Jump to content

Should mods be removable? Pros and Cons.


Roland

Should mods be removable? Pros and Cons.  

136 members have voted

  1. 1. Should mods be removable? Pros and Cons.

    • Yes, we should be able to swap them in and out as we please.
      117
    • No, they should be permanent once attached to a weapon.
      19


Recommended Posts

After thinking about it a bit more I would say the default for all item mods should be yes/removable.

Each item mod should have a config property to override the default and make it not removable.

<property name="CanRemoveMod" value="false" /> <!-- default true/removable -->

 

Thus legendary type mods like the "This is the Future" jeep mod that lets a jeep fly can be set false to create unique items in the world. -- Not a real mod as far as I am aware just something I pulled from the air with a passing nod to flying cars and The Jetsons

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right this is getting out of hand when people claim others are ruining their gameplay because they don't want to play how someone else (you) say they should and get enjoyment from playing in a manner (you) say they should not. It is a good thing they have you to tell them that they are not and will not be enjoying their experience and would be ruining it if they get to play the way they would like.

 

For those of us with issues understanding you, please explain how a server owner setting a value in server config for themselves and the players who choose to play on that server ruins the fun for them if that is how they would like to play? If they enjoy playing in a particular style, please explain how they are ruining their enjoyment. Take the example below and explain, please, that I might understand.

 

Example: if the default is Yes/Removable, and a server owner sets the server config to No/NotRemovable. Then people purposefully seek out and join said server. Please explain how they've ruined their enjoyment by choosing to play how they wanted? This way everyone can better understand you.

 

I experienced such a problem on a empyrion server lately.

The owner set up the game a way you could start as in vanilla, and as soon as you left the starterplanet (means after some hours of gaming with progress you would not want to loose) via a one way warp you suddenly are in a completly different to play environment where all good ways to progress more or even hold your progress leads to content you need to pay with real money.

 

Sure not really on that topic here. The ability to disassemble mods for its own does not touch this.

But i wanted to add a "but" to your statement ^^

 

 

--------------------------------------------

On the topic itself. I play currently Fallout 4. The ones of you that played it too know that it has such a mod system for items.

 

As i wrote before i would like different mods with different chances to disassemble them. The reason is simple, in Fo4 i early get my special weapons and then all i do is looking for weapons of the right type with the mods i want. Buy them, Disassemble the mods, put them on my 4 choosen Fallout 4 Weapons and never again care again about that topic. And this is nice that you have that freedom, but it reduce the possible progress really hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My vote is for not removable. Why?

 

1) Because if it is removable, your first find of a AK47 will likely be the last AK47 (or other weapon of choice) you ever need (I ignore quality for the moment). So TPF has to make AK47s as scarce as calipers and lots of people who wait for the AK47 to drop will curse the RNG. How much better is it if AK47s drop more frequent but you might need one in the beginning to host the first crappy mods and another one later when you have the better mods? And maybe even another one for the super mods? Same for mods scarcity, TFP can make mods more numerous in the world if they know they are one-use only hence diminishing the effect of the RNG.

 

2) Choices, choices, choices. Someone said a good game is a squence of interesting choices. And yes, finally there would be an interesting choice whether to put your high-quality mod into your starting weapon now or wait for the perfect weapon. That is a real choice with consequences.

 

3) But as much as it is a choice with consequences, it is not one that will doom you, so no complaints, sissy! You might have wasted that 4x-scope, but because scopes are more numerous in the world when they are not removable, you will find another good scope soon enough.

 

4) But if all mods are removable, you will always have the best weapon with the best mods in hand and all the inferior mods and weapons you find will always be useless scrap. If mods are not removable, even after you find a 4x-scope, you actually might rejoice at finding a 3x-scope later because you either kept the 4x-scope in a box for your ultimate weapon or because the 4x-scope is already in use and the 3x is now the best thing you have for your ultimate weapon (ah, lets say penultimate weapon).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is exactly the situation I'd like to avoid. Make them rare, sure, but make them reusable. Even with durability that is a far better mechanic than hording everything until the late game just so you don't waste it. There are already too many mechanics in this game that suffer due to the RNG.

 

No, if you want to diminish the influence of the RNG you need to make them one-use. Because then TFP can make the mods and weapons more frequent as loot (since you use up more of them) and THAT makes less people suffer from the RNG.

 

Because if they find less scopes than they need they can "ration" their use of scopes and put them only on the most important weapons. Other mods they find plenty enough they'll stuff into secondory weapons too.

