Rick has Opinions on certain playstyles.

[FramFramson]

https://new.reddit.com/r/7daystodie/comments/1fw4go8/wholesome_devs_calling_out_players_for_making/

 

There is... a great deal of ire in the comments there. While Reddit is Reddit and people love to cite it's negativity, I count maybe three replies out of hundreds which could be interpreted as agreement. This is... disproportionate, to say the least, even by the worst Reddit standards.

 

It would be nice if this hostile and arguably futile relationship could bring some reflection to the devs. Will they?

 

Anyway, I will try to remain constructive here, so all I'll add is that a lot of the issues Rich is talking about were in fact dealt with in previous versions of the game; for example, as one comment already points out, zombies attacking from all directions with only a few pathing directly to weakspots is an AI system we have actually had before in the game. Perhaps it could be something we could try going back to, since as long as the zombies all behave in the exact same way, there will always be a way to "cheese" the zombie AI.

 

I liked what was mentioned by one dev a while back about potentially adding "filler" zombies with very simple AI, so as to increase the max zombie cap above 64. That might also bring diversity in attacks on BM nights. I do think BMs just feel like a chore now, with how identical the zombies act, even when you have a "fair" base.

[Old Crow]

I do like the top post in that thread, likening TFP to combative dungeon masters. I'm really not sure they understand what the term "sandbox" means in terms of games.

 

That said, I feel like this video is a little old? For some reason my brain is telling me this was from GNS's interview with them (I want to say from last year).

 

THAT said, yeah.. Rick and Joel don't really seem to like the game's players. Essentially if you don't play like them, you're playing the game wrong.

[FramFramson]

The term "Emergent Gameplay" might be one for anyone interested to look up. It's kind of what a sandbox is meant to do.

 

I'd like to assume the devs are familiar with it, but you never know.

[Old Crow]

2 hours ago, FramFramson said:

The term "Emergent Gameplay" might be one for anyone interested to look up. It's kind of what a sandbox is meant to do.

 

I'd like to assume the devs are familiar with it, but you never know.

 

I think they're very familiar, but don't care. I have a feeling they wanted to make a game for themselves to play, realized they could make money with it, and needed money to make it.. and here we are.

 

They're not really making a game to sell to others to enjoy - they're making the game they wanted to play.

[YourMirror]

Yet another circle.

 

Have fun boyz. Try to clean up after.

Edited October 5 by YourMirror (see edit history)

[Roland]

Quote

The term "Emergent Gameplay" might be one for anyone interested to look up.

 

I looked it up and it requires as much creativity and desire from the player as it does from the design. One interesting article stated that games that are designed with the following characteristics are a fertile field waiting for player imagination and creativity to bring emergent gameplay:

 

1) A focus on systems rather than consumable content.

2) Some procedural generation but not complete and overwhelming.

3) An allowance of PvP and PvE gameplay within the same environment.

4) No designer prescribed definition of what it means to win.

5) Progression based on player skill and not simply character stats.

 

7 Days to Die implements all of these elements well and I can attest from personal recent experience that emergent gameplay is still very much alive and well. The pieces are all there in the game but if the player creativity is deficient or if the player is simply focused on min/maxing the current meta then those players will miss out. I often read someone claiming that TFP "forces" them to play in only a very narrow and prescribed fashion and then I always come to find out further into the conversation that the player is min/maxing and self-limiting themselves on how they play by their own choice whereas other players don't feel those limitations at all.

 

1) The game is full of systems that can be used in very creative ways-- often surprising ways even to this day. The devs from day one have always focused on systems that they can use for this game but also for future games. They are very systems oriented. In fact, they are often criticized for spending so much time on experimenting with systems instead of adding more content to the game.

