is A17 removing the much beloved run and gun aspect?

[toores]

Some people won't want to use the in-game progression system to earn these abilities during the course of the game...

 

As I understand, there are a lot of perks to buy but one character can buy only some of them. This "in-game progression system" sounds like: we nerf 10 things and you can buy 3 of them back. You can be good an run'n'gun but all your points just went into those perks...

 

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing if the balance is right. But I hope the specialization isn't going to be too narrow because everyone has some perks he can't live without (playstyle). If I only have points to cover those, it's gonna be really boring for me because basically I don't have a choice at all.

 

 

It's really hard to tell.

I was strafing far more than backpedaling.

 

This bugs me, why can't you sprint while strafing only?

I can understand that it seems odd to be able to sprint backward, although an evasive jump would be logical to have. But why can't you sprint and look to your side at 90% angle.

[mr.devolver]

Heh, that's hardly an average guy.

 

Oh come on, I was doing that for fun when I was a kid. Maybe I wasn't too fast, but the point was that it is doable. It's not like someone's preventing you from doing that in real life.

[RestInPieces]

Just by the way. The realism argument is invalid. Nothing is taken out of the game because it is unrealistic. I don't believe that for a second. 7dtd is not trying to be realistic.

 

90% of the game is trying to be realistic if we are talking about rl realism... It's just that you can't sacrifice important gameplay parts for absolute real life realism. For example you can't realistically lift stacks of cement etc, but if the game tried to be 100% realistic in that aspect, none would build ever.

 

Anyway realism in games is about something that is realistic in the game's own universe. For example, if you can abuse coffee to run infinitely with no real penalty, it is both unrealistic, when it comes to the survival elements of this game, and goes against the game's own goals because it would be detrimental for gameplay for obvious reasons, such as... making stamina and regen mechanics obsolete. If you can backpedal with full speed, the game essentially defies the realistic physics it already uses (from gravity to human anatomy etc, pretty much everything physics related). You can't and shouldn't sacrifice "realism" for such a thing, because it doesn't help already important gameplay elements, it actually goes against them.

[Gazz]

As I understand, there are a lot of perks to buy but one character can buy only some of them. This "in-game progression system" sounds like: we nerf 10 things and you can buy 3 of them back. You can be good an run'n'gun but all your points just went into those perks...

 

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing if the balance is right. But I hope the specialization isn't going to be too narrow because everyone has some perks he can't live without (playstyle). If I only have points to cover those, it's gonna be really boring for me because basically I don't have a choice at all.

If anything that isn't your favourite thing is automatically a non-choice then you'll never have any choice ever. In anything. =)

 

Now if everyone chooses the same things then it's clearly a dominant strategy and a balancing problem. You choosing something is... you making a choice.

 

 

The thread title is also highly misleading because it's really about infinite backpedaling with trivial risk, not run&gun gameplay.

[Doctor3D]

Wouldn't the slower back-peddle interfere with building? Things like placing blocks as you walk backwards, for example. Seems like it might make things a bit more tedious and feel clunkier (on paper at least).

 

If they have it to where you can move backwards quicker when say you have a building block or seeds in your hand - then you'd have cheese situations where you could manipulate that by quickly switching back and forth between melee weapon and something else rapidly in order to jump back fast and smack'em like before.

[ilukaappledash]

Wouldn't the slower back-peddle interfere with building? Things like placing blocks as you walk backwards, for example. Seems like it might make things a bit more tedious and feel clunkier (on paper at least).

 

If they have it to where you can move backwards quicker when say you have a building block or seeds in your hand - then you'd have cheese situations where you could manipulate that by quickly switching back and forth between melee weapon and something else rapidly in order to jump back fast and smack'em like before.

 

The base movement speed is being increased though, so if anything you will be walking backwards faster than you are now. Unless you can sprint and lay blocks at the same time with perfect accuracy but whenever i try to sprint and lay blocks i always have a whole lotta blocks either sticking out or i drop in midair and the crumble.

[ilukaappledash]

The thread title is also highly misleading because it's really about infinite backpedaling with trivial risk, not run&gun gameplay.

 

If i look again, the title of this thread i created was simply asking a question about upcoming changes and whether or not they would remove one aspect of a much larger and much more complex game than a simple run and gun shooter.

It has generated a fair amount of discussion and many people have expressed both their support and fear of potential alterations of how we interact with zombies in the next patch.

I dont believe anyone has been mislead about what we are discussing and why.

The main aspects of the Run&Gun style are the Guns (which are changing this patch, but those changes arent being discussed here) and the Run, the mobility, and if you remove the ability to maneuver smoothly, including running forwards, sideways, and importantly, backwards, then we may lose a part of the game i find to be quite smooth and enjoyable.

My concerns, my thread on a public forum. No need to attack it while arguing with someone else.