 

Example: Scopes are on average one drop per month but reusable. Some people will fall into RNG trap and find a scope only after 3 months.

Or scopes are on average 3 drops per month but not reusable. Some people will fall into the RNG trap and find only one scope in the first month. But at least they have that one scope for their best weapon instead of none at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right this is getting out of hand when people claim others are ruining their gameplay because they don't want to play how someone else (you) say they should and get enjoyment from playing in a manner (you) say they should not. It is a good thing they have you to tell them that they are not and will not be enjoying their experience and would be ruining it if they get to play the way they would like.

 

For those of us with issues understanding you, please explain how a server owner setting a value in server config for themselves and the players who choose to play on that server ruins the fun for them if that is how they would like to play? If they enjoy playing in a particular style, please explain how they are ruining their enjoyment. Take the example below and explain, please, that I might understand.

 

Example: if the default is Yes/Removable, and a server owner sets the server config to No/NotRemovable. Then people purposefully seek out and join said server. Please explain how they've ruined their enjoyment by choosing to play how they wanted? This way everyone can better understand you.

 

I am glad you asked. I expected this kind of hyperbolic reaction and it is natural for people to take offense or outright dismiss that statement because most people can't fathom it is possible that their own choices can be detrimental to their own way of playing and god forbid someone else claims that their freedom to choose how gameplay elements behave does not always mean them being more engaged to a game.

 

But before we get to that, go ahead and quote the point where I told people how they should play, I am waiting. I said that I am of the opinion (keyword), that giving the players too many options can(keyword) make them ruin their own(keyword) gameplay experience.

 

Not to mention I actually don't actually have an opinion on this matter (even if I half-heartedly voted for yes in this poll), because on the one hand I agree with what Gazz said in the first page and I believe the game really needs more long-term item hunting and reasons to scavenge. On the other hand this will create more problems, people will hesitate modding their weapons and not being able to move mods doesn't abide to realism. So, while not having an opinion on this matter -and not sure myself about what would be best in the long run- it is rather hyperbolic and dramatic of you to claim that I "tell people how they should play". *Dramatic voice* I respect your work, expected better of you Red!

 

 

Anyway, about the

giving the players too many options can make them ruin their gameplay experience themselves

It is actually very common for this to happen. Of course, it is safe to say that most of the time people choose what they like because they enjoy it and in the end that's what they do - enjoy it. But this is not always the case. Many times people (including me), choose what they seemingly regard as something they would enjoy but that very thing hurts their own way of playing in the long run.

 

In general, while player feedback must be taken at heart by the developers, there has to be a balance in how the developers actually listen and act on that feedback and not blindly implement anything even the majority of players seem to want. I've seen many games suffer from misguided player-driven decisions - of course I've also seen many games suffer from developers not listening at player feedback or not taking it seriously.

 

But how can they ruin their own experience with a game option? Let me make a personal example using a friend to make this more clear. Note that this is in no way the peculiar behavior of one person - I am just using this example to describe something I've seen countless of times and it has a basis on psychology. This friend is a normal person overall, quite smart and a semi-casual gamer. We have been friends and playing for many years together, so one learns what kind of character and player the other is after so much time, preferences etc. I introduced him to 7DTD and after he became a little familiar with the game, we were discussing about the options our server should have. One of them was loot abundance and he insisted that it should be on high because he didn't like the meager loot he would find in the lower setting and getting more loot, thus creating more items and getting rewarded more overall, was very enjoyable to him. The funny thing is, what he obviously enjoyed made him get bored of the game in the long run. While the overabundance of supplies was great at first, because the gratification was instant it subsequently was short and unrewarding for him. He realized this after a couple of playthroughs, asked for the setting to be changed and wished he hadn't burned so much time playing with that setting.

 

Of course, this was a specific example of a specific kind of player and does not apply to everyone. The point is someone who chose an option that seemingly offered him more enjoyment, only to realize that it didn't in the long run.

 

 

What I am saying is that players (especially those new to this game) don't always know how the length/progression of the game will play out, how their subconscious will react, exactly when they will get bored or how to pace themselves in order to get the maximum enjoyment they can from a game.

 

A note - I don't know if you are familiar with Homer's Odyssey. There is a quote of a poet, usually quoted in philosophy, saying:

When you depart for Ithaca, wish for the road to be long

I won't analyze it, but just say that most people would wish that they instantly arrive at their proverbial destination, but in truth, the opposite will offer them so much more.

