes ago, meganoth said:

Neither did any of the other poster before me acknowledge that point or refer to it in a way the OP could understand.

Before your input of "gas cans", there were two guys essentially laughing at "yet another jar thread". Not the greatest of form by them, but such giddiness is hardly unexpected from random forum users.

 

You're free to inject your gas cans in whatever thread you like, but when the OP comes back three times with roughly the message "I don't think you're getting me", you might want to put a hand up and try to understand the point.

 

From the OP:

- "Fundamentals of Survivor"

- "having dozens of water jars in inventory makes game too easy" (comment: he at least accepts mass jar removal)

- "The intents is fine but the realization is nonsense." (comment: and seems to be fine with the intent)

- "I need to boil water because I have tons of meat and want to boil it in water but there is fukking no way how to collect water from lake..??" (comment: but would like to gather water from a lake for survival uses)

- And then a suggestion to remedy the situation by having one jar for water. Which isn't "going back to jars" as another poster implied, it's just to provide the fundamentals of survivor

 

But gas cans! But Valheim! No. Not relevant.

[meganoth]

43 minutes ago, theFlu said:

fail to recall throwing insults at you. I called my own tactic "sleazy", but that's not At You.

 

Oh right. Sorry. Still a good time to drop the endless discussion

 

[theFlu]

1 minute ago, meganoth said:

Still a good time to drop the endless discussion

Sure, your time is better spent trying to understand the OP anyway ...

[meilodasreh]

1 hour ago, meganoth said:

Now lets suppose that TFP were only willing to re-add one of the two steps and the other would be an absolute no-go. Wouldn't it then be interesting to know if people have a major problem with only one of those two steps or both?

Yeah maybe, why not, making it possible again to fetch water from a lake (and store it for later use) might  "improve immersion" - in the sense of said basic survival logic.

Emtpy container/real or simulated item aside...it is now strange that you can gather e.g. fuel from a vehicle and carry it around, but not get water from a lake (just lets it use it immediately, but not carry away to store).

Same logic would be that you could only refuel your vehicle by parking it next to a wreck and fill directly from one to another.

That would also work somehow, but would I like it? I guess not.

 

What I'd really like is a system where you can find and later also craft emtpy containers, and/or reuse full containers, but they degrade (can only be used a certain amount of times before breaking (maybe also lose capacity each state), and then you'd have to find/make another one. Crafting skills could make you craft bigger/higher capacity containers for late game, and early game you'd find/craft only small ones (for "gamestage-scaling"/balance)

In the end similar to food spoilage, which sadly also isn't in the game, but I'd like to have that too. Hoarding piles of fresh meat in a wood box over weeks and it's still good is...well, convenient, but from the survival perspective...meh.

 

Well the system with the empty jars was at least partly what I was wishing, but now it's completely gone. 

But all that is a rhetorical question anyway, because I know emtpy containers will not be back, so why do I even go elaborate on answering that point any further...

 

And I guess having the ability go take - lets say one or two - "water units" away from a lake would still not really make it any better in the whole context, I don't know. Hard to say how many it should be for good balance.

...maybe next alpha when I give it a fresh start, I'll try that out and "cm-allow" myself two water everytime I walk to a lake, to get a feeling for it.

Edited December 13, 2023 by meilodasreh (see edit history)

[theFlu]

13 minutes ago, meilodasreh said:

And I guess having the ability go take - lets say one or two - "water units" away from a lake would still not really make it any better in the whole context, I don't know. Hard to say how many it should be for good balance.

This is kinda what the OP suggests to implement, but I don't see the point in limiting the amount. You could just build your base at a lake then; an implementation that limits, say, to "two jars per day" would be needed - but that would in the end be just as weird as 0 jars per day. All in all, I wouldn't try to limit lake water gathering; whatever crafting limitations you want can be implemented "later down the chain".

 

Since I have Valheim in my head now, heck, we could inherit their health system. You have 20 HP at baseline, one-shottable by most harder zeds and you eat and drink to increase your stats. Basic water gives nothing, teas give 20HP / 30STA, honey-glazed-cornstarch-egg-milkshake gives 60HP / 100STA and foods similarly, but HP-focused.