[toores]

If anything that isn't your favourite thing is automatically a non-choice then you'll never have any choice ever. In anything. =)

 

Ok, no need to make it overly dramatic I'll try to explain what I mean.

 

I don't play (can't stand) games that have clunky controls or bad movement mechanics. For example, the Witcher 3 was clearly for consoles and you could not steer the character through a fence gate - laughably bad.

If for example 7d2d movement were to degrade to a level where the character felt like dragging a flour sack through water but you could advance him back to normal levels through perks, it would be the only way I would play the game. Not taking those perks would turn the game into something I never play or buy. It woul have nothing to do with my "favourite thing", I just don't play those types of games...

 

PS! this was an example. I'm not criticising A17 changes here.

[Qyzer]

I hear you. What's interesting is that Gazz, himself, enjoys running around on horde night. He has shown his base design of "Open Meadow" a number of times. I wonder what his take is on this.* But again, much of this playstyle will become possible as a character progresses. Currently there is no way to progress up to being able to sprint backwards but that could possibly change based on playtesting over the next months. I definitely think the main reasoning on this is nerfing what is seen as an exploit during daylight hours using default setting. In other words, running backwards makes battling daytime walkers way way way too easy. Unfortunately, that leaves the night time running zombies almost impossible to fight if there are enough numbers of them to overwhelm you since you now need to sprint, turn, and fire.

 

I call it "open road" because I prefer to face them on a cleared road instead of in the grass. I'm intrigued that it will be very difficult to deal with night running Zs in numbers. I think the night should be dangerous and I don't generally find that to be the case in A16. That said, I appear to be one of the few who actually like the sawed-off because the AOE slowing from the pellets makes mobs of runners a bit easier, I'm hoping that might still be somewhat true in A17. I like to gather them up into groups by running around then either shotgunning them to death or dropping an exploding bolt amongst them if they get to be too many.

 

I'm quite intrigued to see how my old tactics and A17 intersect.

[nitnoid]

What it really boils down to is balance. If the sprinting backwards thing unbalances the game, then it should not be allowed. If, however, it doesn't affect balance, why change?

[Jedo]

What it really boils down to is balance. If the sprinting backwards thing unbalances the game, then it should not be allowed. If, however, it doesn't affect balance, why change?

 

I'm confused by this binary.

[Kubikus]

I hear you. What's interesting is that Gazz, himself, enjoys running around on horde night. He has shown his base design of "Open Meadow" a number of times. I wonder what his take is on this.*

 

That is indeed interesting. He says he strafing more, so it sounds like is using the tactic I mentioned:

 

Or you run around the running group in circles and fire into it. That, however, is difficult even with a precise pistol and even if you had the crosshair visible, because zombies will move horizontally, from your perspective, while they are a lot more "stable", if you run backwards and they chase you.

 

This should only work reasonably when you use a weapon like the shotgun or exploding crossbow bolts, maybe the ak, if you don't mind wasting a crapload of ammo.

 

But again, much of this playstyle will become possible as a character progresses. Currently there is no way to progress up to being able to sprint backwards but that could possibly change based on playtesting over the next months. I definitely think the main reasoning on this is nerfing what is seen as an exploit during daylight hours using default setting. In other words, running backwards makes battling daytime walkers way way way too easy. Unfortunately, that leaves the night time running zombies almost impossible to fight if there are enough numbers of them to overwhelm you since you now need to sprint, turn, and fire.

 

But that's not a lot of fun, of course I already tried it. You run away more than you fire. You run away for a while, say 10-15 seconds, to get ahead of the zombies. Then you turn and fire, but the horde closes the gap in less than 5 seconds. And you have to turn and sprint again, for, again, 10-15 seconds. It's more annoying than fun. Circlestrafing would be the answer to the change, if we still want to engage zombies nose to nose.

 

I'm sure that the current mix of perks can be converted to how you like it done. There are already certain skills that are earned by doing and not by spending in A17 so maybe it will be even easier than in past iterations to make it so for everything.

 

Oh happy day.

 

I think ideas like these are good to further discuss and develop once people are playing and can see the whole picture of what all is different and what needs to be done for their particular playstyle--whether that is to change TFP's mind or to inspire modders.

 

And I think that concept like these should actually be discussed with the community before they are actually implemented. At least hear the community out first, hear the pros and cons first, then make a decision not purely based on one man's "visions", but on what the actual player wants. This would also allow to design changes with the option to mod them out again. Such as the static spawner, that was replaced by the sleeper system. It was simply removed to be able to spawn awake zombies around a building. I don't think that was necessary, and I would much prefer said static spawner over the sleepers, as sleepers are too easy to deal with.

 

I agree that if I walked out into the uncluttered street in front of my house and simply sprinted backwards I could go faster than is depicted in the game. But on uneven forest ground? On streets with clutter and refuse? On desert sand? In the snow? All while aiming a gun and killing enemies?

