Version 1.0 (Alpha 22) Dev Diary

[Roland]

12 hours ago, Old Crow said:

 

We shouldn't have to rely on mods to improve the game, period.

I’ll call BS on that. TFP can’t possibly make a game that has features that appeals to every person nor can they put in every single feature that every single person wants. The player base can’t even decide among themselves what features and changes constitute an improvement or a backslide. Opinions range all over the place. 
 

Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that for certain people with a particular set of preferences, they absolutely must, should, and will rely on mods to improve the game for them. 
 

It’s unreasonable to think that one set of default game rules is going to be good enough for everyone and nobody should mod those rules for their own pleasure. Other games that can’t be modded are ignored and uninstalled by players that wind up disliking them but this game can be tailored into something enjoyable even if the vanilla experience is not something they like. So should they just ditch the game since they supposedly shouldn’t have to improve it for their own preferences or is it actually a huge bonus to be able to find or create modified versions that someone might like better?

 

The truer statement is that more games in the industry should be modable to improve them for your tastes so that as a gamer you can rely on being able to find some version that really aligns with your sense of fun. 

Edited September 18 by Roland (see edit history)

[4sheetzngeegles]

If a new form of zombie were added I'd like something a little more simple.

 

For instance, one is the Bubble head that spews all over the area, since he is radiated
there is an option in the xml for Z radiated reskinning, if he spews in a crowd of
regular zombies have them turn into radiiated. A second blast and they become radiated
ferals.

 

The scout or screamer could take advantage of the Ai for take cover, showing intel.

The animals could function the same as the scout, a specific wail would potentially
draw a pack or a flock.

 

The vultures, could have a random, short burst attack then fly away, if during
their flight pattern they come within a specific distance to the player, then they
could swoop attack and fly away. Its hard enough to tag one with a bow in flight,
imagine unprompted burst attacks from any direction, and if you get wounded enough
you get swarmed. Also add circle of life, all dead attack all living, unless you are the target.

 

Zombies presently are definitely dead on the second drop unless radiated. What if they
randomly played dead, unless you made sure to double tap them to the head. Come too close
and get swiped.

 

Last if the zombies were killed, and a screamer is present then her hoard call could
rez those that have not been decapitated or disappeared yet.

Simple stuff like that.

[Morloc]

2 hours ago, 4sheetzngeegles said:

if the zombies were killed, and a screamer is present then her hoard call could
rez those that have not been decapitated or disappeared yet.

 

The preceding concept is Necromancer approved.

 

 

-Arch Necromancer Morloc 💀

[Adam the Waster]

New shopping mall coming this winter

[Falcon197]

8 hours ago, Roland said:

I’ll call BS on that. TFP can’t possibly make a game that has features that appeals to every person nor can they put in every single feature that every single person wants. The player base can’t even decide among themselves what features and changes constitute an improvement or a backslide. Opinions range all over the place. 

 

I'll politely call BS in turn, Roland, because I and many others rely on mods or DIY fixes out of habit since we don't expect our feedback to be taken seriously.  No one who understands how small-time early-access game development works is demanding a perfect product, and there's lots of fog around what the community wants for a variety of reasons, but that's no excuse to write off feedback the way it frequently is.

[GigglingZombie]

With so many new POI's that came along, what i'd like to see is more of those included in Trader quests; now and then, yes i do playthrough's where i hardly go to traders for quests, ie just loot lots of POI's as and when i want, thus i can sometimes go to POI's i haven't seen before; but most of the time i play such that i do lots of trader progression, and that's where it would be nice to see more variety in the POI's offered

Edited September 19 by GigglingZombie (see edit history)

[Outlaw_187]

This may be a dumb question but is there gonna be a "Q4 Dev Diary"?

