Rick has Opinions on certain playstyles.

[Mister Forgash]

11 hours ago, Scyris said:

TFP is sucking all the fun out of the game, and its getting to the point that no one plays vanilla anymore after they try mods out, because vanilla is such a crap experience compared.

This seems like a very disingenuous line. People in the forums have all been playing the game a long time, and it's perfectly natural that, after playing a game for hundreds of hours, you feel diminishing returns and need something more to freshen up the experience. Mods are great, and there are many changes that I hope make it into the end product- but the base game might be aimed slightly more casual than we'd like it, and it's okay for modders to fill that role.

Todays modders may be developers on that big thing coming out 10 years from now.

 

3 hours ago, FramFramson said:

The problem here is that your design can be mind-numbingly simple right now. Yeah, there's a lot of ways to build a base, but they all end up doing the same thing to react to the same zombie AI. You never really have to think about the position of your "towers" once you've played a couple games, because the mobs always path the exact same way. 

I agree with this. I'm holding out hope for the return of stupid zombies. Maybe just like half, or 40% of them that way you still have plenty of well-behaved hungry bois trying to eat you from where you want them.. but you still have a bunch of stupid rotting corpses that are just too dumb and angry for you to trust 'em to run a straight line and attack the blocks they're 'supposed' to.

[FramFramson]

1 hour ago, Riamus said:

If you want to control their pathing, sure.  And, yes, that's going to be more efficient.  But you don't have to control their pathing.  You can make a bunker or make multiple paths from multiple directions or any number of other bases that would give you the same kind (at least similar) of horde night effect as previously.  Your base probably wouldn't look like it did in the past if you're trying to accomplish that, but you can certainly do so.  I've done bases that had no path to me or that had no single path and had zombies attacking from all directions (really, it's only the direction they come from at a given time, but throughout horde night, they come from different directions) and had them attacking all around my base.  Is it efficient?  No.  Can it be a fun change?  Absolutely.  And it's easy to do.  But you have to want to do it.

 

Also, the point of tower defense isn't about positioning your "towers" because tower defense IS about the enemy pathing a certain way.  It's about setting up your "towers" or defenses in a way that will defeat the enemies that are coming along that path.  That's what tower defense is.  I'm not saying this game has to be a tower defense game, but if it is being compared to that, it's doing what it should be doing.

 

I'd rather enemies that can find weaknesses in my defense to come get me, even if I can create those weaknesses to get them to go a certain way, than to have them just randomly attack anywhere every single time.  At least the way it is now, you can build a base that gives you that style horde night but can also build a base that allows you to control pathing.  The other way, you would always have that style horde night and couldn't have the current style horde night (at least without using mods).  So you can have both worlds in the current iteration.  That said, the zombie AI could be improved.

 

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I don't mind there being some "smart" zombies in the mix, I just want greater variety of AI.

I HAVE built bases which are all-round but eventually some blocks get damaged and all the zombies swarm to that one spot, so you end up right back at the point where everything becomes easy as you just bomb them or sit there and hold down fire, or whatever your preferred method is.

 

That's why I like fortifying POIs instead of building from scratch. It's exciting to find weaknesses you didn't know about while still legitimately trying your best to fortify the place. Makes the first month or two more interesting on horde night. Sadly, the players on my server like to build "clean" dedicated bases and get annoyed at using POIs for that very reason, lol.

[meganoth]

9 hours ago, FramFramson said:

 

No.

 

There was digging years ago under certain circumstances, mainly if the zombies fell into a hole or a block was blown up, they would still attack the soil blocks in front of them to push in your direction. Additionally if you were on a riverbank, sometimes they'd try attacking in a straight line from the river edge. Basically any ground irregularity near your base was still an invitation to dig, because dirt blocks had low HP.

 

They just didn't dig DOWN on untouched dirt ground if you had an underground base. But they would attack dirt blocks and the ground if they did calculate that as the shortest path; it's not like dirt walls were ever an invulnerable force field.

 

I never built underground bases but I DID build on hills and irregular ground, and zombies absolutely would attack that.

 

  

 

The problem here is that your design can be mind-numbingly simple right now. Yeah, there's a lot of ways to build a base, but they all end up doing the same thing to react to the same zombie AI. You never really have to think about the position of your "towers" once you've played a couple games, because the mobs always path the exact same way. 

 

Well, I would say the design WAS always mind-numbingly simple in A16, because there was no use for elaborate designs as they were ignored by the zombies anyway.

 

No matter the AI one thing is clear, the players will find optimal designs, streamers will distribute that knowledge and every veteran will think those designs are obvious and self-evident. But when I really started building hordebases without that knowledge in A17 I actually built dozens of very different designs. And new players, if they don't make the mistake of spoiling themselves by checking out streamers will do the same.

 

You can do that as well in a limited fashion. Just give yourself a rule like: Build a horde base optimized for a specific trap, or build a horde base that follows the room layout of a random POI you find. And don't build a base that purely depends on you shooting sustained fire along a wire-thin funnel with an M60.

 

In my last playthrough i could build a base design I never had built before. It is possible if you don't go for the optimimum that is always there, A16 AI or 1.1 AI

 

[Mister Forgash]

1 hour ago, meganoth said:

Well, I would say the design WAS always mind-numbingly simple in A16, because there was no use for elaborate designs as they were ignored by the zombies anyway.

To the contrary, I think there was something kinda great about having to design a shelter where you would have to cover multiple areas because you couldn't trust -every last one of them- to do the same exact thing. .. I trust the unpredictability of dumb zombies unincorporated into the hivemind would spice up horde night significantly.

