Should mods be removable? Pros and Cons.

[SnowDog1942]

...so, mods are the only reason to loot? Like, at all?

 

Yea I guess more games need to stumble upon this miracle known as mods that magically prolong the life of a game.

 

Leaning heavily on mods for end game is the wrong choice. After its no longer the new shiny toy on the block its just another item.

[Kosmic Kerman]

...so, mods are the only reason to loot? Like, at all?

 

Once you are established and have an abundance of materials is there really any reason to loot (unless of course that is what you find enjoyable in the game)? At that point you can craft whatever you want and sell it to the traders and buy what you want. Depending on rng, I’d say that point happens somewhere between day 21 and day 35. A minibike and an auger greatly speed up when this occurs for me.

[Guppycur]

I don't see that changing if weapon mods aren't removable. By then I'm flush with blade traps, shotty turrets and electric fences anyway.

[meganoth]

...so, mods are the only reason to loot? Like, at all?

 

They usually are the cherries on the cake.

[Guppycur]

They usually are the cherries on the cake.

 

How do we know yet? =)

[Red Eagle LXIX]

@RestInPieces, we'll have to disagree then. An argument for not having an option will always be an argument for a fixed or enforced playstyle in my opinion.

 

Further, in sandbox style game, options are the life-blood of longevity. Less options = less ways to play long term = less longevity.

 

I was quite inspired by your story about your friend though. It was heart warming to hear the tale of someone who gained personal wisdom about themselves, the downfalls of instant gratification, and the value of earning something all because they had options and the ability to exercise them in a game rather than having to learn in the much harder cold reality of our world.

[meganoth]

How do we know yet? =)

 

Mods are the new parts. There is a clear lineage, I imagine a passing of the baton

[RestInPieces]

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.

 

I called it realism because having an option for every single feature won't happen - the modding community will take care of that anyway. I called it irrelevant because the philosophy you are talking about is streamlining at the cost of features, which doesn't apply here. And I definitely never defended that. What I made a point about is the asininity of having an option about every object and property of that object in this game and how it can harm the overall experience.

 

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,

 

Exactly what I am saying.

 

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 agree that the mod system needs to avoid extremes. I don't really agree that it should be a game option.

 

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.

 

What I expressed was my opinion about asking for everything to be optional. Only one paragraph was about the matter at hand and I think I explained why I don't have an opinion about it thoroughly. Now, if that fails to convince you, it definitely is not my fault.

 

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.

 

Forgive me, but corporations brainwashing people to convince them on what they need is a completely different thing from a work of art conveying an packaged experience. Because video games are both commercial products and works of art - not only visual but every interacting mechanic that engages players in them included. So I insist that it is completely irrelevant.

 

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 the example I mentioned in my first post, that friend of mine pretty much experienced the whole game - found every item, built a steel house etc. As he said in the end, he shouldn't have chosen, among others, the highest loot settings because he got bored and burned out fast. Burned out is the keyword. Do you think everyone would give a second chance to the game and inquire why their experience was not optimal (if that is the case), after their first gameplay experience and after forming an impression?

 

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.

 

Again, I really don't have an opinion on this matter because both sides have a lot of cons. If I did, I would be vocal about it as always. I do believe that there has to be clever solution to it. Keep in mind that this is one of the myriad things that has been asked to be implemented as an option and not one of the most impactful to gameplay. If we were to talk about weapons/tools themselves I'd take it more seriously.

 

 

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?

 

Because you are missing the context. I used it as an example in my reply to Red Eagle to make a point of how it is possible for someone to choose something that will offer him instant gratification over long-term enjoyment.

 

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 agree that it would mitigate the problem I am talking about up to a point, however I would prefer them to be integrated to the general difficulty options.

 

 

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 do have an opinion after all about what? Weapon mods? Like I said above, that quote in reply to Red's post, was also about how most people tend to choose instant gratification over long-term enjoyment, something which also applied to the case of my friend.

 

I don't exactly get what you mean by saying primitive stage of the game/primitive players. I don't favor any stage of the game in particular. I favor a smooth, seamless and engaging progression, all of that while building and trying to survive. If you are trying to say that I favor a lengthy progression, that's correct.

 

And how is it ending for "primitive players" when they get concrete and how is it beginning for "endgame builders" - I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say here.

