My next mission will not contribute to my tier progression

[ElCabong]

I have mixed views on this. So long as I get the experience reward and whatever Rekt might give me, He's such a generous man, I guess it's okay. I'm not in a hurry to advance anyway. Yet the better your tier progression the better your loot. 

 

With every new release, I start all over again with a new world with a different plan.  I never get that far and I'm always playing a beginner. That's okay because I enjoy that the most. 

[thatguybeard]

I’ve read elsewhere that the number can be changed or disabled in the settings. However I am patiently waiting for the console release so can’t confirm.

[BFT2020]

It is a configurable option in Advanced Options when you setup or continue the game.  Something that a lot of players had requested in the past.

[Riamus]

Yeah, you can change it up to 8 per day in settings.  Probably higher in XML.  The limit itself doesn't bother me, but I hate that ugly red icon that shows in your buffs/debuffs area.

[Joey9Baka]

I like this setting existing though I disagree with the default of 3 in singleplayer and co op.

it should be unlimited for solo and maybe 5 for co op by default.

 

New players are gonna start with default settings and encounter this system, and find it dumb and not know how to change it as this limiter really only exists to allow advanced co op players to fine tune their progression a little more so they can stomp or not stomp as hard as they please.

[Riamus]

I disagree with unlimited as default.  Also, defaults are the same for single player or multiplayer, so whatever number is chosen will be for both.  I think 5 makes sense as it's what was always the case and is still the case if you don't log back in to get new quests or share more than 5 quests.  It is also a high enough number that new players will not likely run into the limitation since it will take them longer to finish quests.  5 is also higher than even many veteran players will complete if they aren't interested in spamming quests, so it's a good number to be at, imo.  3 is definitely too low.

[BFT2020]

I find 3 to be fine, as I don't spam quests at the beginning to try and advance my trader progression ASAP.

[Roland]

23 hours ago, Joey9Baka said:

I like this setting existing though I disagree with the default of 3 in singleplayer and co op.

it should be unlimited for solo and maybe 5 for co op by default.

 

New players are gonna start with default settings and encounter this system, and find it dumb and not know how to change it as this limiter really only exists to allow advanced co op players to fine tune their progression a little more so they can stomp or not stomp as hard as they please.

I think the default should be two. New players need to have the freedom granted to them to do other things besides questing anll day long each day. This game used to have zero questing and players came to love it by participating in a variety of activities. 
 

With a limit of two quests which can probably be completed by noon, players will have the rest of the day where they can work on crafting, building, farming, mining, exploring etc. Unlimited quests simply pushes new players into the game loop of questing nonstop and there is a lot more to this game than simply questing all day. 
 

The change is a great solution to the initial problem introduced when they made it so players couldn’t earn quest points on ally quests. Now they’ve given that back and limited quests per day. 
 

It’s nice they are allowing players to choose up to unlimited quests in the options. 

[theFlu]

18 minutes ago, Roland said:

New players need to have the freedom granted to them to do other things besides questing anll day long each day.

You are hereby granted the freedom not to be allowed to do things..?

 

Odd phrasing aside, I kinda doubt it's new players that are most affected by a two quest limit; I did watch a friend of mine figure out a shovel on day 3 (quite a while back). Not exactly likely he'd run into the limit on his own at all.

 

As the early quests were nerfed somewhat, the balance of "other things" and questing is slightly improved, but from watching youtubers the later quests are still rather lucrative, which seems to make pushing through the early ones fast still the "default" option. Artificially limiting that down for "regular players".. ehh, not a fan. It wouldn't feel as bad if the traders just didn't have the quests to give, or if 3 of the 5 (thinking tier 1s and 2s) were intentionally selected from 1-3 km away; but just a hard "nah, you ain't getting progress anymore" feels really artificial.

 

It's a "quick fix", sure, so it might improve with future updates (potential "lore questing" and whatnot), but as such, not a fan.

[Riamus]

45 minutes ago, Roland said:

I think the default should be two. New players need to have the freedom granted to them to do other things besides questing anll day long each day. This game used to have zero questing and players came to love it by participating in a variety of activities. 
 

With a limit of two quests which can probably be completed by noon, players will have the rest of the day where they can work on crafting, building, farming, mining, exploring etc. Unlimited quests simply pushes new players into the game loop of questing nonstop and there is a lot more to this game than simply questing all day. 
 