[Suxar]

17 hours ago, meganoth said:

Only in A17? Then why "over the years"?

Besides A17 there was another AI change. In the same version in which the vertical support at the doors was removed. I think it was A19.

[Roland]

On 10/6/2024 at 5:35 PM, theFlu said:

Digging zombies. As per this thread.

 

Digging zombies is a pathing system that TFP developed. Systems contribute to more emergent gameplay. They don't kill emergent gameplay. TFP did not make underground bases impossible. They simply changed the game state which required players to adapt and be creative AKA increasing emergent gameplay. What did digging zombies actually kill? A 100% zombie-free zone in a zombie apocalypse game. The only thing digging zombies introduced was zombies entering into a part of the world they were blocked from ever entering. Learning how to deal with their introduction into the underworld of 7 Days to Die was all dependent upon the creativity of the players. Some proclaimed it impossible and immediately whined that TFP was anti-player and have never changed their story for the last 5 years while others have enjoyed the new challenges and emergent gameplay inherent whenever a new system is brought into the game. Digging zombies can't be deemed "anti-player" since many players enjoy the fact that zombies can move in all dimensions now whereas before they were stuck to 2 dimensions.

 

On 10/6/2024 at 5:35 PM, theFlu said:

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.

 

The arrow slit bug that was fixed was the fact that zombies could not path over them and many players were placing them flat on the ground to create a force field. I agree that this constitutes a killing of emergent gameplay in the sense that it was a very creative use of the block. On the other hand all exploits and cheats are creative ways to play the game but can ruin the balance and challenge. I agree that care must be taken by developers to pick and choose what exploits to close. As the arrow slit block completely negated a major aspect of the game I think they were correct to fix that bug.

 

As far as being able to reach through an arrow slit block and grab loot or activate switches vs being blocked from those activities, I don't think that was fixing a bug. I agree that the devs probably didn't want the blocks used in that fashion and so that would be an example of TFP acting to block players. I will say that there are other blocks that prevent zombies from moving through a space but do allow the player to attack through them and interact with objects through them so it isn't like that sort of functionality was completely removed by the devs. For whatever reason it was just that particular block.

 

On 10/6/2024 at 5:35 PM, theFlu said:

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

 

I don't know what you mean by a dropper base. I do know that the destroy area mode was added in order to randomize the behavior of zombies so that some would drop out of their player hunting along their pathway. From discussions of the developers it was not intended to stop a particular type of base from being able to be constructed. But the destroy area mode for zombie AI is another example of a system being introduced and as such it has provided opportunities for emergent gameplay by creative players. I do know for a fact that no developer added destroy area mode to the zombie AI in order to stop one particular gameplay choice of players that the devs didn't like.

 

On 10/6/2024 at 5:35 PM, theFlu said:

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.

 

And claiming there is an arms race is supposed to calm people? That's pretty rich. JaWoodle loves to find weird properties of blocks and exploit them and that has led to the fixing of block behavior in some of those cases. Other cases TFP has ignored. They enjoy watching JaWoodle. Some might think they hate JaWoodle but that is furthest from the truth. The reality is that they decide how gamebreaking exploiting a block might be or how gamebreaking the AI pathing might be and they make adjustments.

 

Most people did not like the AI pathing of A17 because the zombies were so predictable they  could be manipulated simply by stepping from one block to another causing them all to turn around and seek a new path. You could seesaw them back and forth all night long. Since A17 the devs have been making adjustments to make the AI be more random, less predictable, and have a greater variety of behaviors. One interpretation of this is that they are refining the pathing and AI to make the game more fun. Another interpretation is that they are engaging in an arms race against the players. What if some players loved the gameplay of juggling the zombies back and forth like it was possible to do in A17 and TFP had listened to them and never made changes so as to not be "anti-player"?

 

On 10/6/2024 at 11:09 PM, Old Crow said:

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.

 

Asking for you to give specific examples of your claims isn't simping and it isn't disallowing you to be critical. Zombies have had powerful hands to destroy stone and wood and concrete and steel since Alpha 1. Zombies have been able to dig since early alphas as well. Digging and destructive force by zombies is not a good example of TFP coming in later and changing things because they somehow hate the players. I've never had screamers show up in pairs on day 1 so I can't comment on that. But as a system it does promote emergent gameplay whether you personally like it or not. There will be creative players that do creative things with that system.

 

On 10/7/2024 at 4:45 AM, theFlu said:

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?

 

No. I wasn't pretending it was news to me. I asked for specific examples. So far you provided one case of TFP removing the ability to reach through arrow slits to interact with objects on the other side. What else is there that you know for sure is dev vs player arms racing and not just you assuming things supposedly with the goal of calming people down....?

[8_Hussars]

3 hours ago, Mister Forgash said:

To the contrary, I think there was something kinda great about having to design a shelter where you would have to cover multiple areas because you couldn't trust -every last one of them- to do the same exact thing. .. I trust the unpredictability of dumb zombies unincorporated into the hivemind would spice up horde night significantly.

I don't disagree with more a more variable and wider range of zombie AI; but I find block mass and spike fields are just a different form of pathing exploit.  Maybe its nostalgia or the sunk cost fallacy of previous version game knowledge, that makes players look fondly on it.  YMMV

Skippy0330 just used a very simple four sided no upgraded block fully exposed base well into the Day 60s (with traps).  Its performance certainly exceeded my expectations and is reminiscent of the older style zombie AI approach to "dumb" zombies.

