7DTD - Will it ever leave Early Access?

[Brian9824]

Sorry for my late reply, but I'm gonna copy-paste a rather extensive (and well-written) message I found on the Steam forum. Many thanks to Doctor3D for his analysis, he expresses exactly what I've been experiencing.

 

"I wish they would go back to the early access model where you could play the game as they make changes - I'm sure I'd have a lot more to say and play it a lot more if I could provide some actual feedback on the game as they are working on it. Health bars for example - the moment they would have put that code in the game and EA players tested it - they would have got immediate feedback on whether it was accepted by a majority and what they liked or didn't like about them - but now - they will have had so many changes to the game since A16 game out that any real focused feedback on each and every change is going to impossible.

 

 

By doing so they also break your saves every day meaning people can't actually properly test many features because they have to constantly start over. You also kill your modding community as if that was their cycle very few people would bother creating mods.

 

Using health bars as an example (just as an example, because there's so many changes) it takes at least some amount of time for a person to code those, art for them, tweak them, etc - so if they go through all of that - only just to possibly have them removed or completely revamped later on - then that's just a waste of time. Instead - they could have started putting them in and we applied feedback immediately and they could make immediate (one-time) changes as we tested it.

 

They aren't planning to remove them, but like most other features in the game they will be removable or tweakable so that they say might only show on bosses.

 

Sleepers back in A16 - if we could have had true early access to that as it was being implemented we could have certainly provided better feedback - instead they will have to backtrack and rework those as well. There not even 'broken' they are just badly implemented and very simple things (while they were actively focused on them and everything about them was fresh on the dev's mind) could have made them better (such as frequency, placement, quantity per building type, etc)

 

Again though nothing would have changed. They would have added them in, gotten the same feedback they got in A16 and made changes in A17. The only difference is those changes would have been part of a smaller patch forcing us to start over again. The same amount of work on TFP would have been done.

 

So while they may argue that giving us early access and allowing us to provide feedback AS things are being made slows them down - I think, in the long run all the backtracking, removing and re-editing after months of work that they have had to do since they stopped giving us more frequent insights into the game (A14-ish)- is slowing them down further in the long run and the game (while still great) won't reach the heights it could with solid player feedback.

 

Everything they removed would have been removed ANYWAYS whether they removed it in a small update or a large update, so their is no difference in their work and its not slowing them.

 

They drop a huge gigantic amount of content on each update now and say something to the effect of "It's like a new game!!!" - which to me, is the opposite of what I want. I don't want a huge, gimongous amount of content that changes things all at once - the feedback on it is chaos and nothing can get balanced or implemented as well. There's too many things that needs tweaks since A13\A14 - far too many - some are so small (in comparison) that it's not even worth mentioning at this point - but it could have been worth it - while they were actually physically doing them.

 

The entire point of alpha is to do those large sweeping changes. Then in beta you start working on your small tweaks, fine tune your balance, etc. The entire point of alpha is to get all your core systems in place and working before you start to tweak and streamline.

 

Personally, I just look at this game as Early Access in name only - it doesn't hold true to the spirit of what early access actually means. I have not been able to actually see and play the game as it develops - just huge drops of content at a time - with a chaos of feedback to sort through.

 

As someone with over a decade in the software industry your opinion is just wrong. This is the very definition of EA and you have quite literally been able to see and play the game as it develops. EA doesn't mean you get access to every build they ever do. You've been playing each Alpha as they add more content and when it goes to beta you will be playing that.

 

Radiated zombies is another big one that bothers me while I was siting here thinking about their process. I personally don't like how they are implemented - I think there are too much of them. I think they break immersion. They make looting simple houses a chore with low reward. I think they do have a place in the game - but how they are used now is excessive. (to be fair though, this is a fairly simple change - but if you balance the entire game around their implementation then changing just them makes things out of wack)

 

The game hasn't been balanced at all though. Every veteran player knows that the non modded game is waaay to easy and we mod it to make it harder. That type of stuff comes during the beta though.

 

 

I prefer to play this game and offer feedback as its being developed. I don't want to just play and play and play until I completely burn out on the game. I want to enjoy the finished product and I want to help realize what it could be (As the Early Access mission statement states) - so I'll play it again in A17 - drop what little feedback I can manage to get through the chaos and that'll be that.

