The Gronk Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 The rewards recipes could easily be given by the traders to survivors instead of air drops, and if people are ditching the horde nights they don't deserve the rewards then, now do they? It would be incentive for them to stick around the intent of the game. The point is to reward players for successfully surviving horde nights with game progress. Some people are avoiding horde night due to frame-rate issues, not difficulty issues. Locking core mechanics from players who are trying to avoid your sub-optimal systems is really going to annoy a lot of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FileMachete Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 I don't play MP but wondering if the new Shared XP is actually making things harder? Z wise. And shortens the game. For arguments sake say TFPs find a 'perfect balance', where different specialists putting in 'equal' effort gained the same xp. MP progression would still almost certainly be faster than SP. The new changes MM revealed will allow faster progression in a specialized char build, so more resources faster from a Miner type (more stone/hr = more xp/hr), quicker z kills, etc. While shared xp from z kills certainly encourages group play, a good thing, from vids it looks like zeds can be worth 2-3-4+ times the xp compared to a 'solo' kill. Sort of like if four peeps were mining the same boulder and they all got 75%, that's 300%. I get why they do this in MMORPGs, they have to balance so that the really selfish players still want to group up with strangers; since they'll still lvl faster in a so-so group than by themselves. I don't know, I don't play MP in 7dtd, but if it's really Cooperative Play, and folks aren't rushing the end game, then shouldn't shared xp be toned down to a max combined shared xp of X? Where X is a magical average of xp over time, considering distance traveled, ave zed density, etc. Not meaning to work anyone up with this. Just seems like there are already so many benefits to a decent CoOp group that large amounts of shared xp may be counter intuitive. Or I could be completely backwards and TFPs are leveraging the shared xp as a way to increase the GS/difficulty enough to keep CoOp/MP games exciting? Edit: also consider a group where there are 2 stay-at-homes, 1 mining, other cooking/building base. 3 others kill z's, loot pois etc, as a group, now shared xp is likely to lvl that group of 3 faster than the other 2. And all the combinations. Would make anything other than, 'all xp earned from anyone, anywhere, will be equally shared' impossible to balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSBX Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 Scheduled recipe drops don't sound like fun to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gmad03 Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 I really like that traders now carry more supplies cobblestone rocks cement coal etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meganoth Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 I don't play MP but wondering if the new Shared XP is actually making things harder? Z wise. And shortens the game. For arguments sake say TFPs find a 'perfect balance', where different specialists putting in 'equal' effort gained the same xp. MP progression would still almost certainly be faster than SP. The new changes MM revealed will allow faster progression in a specialized char build, so more resources faster from a Miner type (more stone/hr = more xp/hr), quicker z kills, etc. Shared xp for quest kills makes sense because it is a group effort but often with different roles. A bow expert will probably make fewer kills than the front liner with a sledge hammer who often can make the final power attack. Or the miner that comes along has to be much more careful and also has less damage potential than the fighter builds. Shared effort should be shared win. And I think they increased xp for groups somewhat to incentivice people grouping. As long as it is only for kills it isn't that dramatically changing the speed of advancement. But if the xp were shared for ALL activities they also would have to dial it back again and give out strictly xp divided by number of players to everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonestarcanuck Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 They added a power attack buff if you stagger them fist with a regular attack, so its a zombieland double tap situation.. hit them regular, and then slam them with a buffed power attack. So this is a problem. when I am doing a sneak attack on a radiated I want my power attack+buff on first hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gronk Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 <snipped for space> It's logical and reasoned arguments like this that make me think that shared xp is a good idea. As an addition, it would help low level players who are trying to join their higher-level friends. Eventually the xp bonus for playing with people higher in level than you will even out as you get closer to their level. This could theoretically be gamed with lower level characters latching on to a higher level party to level up quicker but I'm going to slip into RP mode and say that's what would happen when a n00b runs around with veterans, they tend to develop the skills quicker than if they're on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meganoth Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 Don't know that word. Sounds like caviars. Elitist! cvars are just arbitrary numbers you can store and change on players, zombies, blocks, items. Add a number to a player that just means how friendly a faction is to you and let traders of that faction give you better prices if that number is high and you already have a simple faction system. Activate specific quests only if that number is high enough and you can make a quest chain where you climb the ladder inside that organisation. The problem with that is a night sitting in your base for a half hour. They need to nerf the multiplayer gamestage multiplier to half of what it is now. We shouldn't have to adjust day length to compensate for gamestage imbalance. A builder would not mind a long night time. But I agree, even in the client a shorter night should be selectable (on a server it is no problem to do that). But the question is really if it is an imbalance or just that many players can't select a difficulty setting below normal? Maybe day length should be part of the difficulty adjustments. For me having more time is more acceptable than weaker zombies if I need to lower difficulty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royal Deluxe Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 