Creative and emergent game play still exists; the players just have to look harder... 

 

 
 

Edited October 8 by 8_Hussars (see edit history)

[Gamida]

I made (and still do make) underground bases sometimes. I didn't mind it. I couldn't fight zombies on horde night from my underground lair so I did need a base up top too. It is just the same as when someone builds a base above they still (usually) don't fight in them. They make a horde base so all their crap doesn't get destroyed.

Now there are also those that like to fight where they live and some undergrounders do make it so they have a drop pit so zombies fall and they can take care of them at bedrock. To each his own...or her own...this is a popular game after all.

[theFlu]

5 minutes ago, Roland said:

Systems contribute to more emergent gameplay. They don't kill emergent gameplay.

You're using "emergent gameplay" like it's a goal. If zombies don't dig, the emergent is hiding under a layer of mud like Arnie in Predator. If they do dig, the emergent is hiding "deeper" in ground, or providing routes. Both options produce emergent possibilities; and thus it's not a counterargument for digging having been a mechanic against a player tactic (of covering themselves in mud).

 

8 minutes ago, Roland said:

TFP did not make underground bases impossible.

I live in one. There's no screamers, no stragglers, no spawns whatsoever. The digging fails to threaten me to this day. And the perception of it being implemented against players digging remains.

 

22 minutes ago, Roland said:

As the arrow slit block completely negated a major aspect of the game I think they were correct to fix that bug.

A force field provides zero actual benefit over a moat, which still works fine. If I'm lazy, I cover my base entrance with a two-deep ditch, you can drive over it just as well as you could the force field, and it blocks zombie pathing just the same. But it was "important enough" to mess up the actual arrow slit function of the arrow slit block.

 

25 minutes ago, Roland said:

I do know for a fact that no developer added destroy area mode to the zombie AI in order to stop one particular gameplay choice of players that the devs didn't like.

So the check to do it just happens to happen after being dropped, only when landing within ~10 meters of the target player. Absolutely by coincidink, I'm sure. The results show it's designed against droppers. The way it's implemented also breaks parkour, you can just jump a couple times to get most of the zeds start eating walls... emergent gameplay at its finest.

 

Now there seems to be a further path-length rule to destroy area, something like "close enough to player horizontally, start breaking stuff if no short path available"; but that's a later addition.

 

32 minutes ago, Roland said:

And claiming there is an arms race is supposed to calm people? That's pretty rich.

Lucky I'm not being paid to calm people down then As in, "it's not my goal, never said it was". If you're hiring, I can make it my goal; but I'd try to do it by sticking to the obvious truths. Such that of course the arms race is happening; if players, QA or devs come up with stupid glitches, the devs want to fix those. Claiming otherwise is just going to frustrate people. They can see it with their very own eyes.

 

53 minutes ago, Roland said:

The reality is that they decide how gamebreaking exploiting a block might be or how gamebreaking the AI pathing might be and they make adjustments.

Naturally. The track record of achieving that is a little spotty, as evidenced by the points we're discussing; but I'm sure that's the goal.

 

55 minutes ago, Roland said:

One interpretation of this is that they are refining the pathing and AI to make the game more fun. Another interpretation is that they are engaging in an arms race against the players.

A third one, it's both..? You can still juggle zeds just fine, and where you can't, there's usually a failure mode that works worse.. like drawbridges, sometimes zeds just think they're accessible always and run off of them themselves...

 

58 minutes ago, Roland said:

What if some players loved the gameplay of juggling the zombies back and forth like it was possible to do in A17 and TFP had listened to them and never made changes so as to not be "anti-player"?

Then no-one would be claiming that TFP has reacted to that particular player design, some players would be happy, and some might complain the game is too easy? Did something change?

 

59 minutes ago, Roland said:

What else is there that you know for sure is dev vs player arms racing

I don't know for sure that "I exist", and since your interpretation is the only true one, none. Unless you can see from the above that the difference might be more in the realms of interpretation..

[Gamida]

2 hours ago, theFlu said:

 And the perception of it being implemented against players digging remains.

 

I, myself, do think it was added because of underground bases. As one who makes them I just don't think it is that much of a deal (now). Was sort of not into it at first but after it just didn't seem to affect me that much.

[Roland]

3 hours ago, theFlu said:

You're using "emergent gameplay" like it's a goal. If zombies don't dig, the emergent is hiding under a layer of mud like Arnie in Predator. If they do dig, the emergent is hiding "deeper" in ground, or providing routes. Both options produce emergent possibilities; and thus it's not a counterargument for digging having been a mechanic against a player tactic (of covering themselves in mud).

But the fact that the player still can cover themselves with mud and play underground does prove that TFP didn’t go to war with players over underground base building. If your assumptions for motives were true then there would be further measures taken when players started going underground again. 
 

If TFP truly wanted to prevent players from playing underground then why have they allowed it these past five years. You’re saying they gave zombies the ability to dig to stop players from building underground bases because they hated players doing that but then ended their war completely even though players kept building underground bases? If anything, it has gotten easier to live underground as they’ve adjusted the AI since A17 which also contradicts your assumptions of their motives. 

 

What these things do indicate is that TFP added digging back in because they overhauled the pathing and gave zombies the ability to interact in 3d space which allowed them to path vertically as well as horizontally and destroy in those directions as well. It made building underground more challenging but not impossible and they haven’t done anything more to assuage their supposed loathing for players who make underground bunkers. 
 