[Syphon583]

9 hours ago, Falcon197 said:

 

I'll politely call BS in turn, Roland, because I and many others rely on mods or DIY fixes out of habit since we don't expect our feedback to be taken seriously.  No one who understands how small-time early-access game development works is demanding a perfect product, and there's lots of fog around what the community wants for a variety of reasons, but that's no excuse to write off feedback the way it frequently is.

What we're talking about here are preferences which, by nature, are 100% subjective. You "rely" on mods because your preference is to play a certain way. Just because you feel whatever feedback was given in the past was ignored does not mean all feedback is. I've only been playing since A19, but I've recognized at least a handful of changes they've made which can be argued came from player feedback. TFPs job is to build a base game that can be enjoyed by those who align with their vision, while also being incredibly mod-friendly for those who like to customize to their liking. THAT is Roland's point and not a single point you brought up invalidates what he is saying.

[Riamus]

Exactly.  Just because they didn't decide to change specific things based on feedback from some people doesn't mean they didn't listen to it.  Take any major topic in this game... Learn by doing is requested by many players, yet many other players don't want it; glass jars coming back is requested by many players, yet many other players are happy they are gone.  If they make a change based on one side's feedback, the other side thinks their feedback is being ignored, and vice versa.  In reality, you can't please every player.  That is why making the game easy to mod is such a good thing.

Edited September 19 by Riamus (see edit history)

[Falcon197]

2 hours ago, Syphon583 said:

TFPs job is to build a base game that can be enjoyed by those who align with their vision, while also being incredibly mod-friendly for those who like to customize to their liking. THAT is Roland's point and not a single point you brought up invalidates what he is saying.

 

A few things I'd point out -

 

TFPs' vision for 7 Days has been murky and subject to constant change.  It's difficult to align to something inconsistent. 

 

And it's not just me relying on mods as a remedy to bugs or poorly refined features that were forced as part of that murky vision.  My frame of reference is a long list of stuff that was pushed ever since I started playing back on A11, which was poorly received by multiple large groups of people I've played the game with over the years.

 

I'm not saying TFPs ignore all feedback, but a considerable amount of thoughts offered in good faith and shared by many gets ignored or smacked down ala blanket comments like what I originally called out; that because the community at large doesn't clearly articulate what it wants, there's no point in heeding feedback deemed inconsistent regardless how many people agree with it.  My beef is with that reasoning specifically, because TFPs don't seem keen on seeking player feedback in the first place. 

 

I hope I'm wrong about that, but it doesn't seem like much gets considered beyond bug reporting, backer requests, and what gets posted by a subset of people on here who are subscribed to whatever form the devs' vision takes.

 

Plus, objectively, I can't say I've ever seen another group of devs put up the kinds of resistance TFPs do to things they don't like or don't get.  A perfect example of this would be changes to base building that discourage or outright punish players who enjoy base management by downscaling building XP, removing depth in construction and component crafting, and generally reducing what can be done outside the scope of exploring POIs, looting, and slaying hordes.  The rationale given on the dev streams was that they "couldn't imagine someone wanting to play their game that way" - yet many people do.

 

What I'm honestly curious about is how the devs assess and compile feedback apart from forum posts and the bug reports section, because I can't say I've ever seen surveys put out or other forms of player feedback actively solicited.  Like are Steam reviews with lots of awards and upvotes considered?  Are streamers surveyed?  There are pools of data out there which can be tapped and analyzed to better inform decisions, but if anything like that goes on it isn't mentioned in the dev streams.

Edited September 19 by Falcon197 (see edit history)

[Riamus]

Most devs don't listen to players all that much.  For most games, development happens entirely behind closed doors.  The difference is with early access, and it states before you buy such a game that it is still being developed and things may change.

 

I would say that when there is feedback on things that aren't designed or thought out well, they listen.  Take the initial removal of shared quest progression in 1.0.  Players pointed out the problems that causes and they added it back and made a different change to get the effect they were looking for.

 

On the other hand, if their vision for the game is a certain way and some players don't like it, they aren't likely to change things for those players.  And they really shouldn't, to be honest.