 

Anyhow to claim that players always already know the above, is to claim that game designing is an easy thing to do and a sham as a profession. Game designers are specialists too and some even study psychology in order to improve their craft (mostly in non-indie companies since indie devs must wear too many hats to have the time for that). But it still takes some talent to make an engaging game and not everyone who would try their hand at it would be successful. Same goes for movies and other works of art. A funny example would be "Game of Thrones" of George Martin. Let's suppose it was possible for viewers to form their viewing experience themselves. The vast majority (there were actually polls on major movie forums about it) would have changed the course of how the events in that series would play out and one of the outcomes would be preventing the death of the most favorable characters. At the same time, one of the reasons this show was memorable and impactful was these deaths.

 

I could go on with examples all day but I think I made my point. None is perfect. People can make choices without accounting for long-term or subliminal consequences. Options are great overall, but give players too many options, especially about key elements of the game and they can ruin their gameplay experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, if you want to diminish the influence of the RNG you need to make them one-use. Because then TFP can make the mods and weapons more frequent as loot (since you use up more of them) and THAT makes less people suffer from the RNG.

 

Because if they find less scopes than they need they can "ration" their use of scopes and put them only on the most important weapons. Other mods they find plenty enough they'll stuff into secondory weapons too.

 

Example: Scopes are on average one drop per month but reusable. Some people will fall into RNG trap and find a scope only after 3 months.

Or scopes are on average 3 drops per month but not reusable. Some people will fall into the RNG trap and find only one scope in the first month. But at least they have that one scope for their best weapon instead of none at all.

 

Except people don't tend to ration things when they have no control over supply... they horde them. If I found a "rare" scope that was a one time use I'd wait to put it on a gun I'd plan to use for a while or at least wait until I found a second one. I wouldn't put it on the first gun I found because me, as the player, isn't thinking the same way the character would about these things. I know the benefits of waiting, the character does not.

 

Besides, durability would solve the permanence issue nicely. Give them a durability and make them unrepairable (or very expensive to repair). They don't even have to be super rare that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except people don't tend to ration things when they have no control over supply... they horde them. If I found a "rare" scope that was a one time use I'd wait to put it on a gun I'd plan to use for a while or at least wait until I found a second one. I wouldn't put it on the first gun I found because me, as the player, isn't thinking the same way the character would about these things. I know the benefits of waiting, the character does not.

 

Yes, so? There are no wrong answers here, you always can put a mediocre but easy to find 2x scope into your weapon-of-the-day, use that and wait for the mods of your dream-weapon to slowly surface. And while the choices have consequences, the consequences are never life-threatening. Even a mod-less weapon works. It might use too much ammo, you might have to reload too often and you can't shot zombies from really far off, but that's it.

 

Besides, durability would solve the permanence issue nicely. Give them a durability and make them unrepairable (or very expensive to repair). They don't even have to be super rare that way.

 

This is another possibility, sure. Won't work to please everyone either, because lots of players will complain that they don't want to use that 4x scope because every shot will remove durability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow thme to be swapped in and out, however, also have mods have quality like most other items, Of course quality on say a scope/full auto kit etc wouldn't matter, but on other mods, like silencer, clip size etc. High quality=more effective. Removing the quality aspect of them just means once you find a set of mods you like, your done, as you never have to change them again since they are all a base quality and thats it.

 

Lets face it, once your established in 7 days to die the game literally offers nothing else to do. The zombies get boring to kill since they are all just carbon copy clones of each other. I hope that gets fixed in A17, its pretty dumb that all the zombies of one type look the exact same, we need that randomization of looks/stats back.

 

Having mods be rare and having qualitys would give the player something to go out and try to find. Because otherwise, there is not much else to do. A17 will help with this with the new dungeons tyle poi's and such, but its still not enough, as again once established there still isin't anything to actually do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who wants to artificially extend end game by making mods not swappable needs to rethink the definition of engaging end game content.

 

I really dont care about collecting mods if i can already slay everything in my sleep.

 

Collecting mods just to collect them is not fun. Might as well put a thousand numbered hanckerchiefs in boxes randomly around the world and have us collect them. They will serve the same amount of purpose at current end game as the mods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is getting out of hand and we have to realize that not everything can be an option. Plus I am of the opinion that giving the players too many options can make them ruin their gameplay experience themselves.

 

This attitude is why Google is teaching a generation of mobile developers to limit app functionality to make it "easy".