 

2) Procedural generation and modified random chance controls many but not all aspects of the game. The player can often do whatever they want but may have to be creative in how they do it if RNG has created a "make do with what you have" situation. Some people want more and some people want less. The community is definitely divided on how much random generation is good in the game and personal preferences will keep the community fragmented on this but there is no denying that the randomness and procedural generation of the world keeps each new game fresh and allows for some great stories to emerge. Of course, if a player detests setbacks and only wants the most efficient path that always yields positive progressive steps, they aren't going to experience the kinds of emergent stories that occur when chance puts obstacles in your plans.

 

3) There is no denying that TFP has created a world that can be played cooperative vs the game world elements or played competitively vs each other. The PvP aspect is definitely limited and hasn't been a focus and yet we have quite a few dedicated players continually seeking out ways to enhance and support the PvP gameplay of this game. Obviously there is still something special to the design of this game that makes people who love PvP to keep playing this game in that manner even though there are other games on the market where PvP is the entire focus.

 

4) There are still zero win conditions for this game even after 11 years. Someday there will be a story with an ending and I suppose when that gets added some unimaginative players will uninstall the game once they kill the Duke/Noah having "finished" the game. But there will still be players who will continue to have emergent stories and creative gameplay regardless of whatever story is added because the game is still and forever will be one where the player can set their own goals and win conditions.

 

5) It is clear in any discussion in any forum that takes place between new players and veteran players that player skill continues to be a huge part of this game. Players who are keeping up with the character stat progression but are newbies call the game impossible whereas veteran players can survive easily many dozens of days without even spending a single skillpoint. Progression in the game definitely is based on better gear and better stats but player skill and learning how to play the game are also a huge part which is a critical part of allowing for emergent gameplay.

 

Are there examples of TFP stepping in and stopping exploits and fixing improperly behaving blocks? Absolutely. But even these fixes end up resulting in more emergent gameplay. One of the best examples I can think of is the change to driving vehicles on horde night. That is one of the most cited examples of TFP being mean and hateful to their players. Yet....I have seen several creative players use that system in emergent ways for different results on horde night. Another example that is often cited is allowing zombies to attack blocks in three dimensional space rather than simply 2d horizontal space. This means they can tunnel down and they can attack blocks above them which temporarily disrupted some designs but in the long term allowed for emergent creative designs taking into account the new system. Initially it was assumed that building underground was impossible but that was simply the knee-jerk reaction of players who lacked the creativity for emergent gameplay. Over time more creative individuals found ways to survive the challenge.

 

Just because there are a bunch of people who had their favorite exploit closed, or who can't figure out how to be creative with the current systems, or whose expectations were that the game was always meant to be a pure sandbox without rules or constraints instead of an actual game with rules but still with a lot of sandbox elements-- that doesn't mean that Rick and TFP don't understand emergent gameplay. It's clear they do. From their side they have put all the important elements into the game. From the player side it still is going to take some ability to be able to experience it.

 

 

Edited October 5 by Roland (see edit history)

[Arez]

I also think the subject that these two doctors are discussing plays a sizable part in why we see gaming social media looking the way it does.

 

NOTE: What I'm referring to has nothing to do with steroids or working out. Press play and you'll see. The link is timestamped.

 

 

[theFlu]

43 minutes ago, Arez said:

social media looking the way it does

Undirected anxiety? Could be a part; maybe even a big one. I kinda think it's just ... inevitable consequence of text based short lived convos. Refining a good point is hard work, while whining loudly is easy and gains more traction.. add in a mixture of deliberate trolls and other drama queens and clickbaiters and you have a diluted language where everything requires fifteen exclamation marks to even register.

 

Then grow a generation of kids in that environment, without telling anyone that the whiner they're annoyed at is actually 13. I'm not even sure if anyone's actually anxious, or if it's just the way they speak on the webs...

[Kosmic Kerman]

Yeah, no. The only thing social media has changed is how many people one person can reach. The problem with it is people. There have always been snake oil salesmen, grifters, and entitled dumbasses. You are just more likely to see them. How people act comes down entirely to their values. Some people have good values others don’t. You don’t consume garbage content unless you want to. Garbage content doesn’t influence your behavior unless you allow it to. Humanity is what it is. 
 