 

Keep in mind that even if a group of people complain about something, that many more might like it.  Most people don't spend time saying they like something, but most will complain about things they don't like.  This greatly skews the way things appear because you see more negative feedback than positive even when far more like something.  So you may think most people don't like something and it could be the opposite.  There are many thousands of people who actively play this game, so even if 100 people were to complain, that is only a very small part of the player base.  And even with that, you will get people who support the change. 

 

As stated, they cannot please everyone.  If people give feedback, they listen.  But listening doesn't mean they will agree with it.  When they added this game to early access, they needed a game that could be played.  That meant they needed to use a lot of placeholders, from art to mechanics, just to make it playable.  Over time, those placeholders get replaced.  Sometimes the replacements don't work the way they want and so they change things again.  That is normal for development.

[zztong]

2 hours ago, Falcon197 said:

Plus, objectively, I can't say I've ever seen another group of devs put up the kinds of resistance TFPs do to things they don't like or don't get.

 

My list would start with Microsoft.

 

I'm in the group that thinks it is mathematically impossible to make a game everyone would consider to be perfect. To me, Rimworld got the closest (a very high satisfaction rating) and I'm tempted to admit that's because of modding, but I could also say maybe modding is key to getting me to replay a game.

 

I suspect part of the frustration for many folks is we don't get to have a lot of quality contact or conversations with the developers, so we don't really learn their point of view. Faatal does a nice job of succinct straight talk when he gets a chance. Striking that balance if there's even available time, is pretty tough. A group of fans left to fester on a boards like Reddit or Steam seem to turn rabid attributing imagined thoughts as to developer motives and I think that's because there's a vacuum of conversation. That vacuum can never be realistically satisfied.

[bdubyah]

3 hours ago, Falcon197 said:

I hope I'm wrong about that, but it doesn't seem like much gets considered beyond bug reporting, backer requests, and what gets posted by a subset of people on here who are subscribed to whatever form the devs' vision takes.

So you think backers have more say than any other players? What makes you think that? Have any proof or is that just a "feeling"?

 

3 hours ago, Falcon197 said:

I'm not saying TFPs ignore all feedback, but a considerable amount of thoughts offered in good faith and shared by many gets ignored or smacked down ala blanket comments like what I originally called out; that because the community at large doesn't clearly articulate what it wants, there's no point in heeding feedback deemed inconsistent regardless how many people agree with it.  My beef is with that reasoning specifically, because TFPs don't seem keen on seeking player feedback in the first place.

Most devs don't have tons of communication directly with the player base. They listen when it makes sense to the game they are making. You know, the game they want to make, not the one you want.

 

3 hours ago, Falcon197 said:

Plus, objectively, I can't say I've ever seen another group of devs put up the kinds of resistance TFPs do to things they don't like or don't get.  A perfect example of this would be changes to base building that discourage or outright punish players who enjoy base management by downscaling building XP, removing depth in construction and component crafting, and generally reducing what can be done outside the scope of exploring POIs, looting, and slaying hordes.  The rationale given on the dev streams was that they "couldn't imagine someone wanting to play their game that way" - yet many people do.

Think you mean subjectively, since that's just your opinion. They didn't try and discourage base building, they just tried to balance the XP gotten from it when it comes to time spent doing it, versus other activities. And I think building can still yield more XP in the same time frame, though it is closer now. Not sure how that's a bad thing. What depth in building and "component crafting" did they remove? I'd say base building is the best it's ever been with all the new shapes and deco. What exactly are the issues you have with it?

[beerfly]

7 days to die become much more than we expected ( Thankful for life about that Pimps ! ) and ideas are exploding, are they ?  

[Falcon197]

3 hours ago, bdubyah said:

So you think backers have more say than any other players? What makes you think that? Have any proof or is that just a "feeling"?