The change is a great solution to the initial problem introduced when they made it so players couldn’t earn quest points on ally quests. Now they’ve given that back and limited quests per day. 
 

It’s nice they are allowing players to choose up to unlimited quests in the options. 

Yet, if it's set to 5, people aren't required to do 5.  They can do other things instead and don't have to reload the game like they need to if they are a new player and don't change that setting and get into a game only to find they're being prevented from progressing past those 2 quests and have to exit and restart the save after changing it (if they even know where to change it).  That sounds like a bad QoL choice.  If the purpose is to get people to do other things, it would be a better design choice to give players a nudge to do other things rather than preventing them from doing something they might want to do.

 

As it stands, most other projects that you might do in the game can be extremely tiresome in the first 2-3 days or so.  Yes, some people don't mind it, but for others, it's just not worth the effort.  Having to run places to explore before you get a bicycle?  Not too enjoyable for many people.  Trying to mine with a Q1 stone shovel or stone axe?  Definitely a lesson in futility.  Can it be done?  Sure.  Would I want to, even as a new player?  Definitely not.  That alone could make me choose to find another game if I was forced to do that and thought that was how the game was going to continue to be.  Farming?  You need seeds first and although you could scavenge, there's no reason not to quest and pick those up along the way unless you're against questing.  Some people don't like questing, I know.  But I think most people aren't so anti-questing that they'd choose to wander around to get seeds instead of doing something that gives a reward while also getting seeds.  Building requires materials.  Chopping trees, breaking stone, mining.... doing that without decent tools is a burden.

 

Simply put, limiting players (especially new players) to 2 quests per day for advancement isn't a good choice, imo.  When it comes down to it, unless you are specifically trying to limit the speed you progress, there is no value in limiting quest progression anyhow.  Especially for a new player who isn't going to be able to complete a ton of quests each day in the first place.  It is for the veteran players who want to slow things down that limiting quests has some value.  New players are going to generally want to progress with everything that they do, even if that's doing 5 quests in a day if they are able to do so.

 

As I said, I think having it set to 5 is a good place for people.  It's high enough not to prevent most new players from being able to progress at whatever rate they are playing the game at, and low enough not to make spamming quests a huge issue for veterans and MP games.  And for veterans, they already know how to change settings and get it to be as low as they want.

[binf_shinana]

Veteran players probably don't do quests for any reason other than to increase their quest tier.

Because of the weakening of quest rewards in the 1.0 update, it is more efficient to go around collecting items without doing quests than to perform quests one by one.

(In multiplayer, many buildings have already been explored, so quests will be carried out, but the purpose is to revive the buildings.)

 

However, I am an efficiency-oriented type of player, which is not what TFP expects as a customer, so my opinion should be ignored. In short, this is just my opinion and my diary.

[Roland]

11 hours ago, theFlu said:

You are hereby granted the freedom not to be allowed to do things..?

As counterintuitive as it may seem to you it is nevertheless true. The freedom is not in being denied the one most powerful, rewarding, and optimal thing. The freedom lies in all the other things a player wouldn't normally choose suddenly becoming viable with that one thing removed as a choice. 
 

11 hours ago, theFlu said:

I kinda doubt it's new players that are most affected by a two quest limit;

Obviously “affected” as in having one’s patterns of play altered is going to have a larger impact with veterans. I meant that in learning how to play, new players won’t automatically slip into the pattern of questing nonstop since their first exposure to the game will include a limit to quests. New players also won’t have to get used to it as a change. It will simply be the normal way to play and their only reference for comparison will be other games they’ve played where they can get jobs and I’ve played plenty where there is a limit on how many are available each day. 

 

11 hours ago, theFlu said:

but just a hard "nah, you ain't getting progress anymore" feels really artificial.

I agree the presentation could be better. There could be some funny lines the traders say to communicate to the player there’s no more work for the day. The limit could have been a random 1-3 for some variability which would seem more natural. It’s funny, though, that unlimited jobs also feel artificial but people are willing to turn a blind eye to that because they want it. 

11 hours ago, Riamus said:

Yet, if it's set to 5, people aren't required to do 5.

