Should mods be removable? Pros and Cons.

[Xyloscent]

Hey everyone, haven't been on the forums for a long time but thought id give my two cents. I think they should to be able to switched out how you want. That being said doing it in the field sounds a bit OP, to me at least. Perhaps we should have a weapon bench, most likely powered, that will allow us to swap without penalty.

[SylenThunder]

...

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.

IMHO, Morrowind was the last really good one of the series. After that they just dumbed it down for the next generation of kids that couldn't handle a challenge, or the possibility of losing.

You can fix Oblivion and Skyrim, but it takes a lot of effort in modding.

 

Whatever side the developers choose to go on here, I'm certain we will be able to adjust it to suit our own needs. Which is something that they typically intend. Which is great since developers like Joel were also out there writing mods for games before starting on this project. They understand that they can give us options, without having to give us all the options. They also openly and fully support modding, so we can design our own options of how we want to play.

[Roland]

This seems to boil down to whether a person likes irrevocable choices in general or not. I wonder whether those who want removable mods are also those who would like to be able to "sell back" skills to get their points back and choose different skills instead. I remember there was just such a sentiment voiced when skills were first introduced. There was a group that essentially didn't want skills to be permanent.

 

Personally, I think it makes sense that some mods would be removable and others not and having a true/ false removable property in the xml would be the best choice as then modders could reconfigure to their heart's delight. I think a simple top menu option of Mods: removable/ not removable is unlikely. We have that toggle for zombies running and we still get complaints from people who are incensed that ferals still run when they selected "Zombies don't run". The fact is that there will always be some zombie types that will always run unless modded otherwise no matter what option is chosen. If they have some mods that are removable and other that are not then it wouldn't work to have an option for the same reason. If the devs feel it would be too OP for a particular mod to be switched in and out at a player's whim then they would make it a permanent mod no matter what option was selected and that would cause confusion and ill will.

[Maharin]

per-mod XML options > global options with exceptions

 

Or, what Roland said.

[RestInPieces]

IMHO, Morrowind was the last really good one of the series. After that they just dumbed it down for the next generation of kids that couldn't handle a challenge, or the possibility of losing.

You can fix Oblivion and Skyrim, but it takes a lot of effort in modding.

 

Yea, used over gameplay 250 mods and spent days everytime trying to make everything stable. For the fallout series as well, after Bethesda got it. But the most disgusting case was Fallout 4. Not even mods can save it.

 

Fallout 5 will probably be something like this

[toores]

Xml property would make sense.

 

You mod your shotgun by sawing the top off. That can’t be undone. But you can screw a silencer on or off your pistol as many times you like.

 

Mods vs Attachments

[Menace312]

This seems to boil down to whether a person likes irrevocable choices in general or not. I wonder whether those who want removable mods are also those who would like to be able to "sell back" skills to get their points back and choose different skills instead. I remember there was just such a sentiment voiced when skills were first introduced. There was a group that essentially didn't want skills to be permanent.

 

Oh brother... Guess one can always make up stuff to support ones own agenda.

[Atrophied]

I agree with Toores, some mods should be perminent, others should be modular. Depending on how the weapon/item is modified.

[Gothyc]

I think removable should be a property depending on the type and quality of the weapon itself as well as the modification. In some cases you could destroy the weapon instead of the mod.

 

Perhaps a simple enough system could be that if the mod is higher quality than the weapon it was attached to, the weapon is destroyed as you remove the mod. And if the weapon is higher quality than the mod, the mod is destroyed as you remove it. If the weapon and the mod are of the same quality level, the mod can be removed and both items survive. Logic being that they were built according to the same standards and are thus more compatible with eachother.

 

Examples:

 

* A low quality pistol is modded with a medium quality scope. You can remove the scope and use it again, but the pistol would be destroyed.

* A medium quality pistol is modded with a low quality scope. You can remove the scope but it would be destroyed. The pistol survives.

* A medium quality pistol is modded with a medium quality scope. The scope can be removed and both items survive the process.

 

This would let you but a sweet scope onto a crappy gun without fear. The gun will be a little better for a time, until you find a better gun. Or but a crap scope onto a good gun, and not feel sorry for when you find a better scope. The choice would be using items that you know will be destroyed, instead of selling them.

 

This would of course bank on mods having quality levels. I certainly hope that they will, even if only 3 levels or so. For scopes, that could be the difference between x2, x3 and x4 magnification. Perhaps even x2.5 x3.5 and 4.5 could be put in for six different quality levels. For all other mods it should be even easier to scale the quality levels.

[Noctoras]

I also think MOD attachments should be very specific on where and how you get them. Like only at the gun stores or purchased through traders or as quest rewards.

 

I hope they do NOT make all this extremely specific to certain locations. This is the classic PvP style ... having a heat map where people are supposed to amass and shoot each other.