 

Anecdotal.  Lots of the announcements and dev stream discussions around roadmap for the game included mention by Joel and others about meeting backer goals and executing "long planned changes," but there's little mention of player feedback - especially if there's a lot of criticism and pushback on recent changes.

 

3 hours ago, bdubyah said:

Most devs don't have tons of communication directly with the player base. They listen when it makes sense to the game they are making. You know, the game they want to make, not the one you want.

 

Ultimately devs are free to decide what type of game they want to make.  No contest here.  My leading point was that using statements like "the community doesn't know what it wants" as a catch-all answer to any criticism is BS, lazy, and accounts for a decent part of the reason why many people don't speak up because they expect to receive that type of response - or because they get gaslit by dev acolytes for offering good faith opinions.

 

3 hours ago, bdubyah said:

Think you mean subjectively, since that's just your opinion. They didn't try and discourage base building, they just tried to balance the XP gotten from it when it comes to time spent doing it, versus other activities. And I think building can still yield more XP in the same time frame, though it is closer now. Not sure how that's a bad thing. What depth in building and "component crafting" did they remove? I'd say base building is the best it's ever been with all the new shapes and deco. What exactly are the issues you have with it?

 

Well your opinion that my thoughts don't matter beyond the scope of my own experience is your own subjective view as well, so there we are.

 

As far as the current state of building, I actually agree the new shapes and deco were great additions.  The two main issues I have with the way building has evolved are, very simply - removal of depth from building gameplay (e.g., removing rebar, no additions to the power system or base defenses for several alphas, removing block materials, and a lack of ways to advance tech, crafting, or farming) and secondly the essential, underlying attitude driving that lack of interest in innovation.  

 

I've watched enough dev streams to get the strong impression that Joel and the other spokespeople leading the discussions at the very least don't understand players who enjoy 7DTD for its building mechanics or at the worst, aim to penalize us for not embracing their vision of how the game should be played. 

 

Meanwhile, priority is given to features fitting their mold of what the average 7 Days player should look like, which near as I can tell is someone who barely builds and spends most of their time looting the world, exploring POIs, and questing.  All of these are considered valid but wanting to focus on building and managing a base in a game is somehow inconceivable.

 

I respect what the devs do and what they've built.  My disconnect comes with trying to figure out why they made a game with building mechanics and limitless potential, yet show less interest in what players who come for those aspects want - and effectively let their spokespeople talk smack about it in the dev streams.

[Riamus]

13 hours ago, Falcon197 said:

Anecdotal.  Lots of the announcements and dev stream discussions around roadmap for the game included mention by Joel and others about meeting backer goals and executing "long planned changes," but there's little mention of player feedback - especially if there's a lot of criticism and pushback on recent changes.

That means they promised certain things as kickstarter goals and need to fulfill those things.  It isn't at all related to backers asking for stuff and them adding those things or anything even remotely like that.

 

As far as building stuff goes, you might have liked the extra levels of building materials or resources - rebar, wet cement, etc. - but not everyone did, including people who like to build.  Building is one of the main things I like about the game.  But I am not interested in a bunch of steps to get what I want.  I am interested in building interesting things without spending a ton of time just going through meaningless steps to do it.  And I have a strong feeling that I'm not the only one who feels that way.  More than likely, they've received enough feedback and gameplay data prior to removing those things that showed more people wanted a simplified building route so building was easier and faster.  Of course, I don't have actual data on that and it's just my guess.  But it makes sense.  They might remove things they think unbalance the game or provide bad gameplay or just don't work well with how they want the game to play, but AFAIK those things worked fine when they were in the game, so removing them if most players wanted them seems unlikely.  It's far more likely that they saw more people not liking it than those who did.  Again, just a guess.  All I can say for sure is my own preference, which is how they have it now.

 

When it comes down to it, most gamers aren't interested in a lot of steps to complete something in a game.  There are those who enjoy all those details and steps, but they are definitely a minority of all gamers.  That unfortunately means that most games aren't going to give you all those details and steps because it pushes away more people than it attracts.  You're usually limited to sims or games with at least a strong sim mechanic to the game.