True, nobody is forced to do all available quests but they would only choose to do so in order to role play or as a challenge playthrough. As with anything there is a difference in feeling between a voluntary limit and an enforced limit. 
 

When I said 2, I was talking about the default 60 minute days. I know you do longer days so 5 would probably fit that better. 5 on shorter days might as well be unlimited so not really any change over what we’ve already had. 

[User]

I don't feel super stongly about the change, but it seems like a bit of a weird choice to me. It probably won't affect me since I never did tons of quests in a day, but it just artificially makes trader progression a bit longer for minmaxers.

 

Edited July 24 by User (see edit history)

[meganoth]

Let me ask you all: How many days does a typical run of the game last for you? (If you set it to longer days, calculate how much it would be in standard days). 

 

20 or less?

21-30?

30-40?

 

If you think a limit of 5 is sensible, it means you would assume to be in end-game by day 10 or shortly thereafter (i.e. if not going to the limit all the time). And you think that wouldn't be rushing it??? Do you play 2 horde nights and then calling it quits?

 

 

[MechanicalLens]

13 hours ago, Roland said:

I think the default should be two. New players need to have the freedom granted to them to do other things besides questing anll day long each day. This game used to have zero questing and players came to love it by participating in a variety of activities. 
 

With a limit of two quests which can probably be completed by noon, players will have the rest of the day where they can work on crafting, building, farming, mining, exploring etc. Unlimited quests simply pushes new players into the game loop of questing nonstop and there is a lot more to this game than simply questing all day. 
 

The change is a great solution to the initial problem introduced when they made it so players couldn’t earn quest points on ally quests. Now they’ve given that back and limited quests per day. 
 

It’s nice they are allowing players to choose up to unlimited quests in the options. 

 

A very interesting perspective you have here. In my opinion it's a flawed one, but you do you.

 

Some players like mining all day, some days of the week. Since they are not getting the "full experience" of 7D2D every in-game day, should there be a limit in place on how many resource nodes you can mine per day before they stop giving you resources? Should there be a limit on how many blocks you can upgrade per day until they stop giving you XP points? Yes, questing is fairly powerful (although not nearly as possible as in prior alphas), but speaking from my own experience here, freelance looting is just as viable of a progression tactic. I only quest regularly due to old habits dying hard.

 

In any case, I find it doubtful that the majority of the player-base are questing nonstop, perhaps with the intention of maxing out their build within 14-21 days. In A21, this argument could certainly be made (that all other activities and forms of progression were obsolete), but with T5 quest rewards now offering 5 mechanical parts or a single food item on the regular, I would personally conclude that questing is just the cherry on top the cake (that is the looting experience itself).

 

It's no matter, since you can change the option in the settings, but I find the logic a bit counterintuitive to artificially limit an activity to give people the "freedom" to trying other things. This is like if you were a teacher at school and one of your students was reading books during break and lunch hours, so you decided you would snatch that book out of the kid's hands every day after they read x amount of pages and telling them they had the freedom to do something fun. Whatever happened to live and let live? If someone wants to quest all day, and receive meagre rewards for it, let them. Some people hate mining, others don't like base building, I know many people who hate the looting experience entirely, and would rather mine and build all day. Should TFP do something about them because they're "playing the game wrong"? I hope not.

Edited July 16 by MechanicalLens (see edit history)

[meganoth]

9 minutes ago, MechanicalLens said:

 

A very interesting perspective you have here. In my opinion it's a flawed one, but you do you.

 

Some players like mining all day, some days of the week. Since they are not getting the "full experience" of 7D2D every in-game day, should there be a limit in place on how many resource nodes you can mine per day before they stop giving you resources? Should there be a limit on how many blocks you can upgrade per day until they stop giving you XP points? Yes, questing is fairly powerful (although not nearly as possible as in prior alphas), but speaking from my own experience here, freelance looting is just as viable of a progression tactic. I only quest regularly due to old habits dying hard.

 

In any case, I find it doubtful that the majority of the player-base are questing nonstop, perhaps with the intention of maxing out their build within 14-21 days. In A21, this argument could certainly be made (that all other activities and forms of progression were obsolete), but with T5 quest rewards now offering 5 mechanical parts or a single food item on the regular, I would personally conclude that questing is just the cherry on top the cake (that is the looting experience itself).