 

Yes for more weapon mods at relevant locations, a big no-no for weapon mods only in guns stores. I hear too much battle royale like stuff lately for my taste.

 

As for the mods themselves, I think removal with a possibility of breaking with perks reducing break chance are a sensible way to go.

[ColdGate]

I still not see any reason to make mods unremovable, but if you guys want it, why not go further? Let mods should be unremovable, and unidentified until installed, why not? All mods initially named "Weapon attachment" and all are the same, and only after installing into weapon you'll see what this mod is. Cool isn't it? So much challenge! Time wasted to got weapon of your dreams multiplies x1000. Forget about building and crafting, this game now all about searching for Excalibur!

P.S. Paint mods are exception, its too important for leave it at random.

[Faded]

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.

 

I'm still curious as to the details of this story. How many games did your friend play over how long of a time period? Why didn't he try again with reduced settings? I will play default in my first game of a new build release, but I will gradually seek harder settings over time to increase the fun factor. (By hard, I mean the actual definition of "hard", which means difficult combat and tacticswise, and not merely time-consuming or boring)

 

If nothing else, your friend would be better served sticking with packaged experiences, and avoiding sandboxes. Those players tend to want to "take the sand out of the sandbox", and their suggestions match this preference.

 

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.

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.

 

Because I enjoy progression in general. My issue is with how many gates are now in the way of this process and how much time it wastes. I found the sweet spot to be around A10; it was possible to play however you wanted and still get endgame materials within a reasonable amount of time. A14 started the gradual process of lengthening the early game's duration, culminating in A16's now-infamous level gates. This has the effect of forcing a specific playstyle in order to avoid having to face the Day 14 or 21 horde with a midtier bow. (Which is doable, but results in a lot more clicking and maneuvering that it should. I enjoy the gunplay against max sized hordes late in the game a lot more)

 

As of A16 release I mod out the level gates, and the progression curve is still plenty intact. I don't see any reason why good tools should be gated behind materials, skill level, and player level; yes, the traders are another way to potentially get good tools early, but they are far apart pre-minibike and their stock is random. Relying on RNG is a poor progression mechanic; reminds me of the day they added that awful forge book. It's really just a way to drag out the game's early phases. I do like how they changed the process of creating concrete; that is the kind of gating that I find useful and meaningful.

 

Essentially, 7DTD offers a unique mixture of RPG, FPS, and sandbox survival in a full voxel world; this specific combination isn't matched by anything else on the market. This is what TFP should be focused on delivering. This is especially important when you consider that there are RPGs that do RPG better (Path of Exile, Skyrim), FPS that do FPS better (Dying Light, L4D, ARK: Survival Evolved), sandbox that does sandbox better (Minecraft, earlier builds of 7DTD), and survival that does survival better (The Long Dark, The Forest). This is why 7DTD should stay true to its roots instead of going a singular path; if it makes this mistake, 7DTD will compare unfavorably to games that do a specific genre better.

 

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)

 

I did notice that it was not to me, but I wondered all the same. I'm glad for the clarification, and hope that you had a Happy Easter holiday if that is something you celebrate in your resident country.

 

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.

 

Skipping or removing options does take away player freedom. That's why I suggested that we in fact need more and more detailed options, not fewer. Imagine:

 

• Being able to choose the hunger/thirst decay rate
  
• Being able to control how fast or slow the zombies spawn, in what numbers, and how far from the player character
  
• Being able to adjust the percentage of cities, surburbia, and rural POIs in your RWG without having to alter the XML
  
• Being able to disable enemy types that you don't find immersive or fun to play against (the dogs are probably the most-complained about going from past forum posts)
  
• Being able to alter elements of the UI; increase/decrease size, hide parts that you don't want to see. Then maybe we can finally stop having to mod the food and water bars back in every build.
  
• Being able to have brass mineable/drop more frequently in the world.
  

 

 

I understand that this is not practical for Alpha. But as the game draws closer and closer to release, this is something TFP really should consider if they want 7DTD to have the staying power we're all hoping for.

[zombie4hire]

I also hope for a lot of settings I can tweak without going into the XML files

[meganoth]

I still not see any reason to make mods unremovable, but if you guys want it, why not go further? Let mods should be unremovable, and unidentified until installed, why not? All mods initially named "Weapon attachment"

 

Good, you just invented a system where there is no meaningful choice involved (because you don't know what you choose) and you obviously don't like it. Me too!

 

Thank you for getting it.

[intruder1_92tt]

Just a thought:

 

Why not just require a workbench in order to install or remove weapon mods? It makes it feel slightly realistic, since you're not going to replace a trigger with your bare hands. You could even add a module, similar to the Forge add-ons, to enable weapon assembly and repair. For additional balance, you could still include the chance of breakage (maybe tie it to weapon smithing skill), or even limit the number of times an item can be removed before it breaks.

 

I personally don't like the idea of permanent weapon mods, but I think that one could strike a balance by utilizing other game mechanics that are already implemented.