4 hours ago, theFlu said:

I live in one. There's no screamers, no stragglers, no spawns whatsoever. The digging fails to threaten me to this day. And the perception of it being implemented against players digging remains.

Yeah, that’s why they call streamers “Influencers”. The stark reality stares you in the face but because Saven or JaWoodle state a false assumption as fact for clickbait you believe them even though they have no more access to knowing dev motives than you do. 
 

I’m privy to many internal conversations and tell you that digging zombies was not added to prevent players from playing underground, you confirm that fact by playing underground, no further escalations to your supposed arms race has ever happened to stop players from playing underground but it must be true because a streamer said it….smh

 

4 hours ago, theFlu said:

So the check to do it just happens to happen after being dropped, only when landing within ~10 meters of the target player. Absolutely by coincidink, I'm sure. The results show it's designed against droppers. The way it's implemented also breaks parkour, you can just jump a couple times to get most of the zeds start eating walls... emergent gameplay at its finest.

I still don’t understand this. You might be right about this one but I don’t know who droppers are. I don’t know what you are referencing here. 
 

4 hours ago, theFlu said:

Naturally. The track record of achieving that is a little spotty, as evidenced by the points we're discussing; but I'm sure that's the goal.

Okay but motive is a big part of this conversation. I don’t disagree that many changes have affected the way players play and required a shift. You and others are claiming TFP’s motives are to go to war against specific playstyles and end them. I still say that your perception is imagined. The end result is still the same, of course. There’s no denying you can’t reach through arrow slit blocks any longer. But the reason and motive also matters. You seem predisposed to think the worst motives based on nothing more than supposition. I disagree with your assumptions based on my own experience hearing them talk about these changes and their reasons for making them. 
 

 

4 hours ago, theFlu said:

Then no-one would be claiming that TFP has reacted to that particular player design, some players would be happy, and some might complain the game is too easy? Did something change?

I never said TFP wasn’t reacting to player feedback. Of course they do. Of course they fix glitches and close exploits when they find them or become aware of them. That’s undeniable and I haven’t denied that. But you guys are assigning motives of hatred towards certain players and their playstyles. That is what I’m arguing against. You’re contextualizing changes to the game as personal attacks by the devs against players and that is not true. You’re saying that this widespread perception proves that it is true. No it doesn’t. 

[theFlu]

35 minutes ago, Roland said:

If your assumptions for motives were true

My assumptions for motives in this thread are from.. what was it "When players get creative, TFP likes to complain about or kill it", something along those lines. Players got creative and buried 3 feet deep; TFP went in and killed it. Perfectly valid example for the snarky comment. I don't see a point arguing digging further than that, especially as we mostly agree with the main bits about it.

 

35 minutes ago, Roland said:

You’re saying they gave zombies the ability to dig to stop players from building underground bases because they hated players doing that

No.

 

35 minutes ago, Roland said:

I still don’t understand this.

That seems to apply to the entirety of the post above that line. But this one I can hopefully open for you: with "dropper base" I referred to any and all base designs that cause the zombies to take a path that they can't follow, leading them into dropping down to an earlier position on the path, creating an eternal loop. This includes various designs, for example, in order of "exploitativeness"

- a sledge turret at a narrow path

- a jumping puzzle or tight corners where some of the zeds fail to land

- electric hatches/door set to open when walked on

- half-block "bridge" topped with a half block "wall" (zeds think they can walk through half blocks, while also thinking they can walk on half blocks. Both are true, but in combination with a wedge tip, they try, get displaced by the wedge tip and fail)

 

35 minutes ago, Roland said:

Okay but motive is a big part of this conversation.

The only source for "motives" in this discussion is a "like" in a snarky comment by someone other than me. You're reading a whole lot into it.

 

 

35 minutes ago, Roland said:

I never said TFP wasn’t reacting to player feedback. Of course they do.

It has been a theme in this discussion, so I included it into my prediction. If you don't care for it, I can remove it:

 

6 hours ago, Roland said:

What if some players loved the gameplay of juggling the zombies back and forth like it was possible to do in A17 and TFP had listened to them and never made changes so as to not be "anti-player"?

Some players would be happy, and some might complain the game is too easy? Did something change?

 

Was there a point to the question? Maybe a motive?

 

35 minutes ago, Roland said:

You’re contextualizing changes to the game as personal attacks by the devs against players and that is not true.

I am not. I am describing the steps that have lead some to see it that way; they're not wrong about the steps, and as outsiders I can't blame them for the interpretation (in some cases).

Edited October 8 by theFlu (see edit history)

[meganoth]

9 hours ago, Mister Forgash said:

To the contrary, I think there was something kinda great about having to design a shelter where you would have to cover multiple areas because you couldn't trust -every last one of them- to do the same exact thing. .. I trust the unpredictability of dumb zombies unincorporated into the hivemind would spice up horde night significantly.

 

First of all "every last one of them" was only true for A17. Case in Point: Our current horde base got into trouble once exactly because some zombie(s) were attacking a wall instead of following the easiest path and when they broke through found a ladder someone erreanously had put there in reach for the zombies. (In A16 we simply could have moved somewhere else and the danger would have been immediately averted)

 

Covering multiple areas means you simply do the same wall on every side. In A16 the only designs I saw myself or someone else build were blocks, either with us standing on top or standing inside the block. The only difference was how the block walls were done. Sure, it is more actiony in the horde night that way, but the construction part was simple to almost non-existant.