 

If you're worried about this, it's easy enough to revamp the game menu to include an "Advanced" feature that will reveal a plethora of options (ever seen ARK or Factorio's start screens?) that let a player easily customize their game to taste. Not including options because "someone might mess themselves up" is never a reason to restrict features.

 

...and I believe the game really needs more long-term item hunting and reasons to scavenge. ...

 

I agree, and I have a better solution to that: We need a legendary/artifact item tier. Color them red, drop chance is very low, with stats dramatically beyond even the best modded purple weapons. You could even go really all out and include special effects that you can't find anywhere else, such as a % boost to damage and speed, or a character run speed boost, or a resistance to damage. (Obviously, you would need an option to disable this tier for multiplayer for players that don't want it to affect their MP experience)

 

Screwing up the mod system won't add anything to the game that couldn't be better added with additional features.

 

It is actually very common for this to happen. Of course, it is safe to say that most of the time people choose what they like because they enjoy it and in the end that's what they do - enjoy it. But this is not always the case. Many times people (including me), choose what they seemingly regard as something they would enjoy but that very thing hurts their own way of playing in the long run.

 

In general, while player feedback must be taken at heart by the developers, there has to be a balance in how the developers actually listen and act on that feedback and not blindly implement anything even the majority of players seem to want. I've seen many games suffer from misguided player-driven decisions - of course I've also seen many games suffer from developers not listening at player feedback or not taking it seriously. ...

 

This smacks of attempting to tell the customer what they really want before they know they want it, which is an absolute wet dream for the corporation. It will work on some, but not all.

 

I don't think you'll find a lot of support for this viewpoint here.

 

Lets face it, once your established in 7 days to die the game literally offers nothing else to do. The zombies get boring to kill since they are all just carbon copy clones of each other. I hope that gets fixed in A17, its pretty dumb that all the zombies of one type look the exact same, we need that randomization of looks/stats back.

 

But what will changing the way zombies look for the third time add to the game? Better to instead get more of them on screen at a time if you want to work on the zombies.

 

Or they can use the development time saved by axing the behemoth to dramatically improve the bandits, which should be the real endgame challenge in future builds. I still envision roving bands of bandits becoming a far bigger danger than even large zombie hordes, because they can kill you from range and are capable of busting up your base faster. This will encourage larger and more resilient base designs.

 

I'd also love to see a bandit horde come at you late in the game if your GS is high enough. Then you'd better have fully automatic weapons, turrets, and reinforced steel everywhere.

 

Anyone who wants to artificially extend end game by making mods not swappable needs to rethink the definition of engaging end game content...

 

Anything done for the purposes of multiplayer holds 0 value to me as I'm solely a single player endgame megabuilder. Anything that prevents me from enjoying that aspect of the game is modded out in short order.

 

The definition of "Content" will vary from person to person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who wants to artificially extend end game by making mods not swappable needs to rethink the definition of engaging end game content.

 

And how can be there endgamecontent if a player can have all he wants just from start on ?

 

Understand me right, i am really willed to discuss that constructive. And for the principle i share your position partially.

But i have problems to apply this universal thought without mess the content up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My method is best.

 

Add the xml line isRemovable. Let the players/server managers/etc decide.

 

Best would be a

"Chance to break: 0.0 - 1.0" line for every modification (Means % chance to break)

 

Some asnwers here are right, how to do it depends on rarity of mods and weapons ingame + Kind of game (Single or Multiplayer) + other (Partially modrelated) depencies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This attitude is why Google is teaching a generation of mobile developers to limit app functionality to make it "easy".

 

It's not an attitude in the first place, it's realism. Been reading these forums for years and the amount of options that have been asked for features is obscene and don't expect it to happen for everything they are asked for (excluding modding possibilities). Your correlation with the philosophy of Google on apps is irrelevant, because no game functionality would be limited by the lack of most of these options. There is a difference between intuitive design and simply limiting game features or app functionality. With that logic, any possible game feature anyone wanted could be regarded as "extra functionality" and should come with an option - even features that might harm the game - or do you claim that there exists no such thing?

 

If you're worried about this, it's easy enough to revamp the game menu to include an "Advanced" feature that will reveal a plethora of options (ever seen ARK or Factorio's start screens?) that let a player easily customize their game to taste. Not including options because "someone might mess themselves up" is never a reason to restrict features.

 

Yes, your point? Do they have options for every single thing in the game? Every single gameplay mechanic? I was never against options alltogether and keep saying that options, overall, are good to have, but it keeps getting "lost in translation" because people can't help but get upset with the notion that they can "mess themselves up" and reply with hyperbolic statements.