[Faded]

Just a thought:

 

Why not just require a workbench in order to install or remove weapon mods? It makes it feel slightly realistic, since you're not going to replace a trigger with your bare hands. You could even add a module, similar to the Forge add-ons, to enable weapon assembly and repair. For additional balance, you could still include the chance of breakage (maybe tie it to weapon smithing skill), or even limit the number of times an item can be removed before it breaks.

 

I personally don't like the idea of permanent weapon mods, but I think that one could strike a balance by utilizing other game mechanics that are already implemented.

 

The workbench could be an acceptable compromise. However, % chance to break is just adding RNG, and that's no fun. Perhaps if maxed weaponsmith has a 0 failure rate.

[intruder1_92tt]

The workbench could be an acceptable compromise. However, % chance to break is just adding RNG, and that's no fun. Perhaps if maxed weaponsmith has a 0 failure rate.

 

I like that. More of that realistic feel.

[meganoth]

The workbench could be an acceptable compromise.

 

Compromise for what? It adds no difficulty, decisions, or interesting gameplay. It just adds a superfluous wait to the build process until you return to one of your bases.

[Tin]

Quote Originally Posted by Faded View Post

The workbench could be an acceptable compromise. However, % chance to break is just adding RNG, and that's no fun. Perhaps if maxed weaponsmith has a 0 failure rate.

Compromise for what? It adds no difficulty, decisions, or interesting gameplay. It just adds a superfluous wait to the build process until you return to one of your bases.

 

Difficulty/Decision: Do I go back to store/attach the mod now in a secure location chewing up more of the day? or do I continue to press forward and possibly increase the chance of getting killed? possibly losing the mod because my bag got destroyed?

Depending on what exact day/time it is, will make that decision even more of a concern and seems like it would be an interest aspect, imo at least.

[ColdGate]

Difficulty/Decision: Do I go back to store/attach the mod now in a secure location chewing up more of the day? or do I continue to press forward and possibly increase the chance of getting killed? possibly losing the mod because my bag got destroyed?

Depending on what exact day/time it is, will make that decision even more of a concern and seems like it would be an interest aspect, imo at least.

 

There's no any difficult decisions, found attachment - nice, I'll attach it when return to base but first I fill my inventory with loot, my weapon is good enough without additional +dmg/+clip size/+zoom/etc. Or maybe need make attachments spoiling if not attached?

[Faded]

Compromise for what? It adds no difficulty, decisions, or interesting gameplay. It just adds a superfluous wait to the build process until you return to one of your bases.

 

I say mods should be freely removable. But if it's decided they can't be, I agree that requiring the workbench to remove mods is an acceptable compromise.

[meganoth]

Difficulty/Decision: Do I go back to store/attach the mod now in a secure location chewing up more of the day? or do I continue to press forward and possibly increase the chance of getting killed? possibly losing the mod because my bag got destroyed?

Depending on what exact day/time it is, will make that decision even more of a concern and seems like it would be an interest aspect, imo at least.

 

I don't think the mods (even the best ones) will be so totally game changing that it ever makes sense to abort a scavenging mission just for that. There are already a lot of incentives in the game to go back to base every now and then (full backpack, cooking better food, horde night, farming, upgrading/repairing tools) that another reason doesn't change much and doesn't really improve the game.

 

How about this thought experiment: If adding another incentive to go back to base would improve the game TFP could just change any one of the recipes that can be done from the backpack now to depend on a workstation. Would that improve the game? Not if they already have the right balance of incentives in the game. And if they don't have that balance it doesn't really matter which recipes they actually change to workstation recipes as long as they do it until they reach the balance.

[Tin]

I don't think the mods (even the best ones) will be so totally game changing that it ever makes sense to abort a scavenging mission just for that. There are already a lot of incentives in the game to go back to base every now and then (full backpack, cooking better food, horde night, farming, upgrading/repairing tools) that another reason doesn't change much and doesn't really improve the game.

 

How about this thought experiment: If adding another incentive to go back to base would improve the game TFP could just change any one of the recipes that can be done from the backpack now to depend on a workstation. Would that improve the game? Not if they already have the right balance of incentives in the game. And if they don't have that balance it doesn't really matter which recipes they actually change to workstation recipes as long as they do it until they reach the balance.

 

This whole thread is just a thought experiment since we don't know much, other than MOD attachments will exist in some form and be able to enhance a weapon to some degree or another.

I agree on the balance deal.

It's also going to depend on how it's balanced, if the attachments are going to actually improve the game or not. <shrug>

[Roland]

If mods are easily removable then mod slots simply become extra inventory space...

[Royal Deluxe]

If mods are easily removable then mod slots simply become extra inventory space...

 

Depends

Magazines (if not caliber changing), Optics and Silencer should be easy removable/Switchable

 

Extra inventory would mean additional space. This way it would be less space