 

 

Edited October 8 by meganoth (see edit history)

[meganoth]

6 hours ago, theFlu said:

A force field provides zero actual benefit over a moat, which still works fine. If I'm lazy, I cover my base entrance with a two-deep ditch, you can drive over it just as well as you could the force field, and it blocks zombie pathing just the same. But it was "important enough" to mess up the actual arrow slit function of the arrow slit block.

 

So the ditch works just like someone new to the game would expect it. Which means it is perfect in that regard at least. Also the zombies who fall down there will attack the walls and potentially create a path into the horde base or create a step that immediately works as a path out of the ditch (at least it should, I haven't tested it). At a minimum it means more repair work.

 

Now the arrow slit did not work at all like expected, that is why it is called a force field, right? It also is perfectly safe as the zombies can not ever attack any block there to finally make a path to you (if you are not at a lower height than them)

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 8 by meganoth (see edit history)

[theFlu]

21 minutes ago, meganoth said:

Also the zombies who fall down there will attack the walls and potentially create a path into the horde base or create a step that immediately works as a path out of the ditch (at least it should, I haven't tested it). At a minimum it means more repair work.

They don't. They neither fall in with any regularity (they intentionally avoid drops), nor really dig out - if they have a path back to the outside. This does assume a fighting position with proper pathing "crossing" the ditch somewhere, but the force field behaves exactly the same, and requires the same - to avoid zeds from digging the sides of the force field / ditch.

 

I feel I need to pre-empt a "but this is a strategy only veterans will use" by emphasizing: the force field requires exactly as much expertise to function properly.

 

27 minutes ago, meganoth said:

Now the arrow slit did not work at all like expected, that is why it is called a force field, right?

It worked perfectly fine for its expected purpose, protecting a shooter from incoming fire. Now it doesn't, at all, the concrete lets bullets and vomit through just fine. Not exactly a lose-lose, but a lose-"no gain".

[Roland]

2 hours ago, theFlu said:

My assumptions for motives in this thread are from.. what was it "When players get creative, TFP likes to complain about or kill it", something along those lines. Players got creative and buried 3 feet deep; TFP went in and killed it. Perfectly valid example for the snarky comment. I don't see a point arguing digging further than that, especially as we mostly agree with the main bits about it.

 

No.

 

That seems to apply to the entirety of the post above that line. But this one I can hopefully open for you: with "dropper base" I referred to any and all base designs that cause the zombies to take a path that they can't follow, leading them into dropping down to an earlier position on the path, creating an eternal loop. This includes various designs, for example, in order of "exploitativeness"

- a sledge turret at a narrow path

- a jumping puzzle or tight corners where some of the zeds fail to land

- electric hatches/door set to open when walked on

- half-block "bridge" topped with a half block "wall" (zeds think they can walk through half blocks, while also thinking they can walk on half blocks. Both are true, but in combination with a wedge tip, they try, get displaced by the wedge tip and fail)

 

The only source for "motives" in this discussion is a "like" in a snarky comment by someone other than me. You're reading a whole lot into it.

 

 

It has been a theme in this discussion, so I included it into my prediction. If you don't care for it, I can remove it:

 

Some players would be happy, and some might complain the game is too easy? Did something change?

 

Was there a point to the question? Maybe a motive?

 

I am not. I am describing the steps that have lead some to see it that way; they're not wrong about the steps, and as outsiders I can't blame them for the interpretation (in some cases).

 

Fair enough that the motives that some people assign to development changes that I described may not apply to you personally. You set yourself up as Old Crow's wingman and they are who I was originally talking to. If you don't subscribe to their ideas that's fine. You stepped into the debate on the side of someone who does believe TFP are anti-player so I mistakenly assumed you also held the same belief. 

 

You did characterize the digging zombies example as an arms race which I still disagree. I don't blame people for their erroneous interpretations either. It is very typical for gamers to take changes to the game they are playing personally. It's pretty universal across all games and forums. It doesn't mean anyone is out to get them. As I said the steps result in the same outcome regardless of the developers' intent. Players must adapt their playstyles because the old way no longer works. Some will interpret such steps as a personal assault against them. They'd be wrong though.

 

Faatal is the one who coded the AI so that zombies trigger into area destruction mode when they can't detect a path to the player, or randomly forget their path, or (assuming you're correct) they fall off a ledge. He's pretty active here in the forum. Stick an @ in front of his name on the main thread and ask him if he made those changes to punish people who made bases that take advantage of dropping zombies. From my own readings and conversations with him I think he was simply seeking for more variability in zombie behavior and wasn't targeting specific play styles with a punishing attitude in mind even if it seems to you to be too coincidental that it happens when the zombie is 10 meters away from the player. But maybe he will answer and say that it was a measure to stop players playing in a particular fashion and he's glad they're all salty about it.

Edited October 9 by Roland (see edit history)

[FramFramson]

I'm not saying it's specifically the case here, but people can do things for biased reasons while claiming - and even telling themselves - they're for noble or loftier reasons. I mean, come on, no one would seriously expect any member of TFP to get a hostile question like "You hate us! Why do you keep fighting us?" and answer "Oh yeah, that's right, hahah eat it loser!". Yeah, no. That's not a serious discussion.

 

Sticking to facts, we know there was a major change to in A17, with several tweaks in subsequent Alphas. We can look at very specific changes to the code, like TheFlu talking about the slight changes to when and how rage mode is triggered.