 

#1, I am not talking about sprinting backwards for a quarter mile here. I am talking about melee. A zombie is on front of you, but out of reach. You jump or quickly step forward, hit it on the head, and jump or quickly step back again. It is perfectly realistic. The step back does not at all have to be slower than you normal forward walking speed.

 

#2, if you sprint forward on uneven forest ground or strets with clutter and refuse or desert sand or snow, all while aiming a gun and killing enemies, you also would most likely fall, particularly at night.

 

Since you said "realistic" I'm going to say that in 90% of the locations in the world of TFP it actually is not realistic to let the player sprint backwards without breaking an ankle and I already lived through Alpha 11 once to want the devs to make it realistic in that regard....

 

I said it's realistic to dash back a short distance in melee combat. I'm not saying sprinting backwards is realistic, as it currently is. You sprint a bit slower backwards, but not much slower. It's arcady. If you want to make sprinting realistic, backward should be something like 50 or less % of the forward speed. And you should hurt yourself if you run into something, no matter the direction.

 

I do, just btw, have a horde mode mod where I have a completely flat world with a radius of 80 blocks. There, it is sorta plausible that you can run backwards unhindered. You don't run into anything (that you did not build). You could also build yourself an arena like that in vanilla, to enjoy the playstyle. I like it so much, that I build a whole mod around it, and I like it so much, that I played that mod for probably 100 - 200 hours alone. How rather frustrating if the devs just remove it without having the courtesy to allow us to bring it back if we like it. If you're interested in that mod, lemme know, I can upload, but it's unpolished and needs a couple of explanations, so I'll only do it on demand. It is, however, certainly not your cup of tea, 99% of the time you fight.

[Kubikus]

90% of the game is trying to be realistic if we are talking about rl realism...

 

The game is not trying to be realistic. Project Zomboid is. 7dtd doesn't care about realism. I find it actually unnecessary to make a list of examples, because it is so obvious, so if you want to make the case that the game is trying, elaborate it more.

 

It's just that you can't sacrifice important gameplay parts for absolute real life realism. For example you can't realistically lift stacks of cement etc, but if the game tried to be 100% realistic in that aspect, none would build ever.

 

Sure. And to be clear, I don't mind that the game is not realistic. The point here is that "realism" is not an argument to remove or change something that is unrealistic. If they wanted to make the game more realistic, they'd have a very very long todo-list. Realism it is not the reason why the change in question is about to be made.

 

Anyway realism in games is about something that is realistic in the game's own universe.

 

That may well be. Things in 7dtd are unrealistic to make things more convenient and more fun. Following that pattern, backpedaling at (near) running speed would be perfectly plausible.

 

For example, if you can abuse coffee to run infinitely with no real penalty, it is both unrealistic, when it comes to the survival elements of this game, and goes against the game's own goals because it would be detrimental for gameplay for obvious reasons, such as... making stamina and regen mechanics obsolete.

 

Certainly.

 

If you can backpedal with full speed, the game essentially defies the realistic physics it already uses (from gravity to human anatomy etc, pretty much everything physics related).

 

The game is not using realistic physics at all. You can, for example, jump 250 blocks (meters) down on a haybale and won't get injured. You can drive your minibike against a wall at full speed, neither you nor the bike are taking any damage (maybe the bike does, but irl it would be demolished). You can run against a wall and nothing happens. You can run against a half block at full speed, and don't even fall. You could have a bear attack you for an hour, as long as you use medkit after medkit, it won't kill you. As long as you have food, you can walk for days, weeks, months. You need no sleep, never have to go to the toilet. You do not even sit down ever. If you have a wound and are almost dead (like 1 hp left), you just "use" a few medkits and in 5 seconds your back to normal. A broken leg heals in, what?, two days..?

 

Etc. etc.

 

Backpedaling at full speed is not breaking the game. I have never seen a discussion about the feature, until now, that they change it. The change comes out of nowhere. And if they, furthermore, were striving for more realism, they would not make backpedaling slower than walking forward, but think about it for a moment and "realize" that you actually can run backwards. Not as fast as forward, but not as slow as you walk.

 

You can't and shouldn't sacrifice "realism" for such a thing, because it doesn't help already important gameplay elements, it actually goes against them.

 

I'm not much of a builder. I'd be fine if it was realistic and you could only barricade prefabs. Yet, I would not say "you can't and shouldn't sacrifice realism for such a thing" (as building castles in a few weeks). The feature doesn't bother me. Sometimes I enjoy making use of it too.

 

What about you, do you fight running hordes on the ground much? Do you enjoy running from them backwards and shooting them down? If so, now, that it's changed, are you like "hooray, finally!"?

