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 Wednesday at 08:46 PM 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 12 hours ago 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 10 hours ago 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 10 hours ago 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.