 

Now basic survival is easy to meet, just find the lake and boil the water, but if you want to fight harder stuff, you'll need a constant supply of top quality foods.

 

Then add some needed small fixes to the crafting system to limit mass production of whatever by whatever other means, H2O isn't usually a limiting factor in small scale mass production of anything...

[meganoth]

1 hour ago, theFlu said:

Why? Why would players of Valheim expect it to be a "correct" survival simulation as it never has been nor tried to be? For one, you won't die or suffer for not eating.

And how is that related to 7dtd first having a fundamental get-water-from-lake-and-clean-it -mechanic and then removing it? It's just a distraction from the OP's point about basic survival.

Valheim can do and be whatever they want; they seem to have done their work right for not having a silly discussion about icon realism. This thread here was not about icon realism until you started forcing it in. ("icon realism": the only place where Valheim refers to any "plates" is in the icons)

 

Damn. This still needs a reply.

 

Can't check right now, but probably the only place where 7 days to die currently refers to jars is in the name "jar of water" which they probably kept to reference the quantity, or forgot to change or most likely thought it totally unneccesary to change. And if that were the only problem TFP would probably have no qualms changing that to say "pint of water" or "water". Is that what you need for your realism? It would be the request most likely to succeed from all we discussed and may be even on their to-do list for further polishing, who knows?

 

While you are at it maybe give the Valheim devs the hint they should rename their "meat platter" as that might lead to discussions, not that I think it would.

 

Valheim players need food as much or even more as 7 days to die players need a weapon. Playing without is just a theoretical option for people who have finished a Mario Brothers game using only their nose or killed the end boss of skyrim in under 10 minutes, for bragging rights.

 

I have not played many survival games but any I have played had very different mechanics, there is no universal requirement for survival games to have a "find container, get water" mechanic.

And as we know TFP doesn't listen to "but this was once in the game but then they removed it" arguments and I don't care about past alphas and their rules as well. 7d2d had so many mechanics that were tried but are no more, if that disturbs you I can give you the old "Wait for the game to release, don't play alpha" treatment.

 

This brings us back to your question "Why would players of Valheim expect it to be a "correct" survival simulation as it never has been nor tried to be?" to which I ask back why do you expect 7d2d to be a correct survival simulation? Only if 7d2d tried to be a simulation would there be a need to simulate what a survivor had to do in real life as closely as possible. Neither valheim nor 7d2d claim to do that. Neither need empty jars nor empty platters or bowls to be survival games.

 

 

 

Edited December 13, 2023 by meganoth (see edit history)

[meilodasreh]

Wouldn't the ultimate question rather be: Why do people play Valheim instead of 7D2D?

I can't tell, as I only know one of them. 🙂

[meganoth]

12 minutes ago, meilodasreh said:

Wouldn't the ultimate question rather be: Why do people play Valheim instead of 7D2D?

I can't tell, as I only know one of them. 🙂

 

Many people seem to have played 7D2D *and* Valheim. And the games have somewhat different "niches", because valheim is much more survival and less cross-genre than 7d2d, and much less moddable. And IMHO there is not much replayability in valheim. So a simple answer could be anyone who wants more survival in a game.

 

I play Valheim currently with 2 friends, but if I could only play one of the games it would be 7d2d without a question. 

 

[meilodasreh]

1 minute ago, meganoth said:

but if I could only play one of the games it would be 7d2d without a question.

Which is why you are such a good 7D2D forum mod, and also an inspired discussion partner when it comes to things people don't like with it. 🙂

[Ramethzer0]

I play Valheim with the exact same crew I play 7 Days with, except my buddy let's his kids jump in every now and then.

[theFlu]

34 minutes ago, meganoth said:

Damn. This still needs a reply.

Umm, no. Until you understand the OP, you can not understand why your tangents are unintentional derailment at best. Go and try to understand the OP. Moreover, I have now twice been kindly, implicitly, asked by a mod to stop derailing the thread, so I shall. Feel free to @ me about anything related to the OP, of course.