 

It's no matter, since you can change the option in the settings, but I find the logic a bit counterintuitive to artificially limit an activity to give people the "freedom" to trying other things. This is like if you were a teacher at school and one of your students was reading books during break and lunch hours, so you decided you would snatch that book out of the kid's hands every day after they read x amount of pages and telling them they had the freedom to do something fun. Whatever happened to live and let live? If someone wants to quest all day, and receive meagre rewards for it, let them. Some people hate mining, others don't like base building, I know many people who hate the looting experience entirely, and would rather mine and build all day. Should TFP do something about them because they're "playing the game wrong"? I hope not.

 

Lets be reasonable. There is no limit on quests to do. You can do 10 quests per day and every time you get the XP, a few dukes and a small reward on top of everything you find for each and every of those 10 quests.  The only difference is that quest 4 to 10 do not count for reputation, but you talk of "limiting an activity" and compare it to hitting stone and getting nothing out of it. May I say that is hyperbole?

 

If you want a serious comparison with mining for example, I would suggest that mining after a certain amount of resource nodes doesn't give a chance for finding a diamond anymore, but still all the resources.

 

 

[MechanicalLens]

25 minutes ago, meganoth said:

 

Lets be reasonable. There is no limit on quests to do. You can do 10 quests per day and every time you get the XP, a few dukes and a small reward on top of everything you find for each and every of those 10 quests.  The only difference is that quest 4 to 10 do not count for reputation, but you talk of "limiting an activity" and compare it to hitting stone and getting nothing out of it. May I say that is hyperbole?

 

If you want a serious comparison with mining for example, I would suggest that mining after a certain amount of resource nodes doesn't give a chance for finding a diamond anymore, but still all the resources.

 

 

 

I just think the quest limit is currently in a very artificial state. Perhaps the trader should not let you access to their jobs after x one (whatever you have it set to in the settings), or there's some dialogue saying you've done enough for the day or something? Or perhaps some other survivors stopped on by while you were away, snatched up the rest of the available jobs, and you'll have to wait until tomorrow, so the trader in question would have the opportunity to draw up new plans. (As for the other traders, coincidentally other survivors swooped in and scooped up the available jobs for that day.) It doesn't make any sense in my eyes why all of a sudden, the reputation system would stop increasing for that day. 😛 The traders basically go, "You cleared 3 locations for me today, great! You want to clear another? Fair enough, but I won't think any more of you, unless you do it by tomorrow."

 

Unless of course, the other jobs the trader offers you happen to not be of much importance strategically?

Edited July 16 by MechanicalLens (see edit history)

[binf_shinana]

I thought about it a lot, but I thought this discussion was pointless because the discussion would end if the response was "It's an option, so just change it in the same way as changing it to 120 minutes per day."

 

Personally, in terms of the default value, I feel it's a bit strange that the default difficulty hasn't returned to Nomad since being lowered by one level when zombies were accelerating too quickly due to Rage Mode.

[MechanicalLens]

I just think it's a bit silly this was implemented for singleplayer (even though it can be turned off), especially since trader progression is not nearly as important anymore, or at least from my experience. Imo this would have blended more seamlessly for strictly multiplayer purposes to combat quest progression sharing.

Then again, who knows, perhaps new players were engaging solely in questing and this is way a combat that. How effective it will be and if it was ever a problem to begin with (or if it should be considered a problem in the first place), I don't know.

2 minutes ago, binf_shinana said:

I thought about it a lot, but I thought this discussion was pointless because the discussion would end if the response was "It's an option, so just change it in the same way as changing it to 120 minutes per day."

 

Personally, in terms of the default value, I feel it's a bit strange that the default difficulty hasn't returned to Nomad since being lowered by one level when zombies were accelerating too quickly due to Rage Mode.

 

I believe that the logic for this change was they wanted the game to be easier on the new players instead of playing on a higher default difficulty (Nomad), getting their ass kicked, and rage-quitting the game. By this logic though, shouldn't the new default become Scavenger difficulty? Or is there some psychological reasoning behind this change not occurring? (i.e. new player finds Adventurer difficulty too difficult to cope with, so they choose to downgrade to a previous difficulty. This isn't possible if the default would be Scavenger, and if they couldn't handle that difficulty level, they might quit the game entirely.)