Edited October 5 by Kosmic Kerman (see edit history)

[Old Crow]

13 hours ago, Roland said:

 

I looked it up and it requires as much creativity and desire from the player as it does from the design.

 

 

Problem here is, when players get creative, the Fun Pimps like to go in and either complain about it, or kill it to suit their "vision."

[Adam the Waster]

1 hour ago, Old Crow said:

 

Problem here is, when players get creative, the Fun Pimps like to go in and either complain about it, or kill it to suit their "vision."

I have to agree. Zombies for example you basically have to make a funnel style base for them

[FramFramson]

I really do miss the old days of zombies streaming in from everywhere and anywhere. I'd build a tall tower with long sightlines and huge fields barbed wire to try and slow them enough.

 

It still had a moat and a big ramp like you have so often today, but few zombies actually made it to the door (and it was a door, not the "fighting position" we make now).

 

It was glorious barely-controlled chaos all night.

[stallionsden]

i think the creators are more saying for every play style there has to be a counter/ Like hiding underground like a scaredy cat ok we will add digger zs to give you a challenge. 

they arent saying not to build underground bases but how boring if you are gonna avoid zs. Maybe a game with zombies isnt your cuppa teac or coffee or bourbon

[Uncle Al]

11 minutes ago, stallionsden said:

i think the creators are more saying for every play style there has to be a counter/ Like hiding underground like a scaredy cat ok we will add digger zs to give you a challenge. 

they arent saying not to build underground bases but how boring if you are gonna avoid zs. Maybe a game with zombies isnt your cuppa teac or coffee or bourbon

I have to agree. There's a later interview when they get asked about the interview shown here, and Rick elaborates their position by explaining they don't really care about distortions of the gameplay that take very deliberate and weird actions to produce.  At the end of the day there's creative mode and you can also turn things like horde nights, or zombies off if you want. Who really cares if there's an elaborate 'exploit' that gets you 'ahead' in the game if you play in a particularly strange way, deliberately, to game a 'flaw' in the system?

 

What they state does concern them is if parts of the game that a player could unknowingly engage in has insufficient challenge if the player plays in a certain way. Zombies not digging was given as an example. TFP know as well as any other studio that 95%+ of players don't read forums or do anything with their game but play it. There are plenty of players who would just go and build an underground base because it's cool and you can. Those players, if zombies couldn't dig, would have an unintended experience of the game. They'd find base life, and even horde nights, weirdly quiet and boring if they were underground. They'd probably never realise why, and rapidly get bored with the game.

 

TFP claim players should never feel 100% safe, because the game is less enjoyable if you do.

 

They certainly don't come off as feeling in an adversarial relationship with players, and flying into rages when someone finds a loophole in systems. It's more 'we don't want people to miss out on large parts of the game we've made.' So the objection to 'nerd poling' seems to be they've paid a bunch of POI designers for years to come up with interesting challenges, which players are meant to enjoy solving. Sadly those challenges can be entirely circumvented with a few wood frames. It's easy in hindsight to point out that 'voxel world, build/destroy anything anywhere' and 'linear path, 'dungeon style' POIs' are conflicting design goals, but there you go.

 

There's probably conflicting views in the team, too, as there are challenges in the game that are obviously designed with nerd poling, or at least deploying ladder blocks, as the solution. For a long time far and away the best source of steel, if you didn't have a crucible, was salvaging street lights and power transformers. You can't do that without using blocks, and it's pretty clear that's the intended solution to accessing those rare resources, and yet using blocks to get around POI challenges is viewed as 'spoiling the challenge' or 'missing out on the fun'.

[Roland]

On 10/5/2024 at 1:59 PM, Old Crow said:

 

Problem here is, when players get creative, the Fun Pimps like to go in and either complain about it, or kill it to suit their "vision."