Edited September 20 by Riamus (see edit history)

[Falcon197]

8 hours ago, Riamus said:

As far as building stuff goes, you might have liked the extra levels of building materials or resources - rebar, wet cement, etc. - but not everyone did, including people who like to build.  Building is one of the main things I like about the game.  But I am not interested in a bunch of steps to get what I want.  I am interested in building interesting things without spending a ton of time just going through meaningless steps to do it. 

 

I think you're reading too much into what I mean when I say more complexity in building.  Having more than one path to success in a system is by definition a more complex system.  Based on what you're saying about preferring fewer steps to build, I would assume you can appreciate the fact that rebar was a huge timesaver for building more durable structures if you could manage the concrete crafting.  Now building a concrete structure efficiently requires you to:

 

1) Not have a large or complicated structure in mind

2) Know the blueprints by heart or have a lot of flexibility in the design

3) Skip doing any type of frame mockup or pick the frames up and replace them with pre-crafted crete blocks versus just putting down the rebar and nailgunning it

 

Rebar didn't make building more complicated.  It enabled another path for builders to do their thing without relying solely on wood frames and having to manage more materials to upgrade everything all the way to concrete.  Even with the reduction to the number of upgrade materials, you still spend additional wood and cobble before getting to crete.  Rebar also halved the cost of concrete needed to upgrade.

 

And to clarify, I don't miss wet concrete.  That needed to go away or have a short, linear timer instead of the RNG dry times.  But at least it felt more real than getting instant slab with a nailgun or hammer.

[BFT2020]

If the things you want don't get added, I can see a person becoming bias and just assume that players are not listened to at all.  However, I can think of several changes that were made to the game after player feedback on the top of my head:

 

• Q6 crafting
• Nerf to trader rewards
• Nerf to trader inventories
• Crafting become relevant
• Not being able to craft Q5 Desert Vulture as soon as you unlock crafting Q5 pipe pistol
• Mods for the dew collectors
• Dew collectors being able to collect more water in a day cycle
• Optional ability to limit quests per day

 

And that is just without thinking back hard.  I know I am missing more.

 

As game developers, they are in the pilot seat on what gets added to the game and what doesn't, but they are going to listen to player feedback and if that jives with their plans, they would consider adding it.  But if it is counter to what they want (constant requests / demands for LBD coming back), then it doesn't get added.

 

[4sheetzngeegles]

The vulture flight pattern Changed from the Hornet pattern

Removal of the smart no where to hide construction zombies

Wounded animals running away temporarily

The thrown spear "my personal favorite"

Zombie 1 block egress

 

Just to add a few more from long conversations, when Joel was more active
on the forum.

[Дмитрий]

 

Hello dear @faatal developer!Will there ever be a feature added to the game to spoil meat?On the one hand, so that the meat lies in the drawer for a long time and does not spoil, no matter how wrong it is!I would like it to be plausible, I made a refrigerator, powered it, put the meat there and stored it for a long time, it would be great!Thank you in advance for my question!

3 minutes ago, Дмитрий said:

 

Hello dear @faatal developer!Will there ever be a feature added to the game to spoil meat?On the one hand, so that the meat lies in the drawer for a long time and does not spoil, no matter how wrong it is!I would like it to be plausible, I made a refrigerator, powered it, put the meat there and stored it for a long time, it would be great!Thank you in advance for my question!

 

[Arez]

On 9/19/2024 at 6:52 PM, Falcon197 said:

Anecdotal.  Lots of the announcements and dev stream discussions around roadmap for the game included mention by Joel and others about meeting backer goals and executing "long planned changes," but there's little mention of player feedback - especially if there's a lot of criticism and pushback on recent changes.

It depends on where the criticism and pushback is coming from. The overwhelming bottom line in this situation is that with everything they change, they see the game selling more and more copies and getting a bigger and bigger playerbase on average year over year. There's no stronger player feedback than that.