 

The motivations behind that are harder to nail down; players proceed by inference, much as historians look at laws passed to infer past behaviours. For example, this sign probably didn't go up for nothing - there was almost certainly A Guy.

 

 

To go back to the OP, that's why the video triggered such a strong response, because here was actual footage of an actual dev articulating a viewpoint which clearly condemned specific player behaviours, which clearly a lot of players felt strongly about as an overreach.

 

This isn't so much about whether Rich's specific views were right or wrong (I myself agreed with him on various points), but whether or not those opinions reflect a more general pattern of overly specific concerns about player behaviour, obsessing over details of gameplay while missing larger context, or worrying that players are having fun in the "wrong" way, or even that there is a wrong way to have fun in an open-ended sandbox video game.

 

I'm not trying to get all on their case, it's very difficult to strike a balance between "we want players to have a very specific experience" and "we want players to be free to do what they like" - that's a tough task to set yourself. Some players, judging by the replies, feel strongly that the game has moved over time from "freedom" to "specific experience", and there is some arguably-objective evidence that this is indeed the case, such as the development of dungeonified POIs (more on this below) changing the way we engage with most of the world. When you attract an audience for X and slowly replace that over time with Y, there will naturally be some people who will wish to stay with X, so you're obviously going to run into some conflicts.

 

The real question then becomes whether or not the experience can be meaningfully quantified as a net gain overall, something which is very difficult to pin down - some complaints will be disproportionate or unreasonable, players change over time, some drop the game, new ones pick it up. The metric I try to look at myself is player agency: does a given change remove or add player options?

 

So, for one example, zeds digging downward through dirt neither removed nor added options, no harm, no foul. Dungeonified POIs would theoretically be a net gain in agency, where players gained the choice to follow the dungeon path, or just ignore it and bash through, except the specific addition of triggered zombies offers players less agency as it is strictly mandatory to set those triggers off in order to clear the POI and they can only ever be triggered in one way, so a larger change which added some agency contained a seed which removed some. Or everyone's favourite topic, jars (lol), where the ability to just get water anywhere was removed, which felt to a lot of players like an overall removal in agency because the freedom they gained from the reduction in pointless inventory and time management is less obvious (and the consistency in "no containers" helps newer players too). I myself made a mod to restore the ability to collect water from world sources, but I didn't feel like jar removal was a gain or a loss, it was neutral, even good, and being able to add a little agency back in was a nice opportunity which that change enabled - I could NOT have made a mod to remove jars! So in this case I saw it as a gain.

 

Zombie AI is a very interesting and complicated part of the game to look at in this way. Has agency been removed or added over time? That's tough, especially when you have to ask if players agreeing to use or refusing to use certain optimizations is granting or denying agency. I think in this case, agency alone isn't enough to evaluate the changes, that you have to look at the challenge, since fighting zombies is at the very heart of the challenge the game offers, but again, the question becomes whether expecting players to self-restrict from "optimal" strategies (i.e. "cheese" bases) is reasonable or a valid design goal, if it increases or decreases challenge, or what.

 

This is where streamers (or in the old days, forums) come in, in that they are looking at the game in a much more serious way than an ordinary player, so now designers have to contend with the fact that challenges will be solved much quicker than they would independently. They're also prominent individuals - loud voices representing a small number of very skilled players. In trying to design your challenges, do you design around the most talented players, or do you design for the "average" player who may or may not watch streams? Especially when you often have little or no data on how many players watch certain streams or use certain strategies? Players who do not can end up surprised and frustrated by changes to address a strategy which never even occurred to them, or which they already were deliberately avoiding using! It can and does often feel like an arms race in games design where ordinary players kind of get left behind - and believe me, it's a real problem. I have seen games die to this more than once, even when the devs were well-intentioned (and I've seen ones far less well-intentioned in games which heavily feature monetization, but thank god 7D does not have this, and even if they do the expectation is just some cosmetic stuff which is perfectly fine).

 

On top of all that, dev resources are not unlimited and few video games are perfect (especially ones receiving regular content updates), so of course you hear from players who ask "Why are we focusing on A, when B needs to be fixed?" (often without understanding that different staff work on A and B in many cases - but misallocations do happen sometimes).

 

So, on the whole, I do think most devs in most games genuinely believe they're trying to create the best experience they can, but at the same time dev teams can be small and can't always talk about what they're doing, while players are many and some can be loud. That doesn't always mean the loud mob is necessarily always wrong however - sometimes a gameplay element feels bad to large numbers of players because, well, it feels bad! - and it takes objectivity and real data to try and figure out whether complaints are valid and what dev decisions in fact generate the most fun for the most players.

 

I will also say, the most fun games I've played are ones where the devs themselves are having fun. 7D is full of all kinds of silly nonsense I appreciate, the goofball ads, the jokes in POIs you roll your eyes at, the zombie names, the parodies, the terrible puns, the details in a million places (Saddam's shelter as Rekt's hiding place LMAO), or even the hype moments when releasing new systems and experiences which add content and agency; it reminds me that TFP ARE capable of having fun at work, and I hope that spirit is still strong with TFP. Certainly Laz Man always looks like he's having loads of fun making POIs, which is encouraging. I sincerely believe that no one who makes games for a living should be doing so if it makes them miserable all the time - at that point you need to reevaluate your goals, your relationship to your players, and what resources you have at your disposal, whatever you can do to get back to a frame of mind where you're able to have at least some fun in creating a game for others who also just want to play and have fun.