[MechanicalLens]

29 minutes ago, meganoth said:

 

Lets be reasonable. There is no limit on quests to do. You can do 10 quests per day and every time you get the XP, a few dukes and a small reward on top of everything you find for each and every of those 10 quests.  The only difference is that quest 4 to 10 do not count for reputation, but you talk of "limiting an activity" and compare it to hitting stone and getting nothing out of it. May I say that is hyperbole?

 

If you want a serious comparison with mining for example, I would suggest that mining after a certain amount of resource nodes doesn't give a chance for finding a diamond anymore, but still all the resources.

 

 

 

I will add though that acquiring a few precious gems is far less impactful to your experience than advancing your quest progression. I think a better analogy or hyperbole would be, "After the 100th ore block destroyed that day, you cease gaining XP points." It wouldn't stop you from mining resources, only slightly discourage you. Whether that's too artificially limiting (or whether it matters at all) is up to the person, I suppose.

[meganoth]

10 minutes ago, MechanicalLens said:

I just think it's a bit silly this was implemented for singleplayer (even though it can be turned off), especially since trader progression is not nearly as important anymore, or at least from my experience. Imo this would have blended more seamlessly for strictly multiplayer purposes to combat quest progression sharing.

Then again, who knows, perhaps new players were engaging solely in questing and this is way a combat that. How effective it will be and if it was ever a problem to begin with (or if it should be considered a problem in the first place), I don't know.

 

There is no difference between MP and SP for the games code. How should it know if a game is a SP game or a MP where the second player is joining in 5 minutes? How can it know if two players on a server are playing co-op or practically playing as if the other doesn't exist or even shoot at each other? So forget about any special settings for multiplayer, there are none and there will be none. Pretty sure about that.

 

Now, as an example: My group of 4 co-op players easily reaches the limit and goes far above without the least of effort. Because we can do 4 quests without driving back to the trader in-between. That saves a massive amount of time.

And currently in our game, even with that neon sign lighting up we still did further quests. For the xp, the dukes and the reward. Ok, that might change after playing further, after all we still have to find our way through all the balancing changes and determine what is "best" for us.

[Riamus]

51 minutes ago, meganoth said:

Let me ask you all: How many days does a typical run of the game last for you? (If you set it to longer days, calculate how much it would be in standard days). 

 

20 or less?

21-30?

30-40?

 

If you think a limit of 5 is sensible, it means you would assume to be in end-game by day 10 or shortly thereafter (i.e. if not going to the limit all the time). And you think that wouldn't be rushing it??? Do you play 2 horde nights and then calling it quits?

 

 

On 2 hour days, my games generally last to anywhere from day 40-80, depending on how interested I am in the game at the time.  When I was playing a lot more often, it would be closer to 80.  When I'm playing less often, it's closer to 40.  I don't enjoy the early game much.  It's too slow and repetitive.  So I enjoy spending more time in the late game rather than doing a bunch of really short games.

 

I think 5 is reasonable because:

 

1) Most people aren't rushing quests anyhow, so it isn't going to matter if it's 5.  For most people, 5 has the same impact as unlimited because they just aren't doing that many.

2) Having to waste so much food and water, not to mention time, to run around for at least 4 days (if only doing 3 per day max) before getting a bicycle doesn't sound good to me.  With Roland's suggestion of 2, that's 5 days.

3) Until actually mobile, there isn't a lot to spend time on, imo.  You need to be able to go get resources to do anything and walking everywhere takes so long.

 

But since it's optional, it doesn't really matter much to me.

[meganoth]

2 minutes ago, MechanicalLens said:

 

I will add though that acquiring a few precious gems is far less impactful to your experience than advancing your quest progression. I think a better analogy or hyperbole would be, "After the 100th ore block destroyed that day, you cease gaining XP points." It wouldn't stop you from mining resources, only slightly discourage you. Whether that's too artificially limiting (or whether it matters at all) is up to the person, I suppose.

 

I agree, that would be a better analogy.

 

[meganoth]

15 minutes ago, Riamus said:

On 2 hour days, my games generally last to anywhere from day 40-80, depending on how interested I am in the game at the time.  When I was playing a lot more often, it would be closer to 80.  When I'm playing less often, it's closer to 40.  I don't enjoy the early game much.  It's too slow and repetitive.  So I enjoy spending more time in the late game rather than doing a bunch of really short games.