 

 

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.

 

Yes and after a week or two another topic will come up with someone asking for options and not forced design decisions about equally large parts of the game like underwear, cloud movement or grass growing speed. Ok, I admit weapon mods being removable or not is more important than these but, like I said above, I'd take the notion of asking for an option more seriously if it was about actual tool/weapons (say, durability), but then again I shouldn't be giving people ideas.

 

 

 

 

@RestInPieces, we'll have to disagree then. An argument for not having an option will always be an argument for a fixed or enforced playstyle in my opinion.

 

Well, I'll just say that we should all try (myself included) to be less dogmatic in anything, even when not agreeing. And never underestimate people's ability to mess up.

 

Further, in sandbox style game, options are the life-blood of longevity. Less options = less ways to play long term = less longevity.

 

This generally true, but in the example I mentioned it worked the other way around. I do love options, but not for everything - quick example: I love the world customization options in minecraft but I wouldn't like options that, for example, let you build nether portals out of dirt, put diamonds on the surface layer etc - anything that would mess up the game's progression systems.

 

I was quite inspired by your story about your friend though. It was heart warming to hear the tale of someone who gained personal wisdom about themselves, the downfalls of instant gratification, and the value of earning something all because they had options and the ability to exercise them in a game rather than having to learn in the much harder cold reality of our world.

 

Anyway yes, they did teach him something. However he will do the same in the next game he will play as well.

That pleb didn't listen to my words of wisdom in the first place! He never listens!

[Pille]

Sometime Roland will make a poll and nobody will come!

[Jeraal]

Voted for swapping. But I would say only at a workbench or weapons bench. If you want to swap on the fly, carry two guns.

[icehot]

Surely it makes most sense, that some mods can be removed, and some can't, an extended magazine like in real life surely should be removable, but if you've hammered nails into a bat, or painted it, then that's different. So I think I'm unable to vote, as my actual answer would be some mods should be removable and others shouldn't.

[NukemDed]

blah blah "cloud movement or grass growing speed. Ok, I admit weapon mods" blah blah

 

a lawn mower would be cool so i can clear the area around my base.

 

wtf to the rest of it. people take themselves too seriously around here. its a game. just a game. best game ever imho but still a game.

[Gazz]

I don't see that changing if weapon mods aren't removable. By then I'm flush with blade traps, shotty turrets and electric fences anyway.

Worst case they are non-removable... but with a mod you can always set up a system of molds where you can duplicate all the item mods you have found in that game.

 

Or... make it so that looting a mod also enables your ability to craft this one.

 

The only thing I am absolutely sure of is that modders will disagree on all kinds of design decisions and "fix" those in either direction.

[Faded]

In the example I mentioned in my first post, that friend of mine pretty much experienced the whole game - found every item, built a steel house etc. As he said in the end, he shouldn't have chosen, among others, the highest loot settings because he got bored and burned out fast. Burned out is the keyword. Do you think everyone would give a second chance to the game and inquire why their experience was not optimal (if that is the case), after their first gameplay experience and after forming an impression?

 

Why didn't he change the loot setting earlier when he realized things were happening too fast for him?

 

How did he get burned out? In the context of gaming that typically refers to playing too often for too long. From your story, he played one game and then quit.

 

I see you further down remarking that he will make the same choice in the next game he plays. It sounds like a willpower issue, and restricting the game for players like that is always the wrong call.

 

Because you are missing the context. I used it as an example in my reply to Red Eagle to make a point of how it is possible for someone to choose something that will offer him instant gratification over long-term enjoyment.

 

I understand the context. Reducing options to support players with bad habits is not a useful or correct answer to players like your friend. Better for him to learn some self control.

 

I agree that it would mitigate the problem I am talking about up to a point, however I would prefer them to be integrated to the general difficulty options.

 

Please elaborate on this. It sounds interesting to me.

 

I do have an opinion after all about what? Weapon mods? Like I said above, that quote in reply to Red's post, was also about how most people tend to choose instant gratification over long-term enjoyment, something which also applied to the case of my friend.

I don't exactly get what you mean by saying primitive stage of the game/primitive players. I don't favor any stage of the game in particular. I favor a smooth, seamless and engaging progression, all of that while building and trying to survive. If you are trying to say that I favor a lengthy progression, that's correct.