 

They like to go in and do that as in it's something they regularly do? What are some examples of this behavior? Also why is vision in quotes? You don't believe they actually have a vision for the type of game they are designing?

 

I can think of only two examples where they made changes in direct reaction to player behavior that they didn't want the game to allow.  The first was changing zombies to be able to swim because they didn't want players to be able to tread water all night long on horde night. The second was the change that turbo-charged vultures on horde night vs vehicles because they didn't want players to be able to drive around all night with 100% safety.

 

Other than these two examples there have been several cases where they fixed duping exploits, fixed buggy blocks, and fixed faulty pathing but none of these were petulant and angry design changes to wage a war against players that were playing in ways they didn't like.

 

So what other regular examples of TFP aggressively killing creative emergent gameplay can you cite?

[theFlu]

1 hour ago, Roland said:

So what other regular examples of TFP aggressively killing creative emergent gameplay can you cite?

Digging zombies. As per this thread.

Force fields; you can call it fixing a buggy block, but the block (arrow slit) is mechanically worse now than it was. And the issue persists in other blocks.

Dropper bases - destroyArea -mode, which doesn't really even solve the issue.

 

There's a record, ask JaWoodle .. And don't get me wrong, I don't hate most of the changed mechanics myself, but acting like an arms race isn't going on isn't really calming anyone.

[BFT2020]

53 minutes ago, theFlu said:

Digging zombies. As per this thread.

Thing is, digging zombies were part of the game previously.  They were removed because of AI issues…then returned when that was fixed.  People claiming they were introduced to prevent underground bases either were not around when they were part of the game initially or don’t bring up that fact when they claim TFP are out to get them.

[theFlu]

3 minutes ago, BFT2020 said:

Thing is, digging zombies were part of the game previously.  They were removed because of AI issues…then returned when that was fixed.

Sure; so were glass jars, you saying we're getting them back too? Or is the digging functionality required as a countermeasure to players digging down? And removal of jars as a countermeasure for ... players crafting glue? Giggle.

 

I don't hate the digging in its current form, not much, if at all; offer them a path to your underground embattlements and they'll mostly take it. But I'd say it does count as "going in and killing <simply hiding under terrain>" as claimed by Old Crow and argued against by Roland.

[FramFramson]

I don't mind digging zombies in the least; those are legitimately fun.

 

For a real example, look at the AI changes over the years to address various supposed base exploits. Instead of making a variety of AI among zombies, it's always seemed to like someone's playing whack-a-mole with whatever base design was popular, to the point that the zombies now all have structural engineering degrees many players like to gripe about. As I said above, the real solution is a greater variety of behaviour, because as long zombies behave in only one AI, there will always be a single answer to them, and what's oddest is that 7D HAD THAT, it's not some weird unachievable goal. Or the dungeonification of POIs, which I honestly wouldn't mind, because you can still smash your way through, but moving from sleepers to triggers was horrible for stealth play... or even regular play - those ordinary players who don't read forums? They're confused as hell when they can't find the last zombie and that's often when you see them first engage with the community.

 

The magazine system and other changes forcing a more looter-shooter playstyle over more open-ended exploratory play were discussed constantly when the A21 changes dropped. Or how about the latest change where the detection radius was upped to kill stealth play in the early game, as well as the new entropic stealth system which prevents a player from going undetected for any extended period of time.

 

(A brief aside here to say, look, I agree stealth needed some nerfs, but the recent balance has felt incredibly ham-handed, with HUGE bonuses added to the new armour sets and the entire game being warped around them rather than nerfing the sky-high stats on the new armour - preacher gloves I'm looking at you - but that's just regular bad balance, not necessarily TFP attacking certain playstyles.)

 

Now, personally, I'm like eff it, TFP want to gut their game balance, I'll fix it with mods, but boy it's getting to be more and more work to do so, and there's not really much in the way of Zombie AI-improvement mods.