 

 

I agree, and I have a better solution to that: We need a legendary/artifact item tier. Color them red, drop chance is very low, with stats dramatically beyond even the best modded purple weapons. You could even go really all out and include special effects that you can't find anywhere else, such as a % boost to damage and speed, or a character run speed boost, or a resistance to damage. (Obviously, you would need an option to disable this tier for multiplayer for players that don't want it to affect their MP experience)

 

Screwing up the mod system won't add anything to the game that couldn't be better added with additional features.

 

I don't disagree, as I said, I have yet to form an opinion on this specific matter.

 

This smacks of attempting to tell the customer what they really want before they know they want it, which is an absolute wet dream for the corporation. It will work on some, but not all.

 

I don't think you'll find a lot of support for this viewpoint here.

 

Of course it won't get -not a lot- but any support. And if I was a developer here I wouldn't dare say such thing. Hurting the ego of my customers wouldn't be a clever thing to do.

 

I agree that the absolute wet dream for a corporation is being able to tell the customer what they really want and take advantage of that fact to increase their profits by lowering quality or increase their sales by selling the customer something which he does not want or need, which is actually a bad thing for the customer. However, again, this is irrelevant to the discussion. This is you enjoying a work of art, a movie, a gourmet recipe, a song - video games are not that different. In fact they are more complex and it is not easy to create an addicting, engaging and memorable game that will captivate multitudes of people. Or do you claim you could just add your touch and improve all of the above if you had the option to do so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how many of you guys voting for unremovable attachments may say "I'm tried removable attachments in Starvation Mod, and its too easy and ruin game"?

I'm played this mod, having attachments system a long time, and its absolutely not easy, and ruin nothing. And there attachments too available through loot and traders only.

I'm trying this, and think its ok, you're do not trying, but think its ruin game :upset:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how many of you guys voting for unremovable attachments may say "I'm tried removable attachments in Starvation Mod, and its too easy and ruin game"?

I'm played this mod, having attachments system a long time, and its absolutely not easy, and ruin nothing. And there attachments too available through loot and traders only.

I'm trying this, and think its ok, you're do not trying, but think its ruin game :upset:

 

I have never played starvation. I want unremovable mods not because it is more difficult (it really isn't, it is only the appearance of difficult because you have sometimes to decide between two hay stacks in equal distance).

 

I want them because it puts slightly interesting decisions into the game and it leads to more mods you find being stilll relevant to you.

 

I hate it when in typical RPGs you find the sword+3, and all the swords+2 or less are useless junk to you from now on. 7D2D is a lot about scavenging, finding stuff, and the more stuff you find that is still relevant to you the better it is for your fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not an attitude in the first place, it's realism. Been reading these forums for years and the amount of options that have been asked for features is obscene and don't expect it to happen for everything they are asked for (excluding modding possibilities). Your correlation with the philosophy of Google on apps is irrelevant, because no game functionality would be limited by the lack of most of these options. There is a difference between intuitive design and simply limiting game features or app functionality.

 

This isn't "realism", it's both an attitude and a philosophy. You can try to label it irrelevant to the discussion, but the fact you're defending it belies your point.

 

7DTD appeals to a very specific subset of gamer, and if the discussions down the years here are any indication, we like our options. I agree that not everything can or should be an option, but in this case, the gun mod system needs to avoid extremes or it really should be a game option. After 4.5 years of development, endgame content should be the focus, not adding more grind mechanics that serve to artificially delay the gameplay.

 

I don't disagree, as I said, I have yet to form an opinion on this specific matter.

 

The post I replied to in this particular quote is 1,029 words in length. That is quite long for you to not have an opinion on the matter.

 

I agree that the absolute wet dream for a corporation is being able to tell the customer what they really want and take advantage of that fact to increase their profits by lowering quality or increase their sales by selling the customer something which he does not want or need, which is actually a bad thing for the customer. However, again, this is irrelevant to the discussion. This is you enjoying a work of art, a movie, a gourmet recipe, a song - video games are not that different. In fact they are more complex and it is not easy to create an addicting, engaging and memorable game that will captivate multitudes of people. Or do you claim you could just add your touch and improve all of the above if you had the option to do so?

 

Again, this is very relevant to the discussion. You're using the idea as justification to keep game options limited, and in this particular case, it is misguided.