And how is it ending for "primitive players" when they get concrete and how is it beginning for "endgame builders" - I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say here.

 

You quoted the journey as being more important than the destination. This is correct, but different folks will have different destinations. I don't find the grind to get good tools or concrete engaging. It has been artificially dragged out the past few alphas, and it didn't add anything to the game. The real gains have been the minibike, the electricity system, the quality system. These are the kinds of things worth adding to improve and extend gameplay. In the future, more vehicles, more building materials, bandits, more farming options, and enabling larger enemy hordes are the thing that will really take the game to gold status. The "I'm bored, nothing more to do" point that many players seem to reach sooner or later is much better addressed by adding endgame content like this.

 

I've read it more than once here that we have a group of players that are excited to start a new game, but once they get too many resources and things get too "easy" they want to start over. This is what I refer to as primitive players; happiest in the game's very early stages.

 

For me, the journey begins once I'm ready to begin concrete megabuilds. Everything leading up to that point is a boring grind that is simply in the way of the real game.

 

Yes and after a week or two another topic will come up with someone asking for options about equally large parts of the game like underwear, cloud movement or grass growing speed. Ok, I admit weapon mods being removable or not is more important than these but, like I said above, I'd take the notion of asking for an option more seriously if it was about actual tool/weapons (say, durability), but then again I shouldn't be giving people ideas.

 

There have been a few cases where an option was requested when it was not necessary, but most of the discussions that boil down to "we need an option" were valid. I'm not sure who you're trying to convince that everything can't be an option, but you can consider me in agreement with you on that point.

 

Well, I'll just say that we should all try (myself included) to be less dogmatic in anything, even when not agreeing. And never underestimate people's ability to mess up.

 

I sincerely hope I didn't offend or stress you out. My goal is discussion of game mechanics and design, not to upset anyone.

 

Parting thought:

 

TESIII:Morrowind let you kill any NPC you were powerful enough to defeat. It was possible for you to kill questgiving NPCs, even ones that were involved in the game's main quest. Obviously, if you did this, you could prevent yourself from completing the main quest line. Upon killing such an NPC, you received a large, impossible to miss message that made it very clear that you should reload if you wanted to be able to finish the main quest.

 

In TESIV:Oblivion, the mechanic of "essential" NPCs was introduced. Any NPC deemed important to a primary questline was immortal; the most you could do was knock them down and run away. It was later confirmed this was done because some players broke their save game back in Morrowind.

 

In the context of an open world sandbox game, do you think that making this change improved the game?

[Royal Deluxe]

Worst case they are non-removable... but with a mod you can always set up a system of molds where you can duplicate all the item mods you have found in that game.

 

Or... make it so that looting a mod also enables your ability to craft this one.

 

The only thing I am absolutely sure of is that modders will disagree on all kinds of design decisions and "fix" those in either direction.

 

Its something that is right and wrong in each direction. So i am sure you are right ohh wait wrong......argh

[Maharin]

The only thing I am absolutely sure of is that modders will disagree on all kinds of design decisions and "fix" those in either direction.

 

So what happens when two modders that disagree on such things have babies together? What kind of mods do their babies make?

 

This is all very important research.

[ColdGate]

Too many attention to attachment system. Really, mods of course useful, but except scopes and possibly silencers rest mods not make a huge difference. And this is not endgame content. How many weapons you use? Usually it one or two. And Im sure you loot scope on one of horde nights, and few other attachments, and possibly its enough for comfortable play. Hunt for attachments only for collect them in storage? Hm... its like hunt to collect clothes all types and colors, just for collect, no difference.

Weapon mods is not a reason play longer, its just for small tuning and customizing your weapon. And its must be comfortable - found good mod - use it now, no need to store it before you find better weapon, and then after 20 hours you find better weapon, and better mod, and old mod never used, and no more needed. No, damn, removable mods tested, and works great.

[cnconrad]

This is a question the devs are discussing and whatever they decide is sure to please some and disappoint others. Before we know for sure what they plan to do lets get some public opinion on this topic and hear some opinions, ideas, and reasons why they should or should not be removable once placed.