 

 

 

 

The thread title is also highly misleading because it's really about infinite backpedaling with trivial risk

 

 

The narrative, that fast backpedaling would be some kind of cheap trick, is false. It is, btw, only infinite because of the game's multiple stamina hacks, such as coffee, beer, skill, perks and increased wellness. The risk of getting caught by zombies and beaten to death is much higher than when you sit in a fortified base with a battery of auto turrets to take care of the horde. Or on a random roof, while going afk.

 

If I can't backpedal infinitely anymore, I will circle strafe infinitely and use a different weapon. A cruder one, that requires a lot less precision than a pistol. I already layed out how fighting running zombies with a pistol will look when you can't run backwards. You run away, make some room, turn around, fire a couple of rounds, run away again. This is indeed a bit riskier, because you have to make enough room first, as you otherwise turn around and have zombies in your face already. But it's not significant. And what it kills is the flow of the fight. You fight a little, then you flee a lot. You have, say, 2-3 seconds of fight, then 10 or more seconds of flight. It's no fun and "noone" will play that way. "Everybody" will circlestrafe around the horde and use aoe weapons. "", because of course some might. But not nearly as many as now use the playstyle this thread's discussing.

 

And to have said it yet again: To me it looks like (aka "I assume", aka "I'm certain") the removal of high speed backpedaling does not have the run and gun playstyle in mind. It has melee combat in mind. Where it is realistic that you can quickly dash back a short distance. A lot of games that specialize in melee combat have dodging mechanics, because it makes a lot of sense. Have examples:

 

 

 

 

7dtd cripples the player, removes a movement ability to enforce a(n insiginificantly) higher level of risk. "It looks much" like a decision that was made on the drawing board.

 

Speaking of risks. It is usually the nature of zombies that one of them and a few are not much of a risk. Their danger lies in either large numbers or them suprising the protagonist (the ole zombie-suddenly-comes-from-behind-and-bites-a-guy-in-the-neck). Of course you can always argue that 7dtd zombies are different, but actually (obviously), they are not, if what you modify is the player's movement. If you continued that path to increase difficulty, you could (hyperbole) end up putting the player in a wheelchair. So combat is more "engaging".

[bloom_meister]

The game is not trying to be realistic. Project Zomboid is. 7dtd doesn't care about realism. I find it actually unnecessary to make a list of examples, because it is so obvious, so if you want to make the case that the game is trying, elaborate it more.

 

 

 

Sure. And to be clear, I don't mind that the game is not realistic. The point here is that "realism" is not an argument to remove or change something that is unrealistic. If they wanted to make the game more realistic, they'd have a very very long todo-list. Realism it is not the reason why the change in question is about to be made.

 

 

 

That may well be. Things in 7dtd are unrealistic to make things more convenient and more fun. Following that pattern, backpedaling at (near) running speed would be perfectly plausible.

 

 

 

Certainly.

 

 

 

The game is not using realistic physics at all. You can, for example, jump 250 blocks (meters) down on a haybale and won't get injured. You can drive your minibike against a wall at full speed, neither you nor the bike are taking any damage (maybe the bike does, but irl it would be demolished). You can run against a wall and nothing happens. You can run against a half block at full speed, and don't even fall. You could have a bear attack you for an hour, as long as you use medkit after medkit, it won't kill you. As long as you have food, you can walk for days, weeks, months. You need no sleep, never have to go to the toilet. You do not even sit down ever. If you have a wound and are almost dead (like 1 hp left), you just "use" a few medkits and in 5 seconds your back to normal. A broken leg heals in, what?, two days..?

 

Etc. etc.

 

Backpedaling at full speed is not breaking the game. I have never seen a discussion about the feature, until now, that they change it. The change comes out of nowhere. And if they, furthermore, were striving for more realism, they would not make backpedaling slower than walking forward, but think about it for a moment and "realize" that you actually can run backwards. Not as fast as forward, but not as slow as you walk.

 

 

 

I'm not much of a builder. I'd be fine if it was realistic and you could only barricade prefabs. Yet, I would not say "you can't and shouldn't sacrifice realism for such a thing" (as building castles in a few weeks). The feature doesn't bother me. Sometimes I enjoy making use of it too.

 

What about you, do you fight running hordes on the ground much? Do you enjoy running from them backwards and shooting them down? If so, now, that it's changed, are you like "hooray, finally!"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The narrative, that fast backpedaling would be some kind of cheap trick, is false. It is, btw, only infinite because of the game's multiple stamina hacks, such as coffee, beer, skill, perks and increased wellness. The risk of getting caught by zombies and beaten to death is much higher than when you sit in a fortified base with a battery of auto turrets to take care of the horde. Or on a random roof, while going afk.