 

I'll return to your previous post again to clarify my viewpoint:

 

It is actually very common for this to happen. Of course, it is safe to say that most of the time people choose what they like because they enjoy it and in the end that's what they do - enjoy it. But this is not always the case. Many times people (including me), choose what they seemingly regard as something they would enjoy but that very thing hurts their own way of playing in the long run.

 

The solution to that is to change the options up the next time you play, not to remove the option in the first place.

 

In general, while player feedback must be taken at heart by the developers, there has to be a balance in how the developers actually listen and act on that feedback and not blindly implement anything even the majority of players seem to want. I've seen many games suffer from misguided player-driven decisions - of course I've also seen many games suffer from developers not listening at player feedback or not taking it seriously.

 

Agreed completely on this point, but I don't agree that it applies here. Unremovable weapon mods will needlessly drag out the hunt for weapons. Saying that will no doubt attract people that love the idea and really want it. Making mods removable/not removable a game option lets us both play the way we want without impacting each other.

 

One of them was loot abundance and he insisted that it should be on high because he didn't like the meager loot he would find in the lower setting and getting more loot, thus creating more items and getting rewarded more overall, was very enjoyable to him. The funny thing is, what he obviously enjoyed made him get bored of the game in the long run. While the overabundance of supplies was great at first, because the gratification was instant it subsequently was short and unrewarding for him. He realized this after a couple of playthroughs, asked for the setting to be changed and wished he hadn't burned so much time playing with that setting.

 

At risk of repeating myself - the solution to that is to change the option, not delete the option itself. Why would you make that argument?

 

What I am saying is that players (especially those new to this game) don't always know how the length/progression of the game will play out, how their subconscious will react, exactly when they will get bored or how to pace themselves in order to get the maximum enjoyment they can from a game.

 

That's why I suggested that we have an "Advanced" page on the main game options screen. In deference to those hypothetical new players, the default game screen should populate with the default options, and there should be a checkbox to check or a specific button to push to enable the advanced screen. You could even have a warning pop up stating "Warning, for experienced players only! Changing these options will affect your gameplay significantly, tread with caution!"

 

Not including the options at all because of a fear that players will "mess themselves up" is not a solution.

 

I won't analyze it, but just say that most people would wish that they instantly arrive at their proverbial destination, but in truth, the opposite will offer them so much more.

 

Seems you have an opinion after all: you favor the primitive stage of the game. I find being locked with low quality stone tools, being unable to run for long, and being unable to mine effectively to be terribly boring and I refuse to play that way; I found the progression curve of A9-12 to be much more palatable. Doesn't mean I don't take a really long time to build that perfect megastructure, or find 24 different traders so I can keep stocked on ammo, or build a new base in a new area because I like the landscape. As this is a sandbox, the endgame options really are unlimited.

 

To primitive players, getting concrete means the game is ending. To endgame builders, getting concrete means the game is just getting started.

 

I could go on with examples all day but I think I made my point. None is perfect. People can make choices without accounting for long-term or subliminal consequences. Options are great overall, but give players too many options, especially about key elements of the game and they can ruin their gameplay experience.

 

So your opinion on the matter is, don't have too many options. We can all get behind that one. However, in the context of the gun mod system, we need options, not a forced design decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was a bit to critical against to many options in one of my last posts. And here is why

 

Options are great.

Worse decisions can allready be done by (more or less borderless) modding.

The joke is that existent options will reduce available mods leaving sensefull borders that affect this gameparts.

because if a Modder/User/Player/Serverowner allready can choose between 0%-25%-50%-75%-100% chance to break he will normally not start to make a mod that as example solve the issue of breaking mods by adding a high amount of them to the traders and make so looting complete senseless.

 

In context of possible more or less borderless Modding options are a great way to prevent mods that would hurt the gameplay without hardwire them or try to etablish rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chances are good, based on the way things stand now, that percentages for mod breakage would be a global setting affected by some skill level and NOT be implemented per weapon mod. I hope they at least add some way for per-mod settings for everything but I doubt that's the way it will be implemented in vanilla.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unremovable weapon mods will needlessly drag out the hunt for weapons.

 

That is simply only true if all other variables are left the same. But obviously the decision of removability will influence the following balancing step done by the developers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who thinks it's a great idea that you're done looking for mods once you have one set of the types you like best?

 

Realism vs a reason to keep playing the game? Guess who'll win that fight.

I also say nods not removable, otherwise once you find 3-4 of the best ones, no reason to go out looting, since weapons will be craftable .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...