[Old Crow]

13 hours ago, Roland said:

 

 

Asking for you to give specific examples of your claims isn't simping

 

No, but constantly defending them as if they could do no wrong and all of their decisions are perfect is simping.

[BFT2020]

The thing about conspiracy theories is that facts don't matter to those that believe them.  And assumptions on intent that supports the theory is more factual to them than actual interviews and information out there.

[theFlu]

 

1 hour ago, BFT2020 said:

The thing about conspiracy theories is that facts don't matter to those that believe them.

The other thing about them, is they tend to become fact in about 6 months..

 

10 hours ago, Roland said:

You did characterize the digging zombies example as an arms race which I still disagree.

It's a small part of the general arms race; even if it was premeditated from A1, it looks like reacting to players. I don't think it's a "moral wrong", but I do think it's a part of the arms race.

 

11 hours ago, Roland said:

wasn't targeting specific play styles with a punishing attitude in mind

Punishing? The claim was "they like to go in and kill it", no whips required. In that example it isn't even completely dead, just a lot more complicated unless you bypass the range limitation (which is prolly a tactical one, destroying random stuff more than 10 meters away isn't going to threaten the player). But none of the zeds do destroyArea without provocation, the provocation being "lost path" .. the main way to lose path is dropping. So to say "it's just variation".. well, then the "just variation" mechanic is being misused by targeted application 😛 

 

10 hours ago, Roland said:

You set yourself up as Old Crow's wingman and they are who I was originally talking to.

I gave a few examples you were asking for; if that makes me politically aligned then no wonder the world...

 

Heh, for sports, I'll reply to a couple of his statements where I somewhat disagree from before I hopped in with the examples. (might be a bit redundant by now, but w/e, sorry Crow )

 

On 10/5/2024 at 6:21 AM, Old Crow said:

I'm really not sure they understand what the term "sandbox" means in terms of games.

They probably do, they just want to mostly make a doom-like shooter by now, with looting and crafting elements. It ain't completely wrong, they've combined plenty of genres, some of them will become the most prominent. It's not a great use of CPU cycles to make a minecraft and treat it like it's static, but they do have the right to.

 

On 10/5/2024 at 6:21 AM, Old Crow said:

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.

That's a little unfair, they do not like some exploits and by extension some playstyles, but I don't think they really dislike even us exploiters that much; much less "the game's players". Heck, even in the cynical sense, why would they care as long as it doesn't impact their sales negatively?

 

On 10/5/2024 at 10:27 AM, Old Crow said:

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

This is prolly true; but I'd rather have a game _someone_ wants to play, than a game like Concorde They had some vision early on as they wrote their kickstarter goals.. I don't know how close we're ever going to get to that original vision, or if TFP think they got close, but that feature list defined the game when we bought it. They've obviously been making a game they want the whole time, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

[meganoth]

12 hours ago, theFlu said:

They don't. They neither fall in with any regularity (they intentionally avoid drops), nor really dig out - if they have a path back to the outside. This does assume a fighting position with proper pathing "crossing" the ditch somewhere, but the force field behaves exactly the same, and requires the same - to avoid zeds from digging the sides of the force field / ditch.

 

I feel I need to pre-empt a "but this is a strategy only veterans will use" by emphasizing: the force field requires exactly as much expertise to function properly.

 

Ok, two blocks down is probably not enough to trigger rage mode. Maybe @faatal should add a general chance for rage mode to happen at any kind of drop, so ditches of only two blocks would not be perfect. Naturally then again someone would complain that this is an example of the arms race, right?

 

I don't have any experience with the force field, so maybe I am wrong, but I would assume a wall with the bugged arrow slits without any gap would simply make you sit there and only shoot at a few vultures and jumper zombies (if not already blocked by appropriate hanging walls and ceiling). Since zombies can't dig when you are level or higher as them, they can't attack the arrow slit blocks (AFAIK). And even novices tend to not fall into that trap because it is quite uncommon to create a deeper floor in your horde base.

 

On the other hand a ditch without a gap for the zombies to path to you would fail because they would all jump down then and attack the walls. That to me is a difference. The ditch still needs you to provide a path to you, you still have to deal with the zombies.

 

Anyway, even if I accepted your argument that a ditch were practically equal to using the bugged out arrow slit, then obviously it would not be an arms race as TFP left in the ditch while fixing the arrow slit bug even though it does not remove any "way of playing". The difference being the former behaves as expected, the latter generates unexpected illogicla behaviour. If they were out to destroy player options they would have eliminated the ditch as well.

 

 

13 hours ago, theFlu said:

It worked perfectly fine for its expected purpose, protecting a shooter from incoming fire. Now it doesn't, at all, the concrete lets bullets and vomit through just fine. Not exactly a lose-lose, but a lose-"no gain".

 

The gain was a fixed bug. Though the current behaviour of the arrow slit as arrow slit could be considered unexpected behaviour and therefore a (lesser) bug as well. Maybe fixing the current arrow slit is somewhere down on their to-do list, though the fastest fix would probably be to remove it completely.

 

[Uncle Al]

2 hours ago, theFlu said:

This is prolly true; but I'd rather have a game _someone_ wants to play, than a game like Concorde  

 

Does that do exactly what it says on the tin? I shudder to think.

 

There was a UK mockumentary series called This Country where one of the characters obsessively plays flight simulators...in real time. He'll sit up for 12 hours doing a transatlantic Heathrow to LAX flight, 11 hours of which is spent  just staring at the screen on autopilot at 30,000 feet.