Well as long as most Multiplayer player level slower than me as singleplayer i see no issue in shared XP´s XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meganoth Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 So this is a problem. when I am doing a sneak attack on a radiated I want my power attack+buff on first hit. Just invest in sneak damage instead of power-attack damge. Problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meganoth Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 As an addition, it would help low level players who are trying to join their higher-level friends. Eventually the xp bonus for playing with people higher in level than you will even out as you get closer to their level. Right, another advantage. (and thanks for the praise) This could theoretically be gamed with lower level characters latching on to a higher level party to level up quicker but I'm going to slip into RP mode and say that's what would happen when a n00b runs around with veterans, they tend to develop the skills quicker than if they're on their own. I don't see the bonus really big enough to make that problematic. If we look at World of Warcraft where such a thing was possible, xp gains incremented so steeply that killing a single level 60 monster did level up a level 1 char multiple times. Compare that to 7 days where an irradiated Z has only 50%, maybe 100% (?) more xp as the most basic first level zomb. The level 1 will get the tier 5 quest reward though, which is much more valuable to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadamier Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 Hello! First off I really like A17! For me its an entirely new game and except for some tweaks and maybe a few changes everything is good! However I do play regularly with 8 others and have since we started playing sometime ago. I and they think that the death penalty is too harsh and think it should be toned down to like 10 or 15 minutes. Reasoning for this is that you've died and you're chances of dieing again have increased exponentially! Partially due to the fact that once you get back to your backpack those same mobs that killed you are usually there waiting to kill you again; that is - if you're able to get back to it... A couple of the ladys aren't quite liking the changes, I'll have to find out more from them tonight about it. We all don't care for the heavy gating, especially with the first aid bandages... As with many things we all know its still a work in progress, especially after 'yall' said that it was all being 'redone' lol I expected something different, but not this different. A few of us still do experience the studdering/lag spikes but its all still in progress. Great work! Thank you for your time and attention! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FileMachete Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 Shared xp for quest kills makes sense because it is a group effort but often with different roles. A bow expert will probably make fewer kills than the front liner with a sledge hammer who often can make the final power attack. Or the miner that comes along has to be much more careful and also has less damage potential than the fighter builds. Shared effort should be shared win. ^Completely agree. Didn't mean to imply that I thought 'Shared XP' is bad, should have prefaced w that, heh. And I think they increased xp for groups somewhat to incentivice people grouping. As long as it is only for kills it isn't that dramatically changing the speed of advancement. But if the xp were shared for ALL activities they also would have to dial it back again and give out strictly xp divided by number of players to everyone. ^Agree. ^In yellow; just from vids I wondered if there was too much xp per kill. ^agree, going full Communist not ideal. To yellow: thinking that Groups = combined GS, so larger wandering hordes, more z's in POIs. Auto balanced somewhat by higher lvl z's so tougher, more time consuming, yet more xp per. So as one measure of balance, and this is completely arbitrary, a SP gets a wandering horde once a day. It's worth 1 lvl. For game wide balancing (SP/CoOp/MP/PvP), is it fair or desired that a 3 person CoOp group gets their daily wandering horde and also gains one lvl? Or if an 8 player team? It's logical and reasoned arguments like this that make me think that shared xp is a good idea. As an addition, it would help low level players who are trying to join their higher-level friends. Eventually the xp bonus for playing with people higher in level than you will even out as you get closer to their level. This could theoretically be gamed with lower level characters latching on to a higher level party to level up quicker but I'm going to slip into RP mode and say that's what would happen when a n00b runs around with veterans, they tend to develop the skills quicker than if they're on their own. ^Agree ^In blue: fully support this. Games are supposed to be fun, and games are better w friends. Mechanics that support 'late arrivals', or keep friends playing together, even when RL intercedes for a bit, are to be commended. Good stuff guys, thanks for weighing in w thoughtful posts rather than, well you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCrook1028 Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 I don't play MP but wondering if the new Shared XP is actually making things harder? Z wise. And shortens the game. For arguments sake say TFPs find a 'perfect balance', where different specialists putting in 'equal' effort gained the same xp. MP progression would still almost certainly be faster than SP. The new changes MM revealed will allow faster progression in a specialized char build, so more resources faster from a Miner type (more stone/hr = more xp/hr), quicker z kills, etc. While shared xp from z kills certainly encourages group play, a good thing, from vids it looks like zeds can be worth 2-3-4+ times the xp compared to a 'solo' kill. Sort of like if four peeps were mining the same boulder and they all got 75%, that's 300%. I get why they do this in MMORPGs, they have to balance so that the really selfish players still want to group up with strangers; since they'll still lvl faster in a so-so group than by themselves. I don't know, I don't play MP in 7dtd, but if it's really Cooperative Play, and folks aren't rushing the end game, then shouldn't shared xp be toned down to a max combined shared xp of X? Where X is a magical average of xp over time, considering distance traveled, ave zed density, etc. Not meaning to work anyone up with this. Just seems like there are already so many benefits to a decent CoOp group that large amounts of shared xp may be counter intuitive. Or I could be completely backwards and TFPs are leveraging the shared xp