 

Weapon mods are a new feature for A17. A weapon will have 1-6 slots for attachments (mods) that will enhance the weapon in some way. The devs are considering whether a mod, once placed, should be permanent or whether it can be removed and swapped for a different mod.

 

Vote and weigh in with your thoughts.

 

Making them non removable is a goofy decision for some mods. If I put an extended magazine on a rifle but then find a better rifle I can't take it off even though you detach the magazine to reload?

 

Modified triggers springs fireing pins barrels stocks ECT I can live with those being tied to the weapon.

 

It really depends if you want them to be common I guess it's ok to keep them non removable.

 

 

But if it's rare I will end up holding onto the items and never using them for fear of waste it.

 

 

As long as it's balanced I can live with either one. I don't want to find some fancy silencer on day 5 and be forced to hold it until day 37 waiting for a worthy gun.

[Menace312]

So once you insert a mod in a gun, it is forever locked to that gun...

 

I see no good reason for this. I mean I don't think it makes much sense either gameplay or immersion wise.

 

I imagine that I will just try out all the new mods in creative, which I would be forced to do.

Then if I have a modded gun, that I later want to change. I could sell it and just either buy or find a new gun to mod.

 

So my objection is not that it's too hard, but that it sounds like an unnecessary "busy" chain, and not a real "I must think about what I'm doing" kind of deal.

 

That said, despite the great videos, I find it very hard to imagine the new gun system fully... The change/update seems very extensive. Can't wait to try it!

[Menace312]

Idea!

 

Why not have mods removable, but have them degrade with use?

It could even be so mods couldn't be repaired, for extra "should I really use this mod now" moments...

 

Kinda makes sense, because how do you fix a cracked scope in the apocalypse?

 

You find a new one with an intact linse.

[Maharin]

I still think that one size fits all is the wrong approach. Each mod should have properties that define if and how quickly it degrades, whether it is removable once attached, what skills it takes to use/repair/remove, and any other properties that affect its life cycle or use. That way modders and server admins could make choices in the name of balancing or design if they so choose and vanilla can be whatever TFP wants it to be.

[Royal Deluxe]

Scopes

Chance to break if you fall > 1m deep = 20%

 

XD

[meganoth]

I imagine that I will just try out all the new mods in creative, which I would be forced to do.

Then if I have a modded gun, that I later want to change. I could sell it and just either buy or find a new gun to mod.

 

So my objection is not that it's too hard, but that it sounds like an unnecessary "busy" chain, and not a real "I must think about what I'm doing" kind of deal.

 

Like all the unneccessary weapon/armor/tanning... stations or the wood sticks so many mods have a faible for? Or the swapping of clothes whenever the temperature changes? Yes, you are right, but as I said, at least this busy chain involves actual brain activity on the players side. Because he sometimes has to choose between two possibly sub-optimal alternatives, even though, as you said, the consequences both ways are just temporary.

 

That others think that they would shy from such a choice and keep good mods until they find the perfect weapon and you think the choice is trivial usually means the truth is somewhere in the middle Excellent.

 

Your argument about having to try it out is a good one. For example with scopes it is also a matter of taste if you like the effect of one scope and you would want to try it out and possibly remove it again if you don't like it. A damage-enhancing mod on the other hand doesn't have this "taste" dependancy, you know beforehand what you will get. So I think Maharins idea of "some do, some don't" is the right way and could even conicide to be more realistic as well.

 

So scopes, targetting pointers and magazines are removable, damage-enhancing mods (probably made to the barrel) would be permanent.

 

There could be even the possibility, that every usually removable class of mods has one non-removable variant (with the "non-removable" as a special drawback)

[Piglet]

Personally I would prefer more weapon variety rather then mods for the few guns we already have but that is just my preference, but since this topic was about perma or non perma I would say the best would be that you can remove mods from guns but you need certain skills at certain levels to do so.

[RestInPieces]

Why didn't he change the loot setting earlier when he realized things were happening too fast for him?

How did he get burned out? In the context of gaming that typically refers to playing too often for too long. From your story, he played one game and then quit.

I see you further down remarking that he will make the same choice in the next game he plays. It sounds like a willpower issue, and restricting the game for players like that is always the wrong call.

I understand the context. Reducing options to support players with bad habits is not a useful or correct answer to players like your friend. Better for him to learn some self control.