 

I think 5 is reasonable because:

 

1) Most people aren't rushing quests anyhow, so it isn't going to matter if it's 5.  For most people, 5 has the same impact as unlimited because they just aren't doing that many.

2) Having to waste so much food and water, not to mention time, to run around for at least 4 days (if only doing 3 per day max) before getting a bicycle doesn't sound good to me.  With Roland's suggestion of 2, that's 5 days.

3) Until actually mobile, there isn't a lot to spend time on, imo.  You need to be able to go get resources to do anything and walking everywhere takes so long.

 

But since it's optional, it doesn't really matter much to me.

 

As I said above my group is hitting the limit easily with lower tier quests and we don't think we are rushing. Why would I not do 3 quests back to back if they are just 100 meters apart? And doing 3 tier1 or tier2 with 4 people doesn't even take half a day. And I do like early game, so I don't really want that we are swimming in concrete by day 14, for example.

 

I actually don't see a problem in having to wait till day 4 to get a bicycle. Obviously the game is intended to make us walk for a bit of time (what else would Cardio be for?). To make us appreciate the bicycle, to give us a progression from foot soldier to cyclist, just like we are progressing from really awful pipe weapons to guns. For a game that is intended to last for say 40-60 days 4 days seem a good duration to me.

 

 

 

[Riamus]

1 hour ago, meganoth said:

 

As I said above my group is hitting the limit easily with lower tier quests and we don't think we are rushing. Why would I not do 3 quests back to back if they are just 100 meters apart? And doing 3 tier1 or tier2 with 4 people doesn't even take half a day. And I do like early game, so I don't really want that we are swimming in concrete by day 14, for example.

 

I actually don't see a problem in having to wait till day 4 to get a bicycle. Obviously the game is intended to make us walk for a bit of time (what else would Cardio be for?). To make us appreciate the bicycle, to give us a progression from foot soldier to cyclist, just like we are progressing from really awful pipe weapons to guns. For a game that is intended to last for say 40-60 days 4 days seem a good duration to me.

 

Just as comparison, and this is only single player, I had less than 1000 concrete altogether in my game so far and am on day 15 with 2 hour days.  I'm most definitely not swimming in it.

 

I think they main thing to consider with this restriction is whether or not it is good for new players to restrict their questing progression rate.  Is there a legitimate reason to restrict new players to 3 (the current default)?  Roland said to get players to do other things, but as I pointed out, doing those other things on for and with low quality some tools isn't likely to make a new player want to keep playing the game.  I know I've personally stopped playing games that might have been great games because the initial gameplay was too grindy.  So I don't think that is a good reason to restrict new players.  Is it too make the game last longer?  Maybe.  They want that.  But it is an artificial way to do it and it really only affects the first few days because questing isn't required to process and it is really just slowing down getting a bike.  Is that worth restricting new players?  Is there some other reason to restrict them that is more legitimate?

 

The way I see this restriction is that it is for veteran players far more than new players.  Veteran players are the ones who want more challenges, different gameplay, new things, restrictions, and so on in order to keep the game feeling "new."  But veteran players don't need this as default.  They can switch the setting easily enough.  New players may not know how to switch the setting or that it even can be switched.  So I think the default is better at 5, which most new players aren't likely to hit and so won't be restricted. 

 

Also, although I have nothing to support this, I have a feeling that the average new player will complete the initial intro quests that will bring you to the trader and then the trader offers them a quest.  They will probably complete that and when they turn that in, they will not be told to go mining or farming or exploring.  They will have the options from the trader to buy/sell stuff or to quest.  I think most will quest.  And likely continue to do so for the rest of day 1.  A restriction will feel out of place, especially when the trader has more quests available. 

 

Yes, the challenges can get you doing other things, but they are set up in a way that feels like just general goals and not really a roadmap to follow.  So I do think new players will quest all day on day 1.  If the goal is to get them to do something else, I don't think restricting progression of quest tiers is how you do that. 

 

Either way, it doesn't matter to me.  I set it to unlimited just so I can avoid ever having to see the obnoxious red warning icon that never goes away until the following day.  Since I have the option, I don't really care.  I just think it is better at 5 than 3 for default settings for new players.