 

Also, modding has always been a main FEATURE that TFP put in the game - which always sounds funny to me when people rag on the devs while using modding as an example of how things can be corrected. The only problem with modding though is that console can't partake in it.

 

Also, I honestly don't understand why developers have to be so personally enmeshed with the playerbase. I'm an old man. Back in my day there was NO communication with developers. The closest thing to that was maybe writing a letter to Nintendo Power magazine and them publishing it and replying. You either liked a game or you didn't like a game and you moved on. Even that guy Pirate Software (who has had nothing but good things to say about 7 Days) says it's really important for devs to directly communicate. I don't get it, but I guess that's today's modus operandi. I haven't seen one social media game community that isn't an unnecessary dumpster fire to some degree. Devs don't wanna deal with that shiza. Nobody wants to deal with that. 

[Riamus]

Agreed.  I think they communicate well enough.  I won't see any reason that they have to give us constant communication and explain every decision they make like some people have said should happen.  It seems that social media has made everyone think they need constant and instant communication about everything.

[bdubyah]

I do miss Joel coming around as often as he used to, but I don't expect it. Just nice when it happens. Games like Star Citizen are super transparent and that's cool, but I don't know why people think that should be normal. You aren't a dev, tester, or shareholder. They really don't owe you anything more than the remaining KS goals. 

[Zombiepoptard]

On 9/18/2024 at 3:44 PM, Roland said:

I’ll call BS on that. TFP can’t possibly make a game that has features that appeals to every person nor can they put in every single feature that every single person wants. The player base can’t even decide among themselves what features and changes constitute an improvement or a backslide. Opinions range all over the place. 
 

 

 

I agree with Rolands the reply

 

Just talking about the highlighted part.

 

Sometimes the devs have a creative change the reinvents the wheel like the magazine change. You have a lot of modders trying to edit a sorta niche mechanic out. I think it was a controversial change because it wasn't versatile. You're making a sandbox game that would excel from choices but if you don't loot as much you feel like you're doing it wrong. I might like to loot more one play through and craft more the other. If it was stream lined and just normally in the leveling system people wouldn't get bent out of shape. Also I can't control the magazines I pick up. I can't specialize into whatever I want to do at that time in that playthrough. I know the boost system is there but I don't think the players want their builds to be at the mercy of needless RNG. All that makes that specific update a backslide. We could see the problem with it before it came out and after. 

 

Very few players like to be at the mercy of RNG and people who play sandboxes love choice with no pigeonholes. It felt like it was without consideration. 

[Riamus]

4 minutes ago, Zombiepoptard said:

 

I agree with Rolands the reply

 

Just talking about the highlighted part.

 

Sometimes the devs have a creative change the reinvents the wheel like the magazine change. You have a lot of modders trying to edit a sorta niche mechanic out. I think it was a controversial change because it wasn't versatile. You're making a sandbox game that would excel from choices but if you don't loot as much you feel like you're doing it wrong. I might like to loot more one play through and craft more the other. If it was stream lined and just normally in the leveling system people wouldn't get bent out of shape. Also I can't control the magazines I pick up. I can't specialize into whatever I want to do at that time in that playthrough. I know the boost system is there but I don't think the players want their builds to be at the mercy of needless RNG. All that makes that specific update a backslide. We could see the problem with it before it came out and after. 

The sandbox argument is used frequently about just about any change that players don't like.  The thing is, this game is only a partial sandbox game unless you play with creative mode enabled.  It still has rules and requirements, making it not a true sandbox game unless you're bypassing those by using creative mode.  And in creative mode, you can give yourself whatever magazines you want as far as this particular comment goes, or whatever else you want for any other comments that refer to it being a sandbox game.