as a way to increase the GS/difficulty enough to keep CoOp/MP games exciting? Edit: also consider a group where there are 2 stay-at-homes, 1 mining, other cooking/building base. 3 others kill z's, loot pois etc, as a group, now shared xp is likely to lvl that group of 3 faster than the other 2. And all the combinations. Would make anything other than, 'all xp earned from anyone, anywhere, will be equally shared' impossible to balance. When you can take a group of say 4 people out to kill, tell one to stay 90 m away and the other 3 kill and all 4 level the same it's broken, badly broken. Not to bash anyone or name names but saw a group calling screamer hordes with a group member sitting in the trader watching and sharing the xp. That's the perfect example of a badly broken and easily abused game system. I can see a small benefit in that "kill steals" are not a thing but other than that I absolutely hate the concept of shared xp. I suppose "maybe" on a shared quest it may not be so bad but all day every day? No, just no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gronk Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 <snipped for space> "Stand back mate, these ones are a little too dangerous for you to tackle" <n00b hangs at the back, hopes he doesn't get spotted, and studies how his veteran friends deal with high level zombies> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meganoth Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 Partially due to the fact that once you get back to your backpack those same mobs that killed you are usually there waiting to kill you again; that is - if you're able to get back to it... Backpacks will not despawn if nobody is in that area! The despawn timer will not advance if that area is empty of players and was also doubled to 60 minutes! If you die, don't run back immediately, tell your group to not stick around too long there, wait until you are ready and well-armed again, then go back. No need to hurry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor3D Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 Not to bash anyone or name names but saw a group calling screamer hordes with a group member sitting in the trader watching and sharing the xp. That's the perfect example of a badly broken and easily abused game system. Yeah, that's pretty cheesy. I think the problem is it's hard for developers to anticipate just how far people will go to abuse the game mechanics. You just have to make something and then just tweak it as the players start to find all the loopholes. Party XP is definitely a bit too much. It does speed up the game progression quite a bit on co-op compared to single player. I like the idea of it, but it probably needs to be reduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrjohn1337 Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 Does this mean that youll actually get better at mining by mining again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildaxeman1 Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 who idea was that to drain stamina in few seconds when aiming? its stupid. in real life you can aim for very long time without getting tired i guess, you never tryed to aim rifle in real life. but you should try and see, how long you can keep sight on target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EzRemade Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 Why should parties get more EXP anyways? Being in a party is an advantage in and of itself, plus all the party only perks which I assume will be more varied in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor3D Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 Why should parties get more EXP anyways? Being in a party is an advantage in and of itself, plus all the party only perks which I assume will be more varied in the future. Well, I think the idea is that party gamestage is higher than single gamestage. So you end up getting harder zombie groups if in a party. I know in single player on my first day 7 horde - i've never seen a radiated zombie even when I play really hard and do very well those 7 days. But, in this playthrough i'm playing with 3 people and we got radiated zombies, ferals, and cops on the VERY first 7 day horde. I can see a utility for party XP in that and if doing things like quests together where the individual zombies that spawn in the POI are also going to be quite a bit tougher compared to if you were just playing single player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royal Deluxe Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 Why should parties get more EXP anyways? Being in a party is an advantage in and of itself, plus all the party only perks which I assume will be more varied in the future. If there are 200 Zombies in a town. One player get XP for 200 Zombies and without XP Bonus in a team of 4 everyone would get only 1/4 that. Maybe you are right that groups have a easyer gameplay and so they dont deserve 100% of that XP. But leveling would be a joke in a team of 8 men without such a bonus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor3D Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 If there are 200 Zombies in a town. One player get XP for 200 Zombies and without XP Bonus in a team of 4 everyone would get only 1/4 that. Maybe you are right that groups have a easyer gameplay and so they dont deserve 100% of that XP. But leveling would be a joke in a team of 8 men without such a bonus Party XP should still exist - just shouldn't be as much. You could even scale it with difficulty level. Easiest settings would be 100% shared XP, hardest setting maybe 25% shared XP. This would slow the progression as you increase the difficulty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnomaana Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 If there are 200 Zombies in a town. One player get XP for 200 Zombies and without XP Bonus in a team of 4 everyone would get only 1/4 that. Maybe you are right that groups have a easyer gameplay and so they dont deserve 100% of that XP. But leveling would be a joke in a team of 8 men without such a bonus Plus, they don't actually get 100% of that experience. If the experience is shared it is less for each person than if one person killed it without sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snollygoster Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 Two questions please! Firstly, currently A17 is out but in an experimental build, is there a time frame until A17 proper is out? and secondly, one I'm sure has been asnwered, If I played the experimental build, would my save carry over to when A17 proper is released? or will majour things be changing still that could prevent saves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.