 

If I can't backpedal infinitely anymore, I will circle strafe infinitely and use a different weapon. A cruder one, that requires a lot less precision than a pistol. I already layed out how fighting running zombies with a pistol will look when you can't run backwards. You run away, make some room, turn around, fire a couple of rounds, run away again. This is indeed a bit riskier, because you have to make enough room first, as you otherwise turn around and have zombies in your face already. But it's not significant. And what it kills is the flow of the fight. You fight a little, then you flee a lot. You have, say, 2-3 seconds of fight, then 10 or more seconds of flight. It's no fun and "noone" will play that way. "Everybody" will circlestrafe around the horde and use aoe weapons. "", because of course some might. But not nearly as many as now use the playstyle this thread's discussing.

 

And to have said it yet again: To me it looks like (aka "I assume", aka "I'm certain") the removal of high speed backpedaling does not have the run and gun playstyle in mind. It has melee combat in mind. Where it is realistic that you can quickly dash back a short distance. A lot of games that specialize in melee combat have dodging mechanics, because it makes a lot of sense. Have examples:

 

 

 

 

7dtd cripples the player, removes a movement ability to enforce a(n insiginificantly) higher level of risk. "It looks much" like a decision that was made on the drawing board.

 

Speaking of risks. It is usually the nature of zombies that one of them and a few are not much of a risk. Their danger lies in either large numbers or them suprising the protagonist (the ole zombie-suddenly-comes-from-behind-and-bites-a-guy-in-the-neck). Of course you can always argue that 7dtd zombies are different, but actually (obviously), they are not, if what you modify is the player's movement. If you continued that path to increase difficulty, you could (hyperbole) end up putting the player in a wheelchair. So combat is more "engaging".

 

A superb rebuttal of why this change is so bad in many different ways.

 

I would add that there is another reason for the change not mentioned by Kubikus and thats because it increases the time taken and the difficulty of, killing zombies. TFP have consistently, for a couple of years now, increased the 'grind' element of the game by sacrificing 'fun' elements in order to stretch out the gameplay due to a lack of content, its an extremely consistent theme they have deployed which can be evidenced by many different changes they made, the first major one was the introduction of levelled loot. All in the name of slowing you down. This change means:

 

1. Zombies will take longer to kill as melee combat now has increased risk (zombies can now attack whilst moving)

2. Zombies will now take longer to kill as you have to run away more not being able to backpeddle out of danger

3. Zombies will take longer to kill as your stamina will be lower reducing movement and damage per swing

4. You will die more due to 1,2 & 3

5. Stamina buffs have been redone and if anyone thinks they have enhanced them rather than nerfed them I have a bridge to sell you..this will negatively impact 1,2,3 & 4

 

The net impact will be fighting zombies will be less 'fun', people will die more, progress at a slower pace and get less loot. Personally and purely selfishly I don't actually care about this stuff because I will adapt quickly and metagame the c*** out of it BUT I am in that very small % and the average player, certainly the NEW players whose game experience so many talk about, those guys are going to get frustrated and quit in droves, and thats just the moving backwards element of the changes which is maybe 1% of the things changing with A17.

 

This change was un-needed and poorly thought out by people who, in the main, don't play their own game.

 

If you think the above is harsh then consider that I love the game and am grateful to TFP for making it as I have had thousands of hours of enjoyment from it but I am not blind to their faults and after years of watching their decisions I have been right more often than not on the unintended consequences of poor design decisions and that does not make me happy, I would much rather be wrong and say ''you guys did a great job, i was wrong, this improves the fun of playing the game'', time will tell, I hope i am wrong this time but experience tells me otherwise.

[meganoth]

And I think that concept like these should actually be discussed with the community before they are actually implemented. At least hear the community out first, hear the pros and cons first, then make a decision not purely based on one man's "visions", but on what the actual player wants. This would also allow to design changes with the option to mod them out again. Such as the static spawner, that was replaced by the sleeper system. It was simply removed to be able to spawn awake zombies around a building. I don't think that was necessary, and I would much prefer said static spawner over the sleepers, as sleepers are too easy to deal with.

 

On backward sprinting I think you may be right, I don't see how a few running zombies can be handled at all. Theoretically, I think, yes maybe.

 

And this is the important thing: There is a good chance this is true, there is a not really insignificant chance it is wrong. And that is one reason I'm most emphatically against TFP discussing features with us before trying them out.

 

Ask any developer who has a bit of experience in game development and he will tell you one important rule: Never listen too much what your players want.

As an example: If you ask players, in most games the majority want to have more loot, be more powerful. But if you give them their wish they loose interest into the game very fast because the challenge is gone. Making a good game is like brewing a secret sauce and trying lots of ingredients until the best combination is found. The developers don't know the best combination beforehand, but they have a general idea where they want to look. The players also don't know the best combination, but they have thousands of general ideas that can not be combined.

Another example. We still would have spamcrafting if TFP listened to the players.

 

In a few cases there might be an argument where you can tell with certainty that an idea is bad. This is not such a case, we can't know with all the other changes to combat and weapons, we have to try it out.