 

Then don't play and play until you get burned out, no one is holding a gun to your head. if they were constantly restarting your saves because of patches EVERYONE would get burned out and they would stop testing. You can still offer feedback and we've had massive discussions every update on big changes. The dev's do listen to feedback and have made many changes based on it.

 

We have become bug testers more than anything else - we shouldn't have to only do just the bad, unfun parts like bug reports - there should be feedback as well."

 

Most of EA IS bug testing. It's one of the most critical parts of software development. Also our feedback will be much more vital during beta when you start balancing the game.

 

Also hate to break it to you but 99% of people have no clue how to design a software or whats actually fun. Case in point, we have people in the PvP thread here actually saying they should add in a more focused PvP mode and IGNORE any form of balance just to have it because balance isn't important.

 

Think about that for a second.......

 

We have people posting that they should add super powers, laser eye beams, were wolfs, vampires, etc to the game. Alien abductions, plasma weapons, zombie sex slaves, etc.

 

Just because TFP doesn't listen or appear to listen to every idea you have doesn't mean they aren't listening to feedback. Just because some people don't like hp bars doesn't mean they aren't listening to those people. It just means they also have their own ideas and they aren't going to scrap all their ideas just because a few people on a forum with no background in software development have a different idea.

[meganoth]

"I wish they would go back to the early access model where you could play the game as they make changes - I'm sure I'd have a lot more to say and play it a lot more if I could provide some actual feedback on the game as they are working on it. Health bars for example - the moment they would have put that code in the game and EA players tested it - they would have got immediate feedback on whether it was accepted by a majority and what they liked or didn't like about them -

 

Consider that they really would listen to immediate feedback. We would still have spam crafting. And I'm sure there is lots of cruft from older versions (sticks?) we still would drag along.

 

Read an interview with any EA developer you like and he will mention that one of the important lessons of EA is to never loose your own vision and keep the feedback of the community at a healthy distance.

 

In other words our input might change the fine-tuning or details of a feature but whether a feature stays or goes is largely not in our hand. We sure can theoretically imagine a ♥♥♥♥-storm of epic proportions would probably convince even TFP to remove a feature against their own judgement, but in practice the chance the whole community being of one opinion(!!) and all main developers of a different opinion is just nil. Case in point, what is the opinion of the comumunity about bagpack size?

 

Not that our feedback is totally wasted. if a feature is on the brink of getting removed and they just can't decide, it might really tip the scales. At least before they use dice . THAT's as far as our input on features likely goes.

 

We are not the keepers of vision, an investment of 15 Euros or Dollars doesn't make us partners of TFP, we simply get to play the game before 1.0. That's the basic deal. Not even bug reports or helping with balancing is in that deal as it is completely voluntary, they just hope that some do.

 

 

Using health bars as an example (just as an example, because there's so many changes) it takes at least some amount of time for a person to code those, art for them, tweak them, etc - so if they go through all of that - only just to possibly have them removed or completely revamped later on - then that's just a waste of time. Instead - they could have started putting them in and we applied feedback immediately and they could make immediate (one-time) changes as we tested it.

 

Health bars as they are now in the game are not polished at all. Like everything else in the game they are just good enough to work. Without minimal art and code you would see NOTHING. So tell me where is the wasted time in that minimally developed feature? Not that immdediate feedback from a hypersensitive split personality with extreme mood shifts and a tendency to overdramatize (i.e. the community) should be listened to at all

 

EDIT: Oh, and please read Rolands forum thread about his experience playing A17 (the restarts, NREs...). This and worse is what you would have to expect from a monthly experimental release. Except if they make a lot of additional effort to debug each small feature leading to exactly the waste of time you want them to avoid. TFP really can't push out such buggy versions to most of the players here in EA, just remember the uproar when A16.0 hit.

[Poojam]

Re: OP

 

I'm not sure it will matter. The players appear to be losing interest and moving on. By looking at the steamcharts, the game is losing approximately 10% of the population a month.

 

http://steamcharts.com/app/251570

[Brian9824]

Re: OP

 

I'm not sure it will matter. The players appear to be losing interest and moving on. By looking at the steamcharts, the game is losing approximately 10% of the population a month.

 

http://steamcharts.com/app/251570

 

If you look at those charts you will notice that its normal. People lose intrest when their is no new content and then they come back in record numbers when the next Alpha build releases. For the last 3 years every alpha release has resulted in record numbers of players in the game.