[theFlu]

53 minutes ago, meganoth said:

Ok, two blocks down is probably not enough to trigger rage mode.

They don't really rage at terrain blocks anyway. I think JaWoodle tested it lately, and they would not hit terrain in rage at all.

 

53 minutes ago, meganoth said:

Naturally then again someone would complain that this is an example of the arms race, right?

They could, and they'd be correct. You're literally inventing a counter for my tactic on the spot, are you not?

 

53 minutes ago, meganoth said:

but I would assume a wall with the bugged arrow slits without any gap would simply make you sit there and only shoot at a few vultures and jumper zombies

"a wall" isn't what I'd describe the force field as. It's a moat. Zeds don't think they can path on the block in front of them, even if they would succeed when trying. Zeds literally see it as air, the only difference is you can walk across it. Dig a pit, give it an exit, you're just as safe as behind the force field. You can use f.e corner poles to horizontally support a platform from the sides of the pit, to hover in the middle of the pit, if you want the full experience without actually using force field blocks.

 

53 minutes ago, meganoth said:

On the other hand a ditch without a gap for the zombies to path to you would fail because they would all jump down then and attack the walls.

Tell me you haven't even dug a ditch in the game, without telling me you haven't dug a ditch. They'll mostly stand at the outer edge and start digging their way down. Sometimes the crowd will push random zeds into the pit via collisions. Give them an exit, they'll climb back up to join the digging crew. All the Force field does is prevent the need for a ramp at a corner.. big gains. Big gains.

 

53 minutes ago, meganoth said:

obviously it would not be an arms race as TFP left in the ditch while fixing the arrow slit bug even though it does not remove any "way of playing".

The arms race doesn't imply a total annihilation of any and all things players do in the game. Breaking the arrow slit seems to have been more of a kneejerk reaction to some muppet coming up with funny designs around it; an example of the "competitive" development happening. Part of the arms race absolutely. The arms race doesn't imply success, or an end, it implies attempts on two sides to counter one another.

 

In the arrow slit case, they broke the functionality of the block, because they couldn't fix their pathing to support it otherwise. Something about the missing centerline makes it impossible for the AI.

They didn't fix the block, they broke it by copypasting the functionality of another block.

They didn't fix the force field issue, as there are other blocks to achieve the same result.

They didn't fix the "ditch issue" as that is what they like to see, I guess. Or JaWoodle just hasn't made a video showcasing the ditches yet. 😛 

 

None of that means there's no arms race, it just means TFP likes to go in and kill (random) features the players are creatively using.

 

3 minutes ago, Uncle Al said:

Does that do exactly what it says on the tin? I shudder to think.

Lol, ok, oops. I seem to have added an extra 'e' at the end there. The name I was going for was Concord; I'd say google it, but I don't want to expose people to that clusterF, nor google for that matter... 😛 

 

5 minutes ago, Uncle Al said:

He'll sit up for 12 hours doing a transatlantic Heathrow to LAX flight, 11 hours of which is spent  just staring at the screen on autopilot at 30,000 feet.

Yeah, I think the Flight Sim people got a little out of hand at some point, not sure if many are doing That, but there's some wild stuff. People taking their virtual radio comms way too serially, etc

[Roland]

9 hours ago, Old Crow said:

 

No, but constantly defending them as if they could do no wrong and all of their decisions are perfect is simping.

 

Your problem is that you inject emotions and motives that don't exist into the actions and decisions that you read about online. Simping is being submissive and compliant due to the desire to be accepted and gain the attention of someone you are desperate to have a relationship with. So you see that I agree with most TFP design decisions and assume that it is because I am grasping for their attention and approval. I guess since you disagree with me and don't like my opposing opinions you feel the need to make it something derogatory. 

 

It's the same with design decisions for the game. You can't understand/see/acknowledge the reasons they give for their choices at face value. You feel compelled to inject nefarious motives behind their decisions (that don't actually exist) in order to make it something derogatory (eg They hate the players). 

 

It's your schtick. It's what you do to avoid thinking through all sides of an argument or a design decision that you don't agree with. Add to that, that you tend to trust and repost the thoughts of online influencers like Saven and IzPrebuilt despite the fact that these people have no actual insider information and it's no wonder you have a difficult time with anyone who might enjoy the current state of the game.

 

I sympathize with you that the game has been developed in a direction that you personally dislike. I think every gamer has a few games in their library they end up regretting having purchased. I know I do. I like 7 Days to Die and I don't agree with every design choice TFP has made but I still enjoy the game quite a bit after all this time. There are features of the past that I wish the game still had and there are features that were at one time talked about but then later abandoned that I wish they had pursued. I don't disagree that there are flaws with the game.

 

I do disagree strongly with the negative motives you assign to me for my actions and also the negative motives you assign to TFP for their design actions.

[Rotor]

1 hour ago, Uncle Al said:

 

Does that do exactly what it says on the tin? I shudder to think.

 

There was a UK mockumentary series called This Country where one of the characters obsessively plays flight simulators...in real time. He'll sit up for 12 hours doing a transatlantic Heathrow to LAX flight, 11 hours of which is spent  just staring at the screen on autopilot at 30,000 feet.

 

Back in my flightsim days, circa late 90s to early 2Ks, the above was a common occurrence.  Guys ran virtual airlines.

 

I didnt do airlines, but we would recreate bomb runs from WWII, all with fighter escorts and Luftwaffe attacks etc.  6 to 8 hrs on a virtual scenario was not uncommon.

 

My prostate cant handle it anymore.