[Kubikus]

On backward sprinting I think you may be right, I don't see how a few running zombies can be handled at all. Theoretically, I think, yes maybe.

 

And this is the important thing: There is a good chance this is true, there is a not really insignificant chance it is wrong. And that is one reason I'm most emphatically against TFP discussing features with us before trying them out.

 

Ask any developer who has a bit of experience in game development and he will tell you one important rule: Never listen too much what your players want.

As an example: If you ask players, in most games the majority want to have more loot, be more powerful. But if you give them their wish they loose interest into the game very fast because the challenge is gone. Making a good game is like brewing a secret sauce and trying lots of ingredients until the best combination is found. The developers don't know the best combination beforehand, but they have a general idea where they want to look. The players also don't know the best combination, but they have thousands of general ideas that can not be combined.

Another example. We still would have spamcrafting if TFP listened to the players.

 

In a few cases there might be an argument where you can tell with certainty that an idea is bad. This is not such a case, we can't know with all the other changes to combat and weapons, we have to try it out.

If it should not be clear: I have no mentionable issue with the removal when it comes to melee. No big deal. I mean, also here I think it is a fun reducer. Being agile is fun. Reducing agility equals reducing fun. It could, though, be true that new melee options add enough fun to tilt the fun-balance to positive. But melee would certainly be a lot more fun if they would add Witcher 3's combat in. It would make things easier, but also more fun. Removing options can never increase fun, already because one who does not like a certain option can always decide not to use it.

 

Regarding the running and gunning I'm talking about, which is going straight into a horde of running zombies, I fail to see any addition that could compensate the removal of backward sprinting. Even making weapons killing zombie with a single body shot would not be the same. If it's gone, it's gone.

 

When it comes to discussing upcoming features, I'm not suggesting that the devs follow each and every suggestion that comes up. That's obviously impossible. But 7dtd is such an open game, that allows for such a large number of different playstyles, that it's hard (impossible? improbable) to forsee all the consequences a change can have. Gotta say, empathic as I am, it breaks my heart when I watch Joel's video, hear how proud and excited he is of the new build, the great mood he's in, how he seems to be sure we all love the changes, only to come back to a comment section that is the exact opposite. So.. why not at least have an open discussion about, say, the removal of (yeah I now, "most of the", ok?!) zombie loot? Or the backpedaling. Or the static spawner. Or the custom hubs. And as I said, if the devs notice that a large number of people love a certain feature, they should be motivated to make it modable, which should be easier when you start changing something, instead of having to add modability afterwards.

[meganoth]

If it should not be clear: I have no mentionable issue with the removal when it comes to melee. No big deal. I mean, also here I think it is a fun reducer. Being agile is fun. Reducing agility equals reducing fun. It could, though, be true that new melee options add enough fun to tilt the fun-balance to positive. But melee would certainly be a lot more fun if they would add Witcher 3's combat in. It would make things easier, but also more fun. Removing options can never increase fun, already because one who does not like a certain option can always decide not to use it.

 

Regarding the running and gunning I'm talking about, which is going straight into a horde of running zombies, I fail to see any addition that could compensate the removal of backward sprinting. Even making weapons killing zombie with a single body shot would not be the same. If it's gone, it's gone.

 

When it comes to discussing upcoming features, I'm not suggesting that the devs follow each and every suggestion that comes up. That's obviously impossible. But 7dtd is such an open game, that allows for such a large number of different playstyles, that it's hard (impossible? improbable) to forsee all the consequences a change can have. Gotta say, empathic as I am, it breaks my heart when I watch Joel's video, hear how proud and excited he is of the new build, the great mood he's in, how he seems to be sure we all love the changes, only to come back to a comment section that is the exact opposite. So.. why not at least have an open discussion about, say, the removal of (yeah I now, "most of the", ok?!) zombie loot? Or the backpedaling. Or the static spawner. Or the custom hubs. And as I said, if the devs notice that a large number of people love a certain feature, they should be motivated to make it modable, which should be easier when you start changing something, instead of having to add modability afterwards.

 

Ok, the knowledge to make a feature moddable might be usefull in some cases, I can't really tell from outside how often the choice is possible. And when it is, how often it isn't taken because the time to do other things is deemed a little more important.

 

But I can tell you a simple heuristic that will work in 95% of cases: Make everything moddable that you remove, because there are always lots of people who think they will miss a feature

And if they just ask around among the TFP stuff if a feature seems important or well liked they probably can make pretty good guesses about most cases. Do you think Gazz didn't know that loot reduction would get protested? Or that practically everyone uses running backwards? Try to find a streamer video without it.

 

Removal of zombie loot is exactly such a topic where discussion with the players is just a futile accelerator drug for the next heart attack. Come on, the protests about this change were inevitable, obvious and brought absolutely no new insights. The only difference of premature discussion would have been that afterwards accusations of TFP not listening to the players would have been much louder. TFP has to make hard or less obvious game design decisions from time to time and it doesn't help to ask players beforehand and then ignore the advice because they know better or think they know better.