 

No wonder so many players go with total overhaul mods - not only do they already have future features like endgame quests and NPCs, they're also often just better balanced. 

[Old Crow]

7 hours ago, Roland said:

 

They like to go in and do that as in it's something they regularly do? What are some examples of this behavior? Also why is vision in quotes? You don't believe they actually have a vision for the type of game they are designing?

 

I can think of only two examples where they made changes in direct reaction to player behavior that they didn't want the game to allow.  The first was changing zombies to be able to swim because they didn't want players to be able to tread water all night long on horde night. The second was the change that turbo-charged vultures on horde night vs vehicles because they didn't want players to be able to drive around all night with 100% safety.

 

Other than these two examples there have been several cases where they fixed duping exploits, fixed buggy blocks, and fixed faulty pathing but none of these were petulant and angry design changes to wage a war against players that were playing in ways they didn't like.

 

So what other regular examples of TFP aggressively killing creative emergent gameplay can you cite?

 

Zombies with auger hands, Screamers showing up on Day 1 in PAIRS and summoning other pairs right away are another couple. You really don't need to simp so hard for the Fun Pimps, my guy. You're allowed to be critical.

[RipClaw]

5 hours ago, FramFramson said:

I don't mind digging zombies in the least; those are legitimately fun.

I find them very annoying. When I'm working down in the mine and they try to dig their way to me, I always have to plug holes afterwards. Also, sometimes the digging animation seems to happen randomly. For example, in Horde Night, zombies will start digging for no apparent reason, even though I'm less than 5 metres away from them at the same height.

[meganoth]

7 hours ago, FramFramson said:

For a real example, look at the AI changes over the years to address various supposed base exploits. Instead of making a variety of AI among zombies, it's always seemed to like someone's playing whack-a-mole with whatever base design was popular, to the point that the zombies now all have structural engineering degrees many players like to gripe about.

 

Fake history, sorry. AI was rewritten for A17 and there the AI was so strict that the term structural engineer was coined. All further AI changes made them less strict aka dumber, so they followed the optimal path less and less. For example they introduced a chance for zombies to just attack random blocks or go along suboptimal paths.

 

The only exception were how they reacted to block shapes where they simply failed completely, i.e. shapes where they fell down from in all cases or shapes they couldn't cross. But that didn't give them the name structural engineer. Or would you say a zombie that now crosses flat layered arrow slits is more structural engineer when even the dumbest dog in reality could walk over that?

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Old Crow said:

Screamers showing up on Day 1 in PAIRS and summoning other pairs right away are another couple.

 

Now it would be nice if you explained how this change was a reaction to some player exploit (which is the topic here as far as I know). Unless it is your opinion that anything they change is obviously a reaction to players and is therefore bad.

 

Edited October 7 by meganoth (see edit history)

[meganoth]

9 hours ago, theFlu said:

Sure; so were glass jars, you saying we're getting them back too?

 

Glass jars were removed for different reasons, not because they made problems with another part of the game. So is there a connection to digging zombies I do not see or is that just a rant?

 

Would you agree that a zombie "horror" game should have very very few areas (optimally none) that zombies can't reach? Zombies can destroy steel blocks when they are in front of them, wouldn't it be logical that they also should be able to destroy blocks below them?

 

[theFlu]

5 minutes ago, meganoth said:

Would you agree that a zombie "horror" game should have very very few areas (optimally none) that zombies can't reach?

Would you agree that Roland was mostly strawmanning Old Crow, to pretend like it's news to him that TFP are reacting to player tactics in the design?

That's all I started talking about digging over; an example of TFP countering players. Is it that, or is it not?

[Kosmic Kerman]

So much bad faith in this thread. Not sure who anyone is trying to persuade. I’d be surprised if TFP didn’t outright ignore people making bad faith arguments.