 

As far as magazines go, the initial feedback from most players was negative.  That is pretty common for any changes to this game.  But if you watch the comments about magazines from that point until today, you'll see a shift in what people think.  Yes, some people still don't like them and that will never change for those people.  However, many (perhaps most) of the people who initially complained about them are now making comments that they aren't that bad and they've gotten used to them or they've grown on them or whatever similar type of phrasing is used.  As people get used to a new change, many who initially opposed the change (people tend not to like change) will start to not mind it or even like it because it's no longer new.  This is true for any change unless the change is actually bad.  You can tell if a change really is bad if you don't see this shift in perception over time... from lots of posts about how bad it is to those same people saying it's not bad after a few months of getting used to the change.  If everyone still thinks it's bad after a few months, then it's probably a really bad change and should be fixed.

 

My own point of view on magazines is this... 

 

I enjoyed the old method of randomly finding schematics because it made each game different.  I might get something really great in the early game one game and then the next game not get it until late game.  I enjoyed the randomness of that.  Magazines streamline it so that you always get everything in the same order.  The only randomness is how quickly you get it based on getting magazines in a random order.

 

Now, that's talking about things that were schematics.  For things that were tied to perks instead of schematics (there really weren't a lot of those compared to those tied to schematics), you used to be able to get whatever you wanted as quickly as you wanted by pushing perk points in a specific direction and you can't do that now.... though you can increase the speed you improve in a magazine by putting perk points in a specific direction, so it's still similar.  In the end, that part was already streamlined and hasn't really changed.  You just have to do it differently and you can't rush it as easily as before.  So for min/max players, it is worse.  For everyone else who isn't trying to speedrun the game, it is not really that much different.  I don't really care which method is used for those because I don't min/max everything.

 

I also think magazines keep people pigeonholed into certain specializations compared to how it was before.  In the past, anyone could learn anything in any order without having to worry about who got what.  Now, you want one person reading any given magazine until they've maxed it out, which prevents other players from being able to craft a given item until later in the game.  I'm not a fan of that part.  I enjoyed being able to craft anything that I've found schematics for right from the start of the game without having to wait until the person who is designated to read a specific magazine is finished with that magazine so I can start learning to do it myself.  That is really the only part of the magazines that I don't like.

 

But, although I liked the randomness of finding schematics and I liked not having to specialize in crafting, I still like the magazine system.  It could be improved, there's no doubt about that, but I still like it.

 

23 minutes ago, Zombiepoptard said:

Very few players like to be at the mercy of RNG and people who play sandboxes love choice with no pigeonholes. It felt like it was without consideration. 

Actually, I feel that RNG is far less a factor now than it used to be.  Yes, magazines are RNG (to a point) for which ones you find, but you have far fewer different magazines than you used to have for schematics.  That makes finding a given magazine far easier than it used to be to find a given schematic.  Schematics were more RNG than magazines, because of that.  Think back to any rare schematic that you could find that is now part of a magazine path.  Yes, you might get lucky and find it early in one game, but in other games, it could take all game before you finally find it (that's RNG for you).  Now that it's in magazines, you won't get it early, but you will get it.  Even now, there are games where I am not finding schematics that are still in the game.  Especially many of the vehicle mod schematics, which are still very rare.  Sometimes I'll find them early, but there are games where I never find certain ones.  If those were part of the magazines, I'd never have to worry about it.  So it's far less RNG now than it used to be.

 

And just for reference, I do not put points into perks in a way that will maximize magazine collection.  I don't even focus on a given ability tree.  I'm pretty much a jack of all trades and will put points in whatever perks I like without regard to magazine collection.  Yet I still have little trouble finding the magazines I want to find.  More points help, that's true, but they aren't really required unless you're trying to rush things.  If you know where to look for specific magazines, it is easy to collect them regardless of perk points.  The ones that are harder to collect if you don't put points in are typically the weapon magazines, but most people are going to have points in their weapon(s) of choice anyhow, so they'll get a boost for the weapon(s) they use "automatically" and they don't need the magazines for other weapons they don't use anyhow.