 

You fail to see any addition that could compensate backward sprinting. Well and good. Newton failed to see any error in his calculations. Then came Einstein. But as sure as he must have been of his calculations he still did call it a theory (like any sensible scientist). And half a century later scientists still invent experiments to corroborate or refute his theory. That dedication to experimentation might be a bit much for the field of games development. But really, don't believe anything until you have tested it.

[Kubikus]

Ok, the knowledge to make a feature moddable might be usefull in some cases, I can't really tell from outside how often the choice is possible. And when it is, how often it isn't taken because the time to do other things is deemed a little more important.

 

But I can tell you a simple heuristic that will work in 95% of cases: Make everything moddable that you remove, because there are always lots of people who think they will miss a feature

 

That's pretty much what I am saying, yes. Make it modable, and you can remove whatever you want from the game.

 

And if they just ask around among the TFP stuff if a feature seems important or well liked they probably can make pretty good guesses about most cases. Do you think Gazz didn't know that loot reduction would get protested? Or that practically everyone uses running backwards? Try to find a streamer video without it.

 

I assume Gazz can make suggestions, but not decisions, and I don't know the inner climate of the company, how open for debate the decision makers are. I do know that Joel is a decision maker, and as I already said, to me it sounds like he was expecting people to absolutely adore the upcoming alpha. He also wanted to make a video "next weekend", which is last weekend, I wouldn't be surprised if he did not make one because he was upset about the reactions, and did not expect them. The way he talked about the changes of zombie loot, he seemed to be convinced that he was doing us a service, by saving us time and getting rid of useless clutter. I also have no idea how much Joel knows about how people play. Does he watch streamers frequently? Don't know. But I know that not many people use running backwards to fight running zombie hordes. It's rare.

 

So overall: Yes, I do believe that Joel didn't know that people dislike the changes. If he did, he must've lied/pretended in his video. I also believe that the company overall might be a bit out of touch with what the players really want and what they are passionate about, because the forums are heavily moderated. Youtube comments seem to have no moderation, go to Joel's videos and compare the climate there and here. There, blunt criticism is very prominent. Here, blunt criticism is either moderated or responded to with a wide array of rethorics. For example, the backpedaling is sorta playstyle shamed by Gazz. It'd be some kind of cheap trick to play that way. In #46 he calls it a "cheesy backpedaling "tactic"", in #79 he writes "The thread title is also highly misleading because it's really about infinite backpedaling with trivial risk, not run&gun gameplay." It's not run & gun when you run with your gun and fight running zombie hordes, and the greatest risk available in the game would be "trivial". Kinyajuu said "Also I'm an avid FPS player and run n gun is not at all going to suffer in a17." in post #20. Roland's posts on the first page at least are fairly condescending, when someone makes a mistake or so, see #29.

 

Overall, if you are angry or upset about a change and lack the skillz to voice your views antiseptic enough, your opinion is likely to be written off as trollerly. All that might well lead to a disconnect between the game's designers and the playerbase.

 

tl;dr: The removal of a new feature is announced out of nowhere. Then staff is busy holding criticism down.

 

The alternative I'd like to see is that staff is announcing that they intend to make a certain change and ask for the playerbase's feedback. Discusses pros and cons, makes a decision that at least considers the feedback and explains why that decision was made. Cuz right now, we actually have no definite explanation why the backpedaling speed was reduced. Is it because of realism? Is it because of melee? Was the playstyle I'm talking about even considered?

 

One might say that staff doesn't have time. One might portray my suggestion like staff would have to justify decisions. Nah. If staff has time to read and write comments and justifications after a decision was already made, they might as well do it beforehand.

 

Removal of zombie loot is exactly such a topic where discussion with the players is just a futile accelerator drug for the next heart attack. Come on, the protests about this change were inevitable, obvious and brought absolutely no new insights.

 

If it's so obvious that noone likes the change (and again, Joel sounds like he thought we'd all love it), then why is it being made?

 

The only difference of premature discussion would have been that afterwards accusations of TFP not listening to the players would have been much louder. TFP has to make hard or less obvious game design decisions from time to time and it doesn't help to ask players beforehand and then ignore the advice because they know better or think they know better.

 

Well.. Yes. If they ignore good advice and think they know better, you are right. But I like to think that they are not stupid and understand that the opinion of people who have played the game for thousands of hours is valuable.

 

You fail to see any addition that could compensate backward sprinting. Well and good. Newton failed to see any error in his calculations. Then came Einstein. But as sure as he must have been of his calculations he still did call it a theory (like any sensible scientist). And half a century later scientists still invent experiments to corroborate or refute his theory. That dedication to experimentation might be a bit much for the field of games development. But really, don't believe anything until you have tested it.