 

Absolute willpower and self control is what most of us would wish we had. But anyway, that specific person learned his mistake in this game, however he is not great at gauging how his long-term experience will play out. Instant gratification is always that much more seductive. There are games which succeeded doing exactly that - Dark Souls is an extreme example of a packaged experience that doesn't even give the player difficulty options. Of course, what I am saying is far from extreme and it definitely doesn't apply to this game to that extend.

 

Please elaborate on this. It sounds interesting to me.

 

Nothing to elaborate on really. Just general difficulty options that are descriptive enough of the experience they will offer. Would at least be a more accurate description of the experience a new player, who doesn't know the ins and outs of the game, would get.

 

You quoted the journey as being more important than the destination. This is correct, but different folks will have different destinations. I don't find the grind to get good tools or concrete engaging. It has been artificially dragged out the past few alphas, and it didn't add anything to the game. The real gains have been the minibike, the electricity system, the quality system. These are the kinds of things worth adding to improve and extend gameplay. In the future, more vehicles, more building materials, bandits, more farming options, and enabling larger enemy hordes are the thing that will really take the game to gold status. The "I'm bored, nothing more to do" point that many players seem to reach sooner or later is much better addressed by adding endgame content like this.

 

I've read it more than once here that we have a group of players that are excited to start a new game, but once they get too many resources and things get too "easy" they want to start over. This is what I refer to as primitive players; happiest in the game's very early stages.

 

Yes but anyone can call any mechanic that takes effort and gates materials behind scavenging or loot tables a "grind". Personally, I enjoy the process of scavenging and upgrading through the tiers of tools, crafting etc, that progressively make it easier to survive, acquire materials and face enemies (not saying it's perfect, by any means). It is the essense of a survival game. From what I gather, you prefer to play the game as a sandbox/building game but you have to understand not everyone plays the game like that exclusively.

 

 

For me, the journey begins once I'm ready to begin concrete megabuilds. Everything leading up to that point is a boring grind that is simply in the way of the real game.

 

Honestly speaking, why even subject yourself to what you call a boring grind and not get the materials you need to build from debug mode? That way the process, being longer or shorter wouldn't even affect you. Don't get me wrong. I am a player who both enjoys the "progression" part of the game and building/sandbox. If I didn't enjoy the first part, I would definitely skip it.

 

There have been a few cases where an option was requested when it was not necessary, but most of the discussions that boil down to "we need an option" were valid. I'm not sure who you're trying to convince that everything can't be an option, but you can consider me in agreement with you on that point.

 

Theoritically, every discussion about options is valid - it keeps everyone happy afterall. However - so that I do not have to repeat myself - I believe it is not possible or always beneficial to the game like I said in my first post. Not trying to convince anyone, Red asked me to elaborate on a post of mine commenting on the topic and I replied back.

 

I sincerely hope I didn't offend or stress you out. My goal is discussion of game mechanics and design, not to upset anyone.

 

Again, that was a reply to Red's post, no worries. But if I could be offended or stressed out by the things you said I would have to visit a doctor to resolve other issues (and forgive me if I gave that impression)

 

Parting thought:

 

TESIII:Morrowind let you kill any NPC you were powerful enough to defeat. It was possible for you to kill questgiving NPCs, even ones that were involved in the game's main quest. Obviously, if you did this, you could prevent yourself from completing the main quest line. Upon killing such an NPC, you received a large, impossible to miss message that made it very clear that you should reload if you wanted to be able to finish the main quest.

 

In TESIV:Oblivion, the mechanic of "essential" NPCs was introduced. Any NPC deemed important to a primary questline was immortal; the most you could do was knock them down and run away. It was later confirmed this was done because some players broke their save game back in Morrowind.

 

In the context of an open world sandbox game, do you think that making this change improved the game?

 

Essential npcs was one of the worst things that happened to TES. God, that series has gotten so streamlined it's disgusting. That change only pigeonholed gameplay. Even if it was supposedly a change to safeguard players against "messing up", I disagree it applies here because it actually took away player freedom in-game. Choosing if mods are to be removable or not does not - it lets players decide on a game mechanic. Something in the lines of an option to "be a member of every guild from the start", "costless spell creation" or "quests completed automatically" would be a better comparison.