 

It's a pretty normal pattern for any game. People get bored over time and trickle away and then come back when new content is released.

[SnowDog1942]

your opinion is just wrong

 

All credibility out the window in 5 words. Impressive!

[Brian9824]

All credibility out the window in 5 words. Impressive!

 

Lets post the full quote why don't we instead of you editing my post to try to make it say something that it isn't.

 

 

Personally, I just look at this game as Early Access in name only - it doesn't hold true to the spirit of what early access actually means. I have not been able to actually see and play the game as it develops - just huge drops of content at a time - with a chaos of feedback to sort through.

 

As someone with over a decade in the software industry your opinion is just wrong. This is the very definition of EA and you have quite literally been able to see and play the game as it develops. EA doesn't mean you get access to every build they ever do. You've been playing each Alpha as they add more content and when it goes to beta you will be playing that.

 

So user claims that 7 days to die is not an EA game and that we aren't able to see and play this game as it develops. Thats his opinion. My opinion is he's wrong.

 

The only difference is 99% of the playerbase as well as Steam and everyone else agree with my opinion. But hey everyone is entitled to stupid opinions and posts.

[SnowDog1942]

My opinion is he's wrong.

 

Well, that's a bit better than your first try

 

Though in that post he never said it was not an early access game, he was just expressing how it felt to him because of the infrequent large updates. Unlike you I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he is NOT a complete moron and I believe he can read the steam store page that says "Early Access Game" - you can't get more obvious than that. I could understand him though, how it feels more like an expansion pack or content pack rather than constant in-progress development updates.

 

Its neither right nor wrong, its how it feels to him. In fact I agree to an extent. I mean I wouldn't want a development update every week wrecking my save game, but every 3 months? I could get on board with that and I'd feel like I was more in the guts of the development process.

 

I also like when people post they have over a decade of development experience. Like really? you are going there? LOL. I don't care if you have 35 years of experience and you were the mastermind behind the best games ever. If you are wrong about something I'm calling you out. Luckily my over 1.5 decades trumps your over 1 decade, lmao. BOOM! ROASTED!

[DaVegaNL]

Keep in mind guys that I blatenly copied that post from someone on the Steam forum, since I mostly share his opinion.

[Roland]

I guess it IS just a matter of "feeling" and perhaps relativity. Compared to someone who purchases the game today many of us really HAVE been into the guts of the development and helped with our feedback to let the devs know how players feel about changes they've made. Compared to someone who buys the game after release, someone who buys it today will have had more indev time with the game and witnessing the changes and giving feedback. On the other hand there are definitely a large number of customers out there who feel the opposite of the one you quoted. They just want to play a decent game about survival and zombies. They didn't pick up the game to test or be a part of the development process. They picked it up for entertainment and they have zero tolerance for bugs, glitches, and starting over. They aren't posting ideas for the next update or weighing in on balance issues. They just get furious when they notice balance problems. So whether this process "feels like" early access just depends on the individual. Factually, it IS early access and your satisfaction with that is based upon your own expectations and feelings and are unique.

 

Another aspect is player self-importance. There are just going to be some people who believe that THEIR voice is the most important and the devs are really shooting themselves in the foot by not listening to them. These people get upset when the devs make choices contrary to their own, don't hire them when they apply in response to an opening, release new features without consulting them first, or take full credit if the devs do something similar to something they posted previously or modded into their game. These people are never going to feel that they had enough input into the most important aspects of the game unless they somehow could become part of the dev team itself. I get a lot of emails from these people...

 

Finally, most of the important decisions in development are going to be unilaterally made by the developers regardless of what the majority of the community says. If the devs feel strongly that HP bars must stay for every enemy then stay they will unless you mod them out. That is not the same thing as not listening to the feedback of the community. It is the same thing as dismissing the feedback of the community-- which can smart if you believed strongly in your point of view in regards to the game.

[OzHawkeye]

I guess it IS just a matter of "feeling" and perhaps relativity.

 

I'm probably the Devs favourite type of player:

 

1) I like "getting in on the ground floor".

 

2) I've never yet met a game that had too MUCH content.

 

3) I recognise that the end of Alpha means (largely anyway) the end of new content.

 

1+2+3 = no desire to EVER see Alpha end. ;-)