[meganoth]

14 minutes ago, theFlu said:

Umm, no. Until you understand the OP, you can not understand why your tangents are unintentional derailment at best. Go and try to understand the OP. Moreover, I have now twice been kindly, implicitly, asked by a mod to stop derailing the thread, so I shall. Feel free to @ me about anything related to the OP, of course.

 

Damn, again needs a reply: I am not aware of a single word posted by any mod in this thread in his function as a mod. All words were "forum-user-words"(tm). Some could have been even created by an AI or a monkey randomly typing on a typewriter, but to my knowledge not a single word fizzled and crackled with any sort of mod-power

 

[theFlu]

4 minutes ago, meganoth said:

Damn, again needs a reply

I will not be discussing moderation in public, DM me if need be.

[Rotor]

58 minutes ago, meganoth said:

 

.... monkey randomly typing on a typewriter, ...

 

 

This reminds me of the old theorem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

 

I dont think you guys have started Hamlet, yet, so keep going.

 

 

Edited December 13, 2023 by Rotor (see edit history)

[Urban Blackbear]

To jar? Or not to jar? That is the question.

Whether tis nobler in the game to suffer

the thirst and dysentery of outrageous fortune

Or to take arms against a sea of mods

And by opposing offend them. To jar—to drink,

No more

[Roland]

Thinks about this: Every open door in the game is a jar.

[meganoth]

Stop that. It's silly. Very silly indeed.

 

 

[Rotor]

11 hours ago, Roland said:

Thinks about this: Every open door in the game is a jar.

 

Ah, so if you loot POIs with open doors that where they hid the jars.

[4sheetzngeegles]

Here is my sanskrit for the day. Many of the disputable feelings
that were posed here, and elsewhere can be broken down into a simple thought.

 

A known quote "Tis better to have loved and lost, than to never
loved at all". Alfred Lord Tennyson

 

Ehhh, subjectively it could be true, depending on the individual circumstances.

 

That's kind of like a supermodel, saying that looks don't matter. Yeah...Okay.

 

His quote, can be paraphrased as "It's better to have something that's treasured,
than to never have had it in the first place".

 

But, in gaming it's actually received as the opposite.

 

Example: People that find the exploits in a game and post it on Youtube, but make
a guick save of that game version before doing it. so they can continue to use it.
The result is the Gamedev patches it, and the rest of the players feel and are SOL.

 

So the on going sentiment that can be traced not only here, but, in other why, why not
posts, follows the same emotional logic. The aforementioned is actually an oxymoron
thus cancelling each other out.

 

People don't miss anything they never had. But harbor strong feelings for what they lost.

 

 @Roland

Quote

Thinks about this: Every open door in the game is a jar.

So if all the POI's being built from now on, had open doors would it  be considered a win loss or draw? 😉

 

Edited December 14, 2023 by 4sheetzngeegles
The not that's (see edit history)

[Rotor]

Water jars filled high
Reflecting sunlight's bright rays
Cool, refreshing drink

[meilodasreh]

38 minutes ago, 4sheetzngeegles said:

People don't miss anything they never had. But harbor strong feelings for what they lost.

Yes on a theoretical/philosophical perspective, without having any personal involvement, that's true.

That said, what about that point of view:

 

Imagine TFP would introduce something completely new to the game, and you totally don't like it right from the first moment.

You express your opinion about disliking it.

And you're told "hey, just imagine it was always there right from the beginning, then you cannot complain anymore, because you'd never know it is something newly introduced."

 

Imho it's a foul argument to just take away/shift the "original perspective".

Can I claim I can jump 10ft high when I bury the bar 8ft deep...

 

 

Edited December 14, 2023 by meilodasreh (see edit history)

[4sheetzngeegles]

You're right and that was my point just a bit cryptic in nature.

 

Emotionally the dislikes are being voiced. Then blunt logic is being used
to explain the result to that person. One of the things I learned a long
time passed is, in order to reach a person or an amicable understanding.

 

I had to step outside myself in order to express my thoughts in a manner
that would be received or understood. otherwise they cancelled each other,
out and I was back at the beginning of the conversation again.

 

The answer to the question, is It would naturally, for me, spark an emotional rebuttal.

Which is  what was began to happen in the post.

Edited December 14, 2023 by 4sheetzngeegles (see edit history)