 

Quite the bold move to compare the inner workings of the literal universe with a singular feature of a ten dollar video game. Call me an intelligent donkey, but I stand by my statement, that nothing can replace backward sprinting. And I already did test it, by simply not sprinting backwards when fighting a horde of running zombies.

[Jedo]

That's pretty much what I am saying, yes. Make it modable, and you can remove whatever you want from the game.

 

Why not "TFP make the game they want, and people who don't like it mod it"? Some people will be removing features, others will be adding back other features. It makes for a good happy medium because TFP doesn't have to attempt to steer with the fickle winds of the playerbase.

 

The alternative I'd like to see is that staff is announcing that they intend to make a certain change and ask for the playerbase's feedback. Discusses pros and cons, makes a decision that at least considers the feedback and explains why that decision was made.

 

If TFP are making the game that they want, then why should they consult the playerbase?

 

Cuz right now, we actually have no definite explanation why the backpedaling speed was reduced. Is it because of realism? Is it because of melee? Was the playstyle I'm talking about even considered?

 

There's no necessary reason why TFP/moderators can't give such an explanation. Let me ask you a question, though: Would it make any difference?

 

If it's so obvious that noone likes the change (and again, Joel sounds like he thought we'd all love it), then why is it being made?

 

Say it with me, "TFP is making the game that they want to make." Honestly, if people understood that, there would be a lot less trouble.

 

Well.. Yes. If they ignore good advice and think they know better, you are right. But I like to think that they are not stupid and understand that the opinion of people who have played the game for thousands of hours is valuable.

 

See above, multiple times.

 

Quite the bold move to compare the inner workings of the literal universe with a singular feature of a ten dollar video game. Call me an intelligent donkey, but I stand by my statement, that nothing can replace backward sprinting. And I already did test it, by simply not sprinting backwards when fighting a horde of running zombies.

 

His comparison was you with Newton. Congratulations! meganoth thinks that you are as smart as Sir Isaac Newton.

 

Also, your test is invalid because you don't have the other features in A17 which might compensate for the loss of that feature. That isn't to say that your impression is incorrect, only that your test cannot validly support your impression. You'll just have to wait. (That is something which happens with scientists: Their theories cannot be confirmed until years later because the technology to do the proper experiment hasn't been invented yet. That's partially what meganoth was saying.)

[Jedo]

I wanted to say that I have opinions on the changes that TFP makes, but I tend not to share them because of my viewpoint that TFP is making the game that they want. I'm not opposed to opinions or the free exchange of ideas or the discussion of the merits and demerits of a perspective. I might interject questions into such discussion asking why something is qualified as "better" or "worse" in an attempt to push the boundaries of perspective and question assumptions, but that's just because I think that rational, productive discussion requires that. (That doesn't work well with visceral, emotional reactions, and if that's what a person wants to express, all I say is that they shouldn't dress it up in logic. Just call it what it is: an emotional response.)

 

The reason I have this viewpoint on the process is because that's how companies who want to put out quality products operate, and it's how new, inventive products come into being. TFP started making their own game because they felt like there was no game out there which was quite like the one that they wanted. Producers making non-cash-grab movies do so because they feel like there is a story to tell which nobody has told yet. Microsoft made the Xbox because they thought that they could make a game console unlike the others on the market. (I wouldn't extend that to the later iterations.) Apple made the iPhone because they thought that they could make a better phone than the others before. (Again, later iterations don't have the same logic, at least not all the time.) In some of these examples, they added features or tailored the design because they thought it would be more profitable, but you can bet that the initial concept was motivated by "this is something that I would want," and they believed that enough others in the world shared their desire.

 

Sure, these companies have focus groups sometimes and they get feedback, but not for every feature and they don't always take that feedback. TFP's focus group is this forum, and the feedback (constructive or otherwise) does make its way to them. They may not take it because it may not fit what they want or they may not think it significant enough. That's how it goes. Hell, it looks like Apple has completely ditched the headphone jack, despite the howls of people all of the world. I don't think their bottom line has been hurt.

 

Rambling over.

[Kubikus]

Why not "TFP make the game they want, and people who don't like it mod it"? Some people will be removing features, others will be adding back other features. It makes for a good happy medium because TFP doesn't have to attempt to steer with the fickle winds of the playerbase.

 

Oh sure, making everything modable is certainly a great idea. If it's modable, I'm fine with everything. That's why my first post in this thread was asking the question, if it is modable. Staff didn't feel like answering that, though. Priorities I guess.

 

The rest of your comment largly is the "it's none of your business what the devs do" and "it's their game" angle, that you elaborate further in your 2nd post. It's fine if you hold it that way, but you do you and I do I, and here is a link for you that can help you understand I:

 

https://store.steampowered.com/app/251570/

 

What is Early Access?

Get immediate access to games that are being developed with the community's involvement. These are games that evolve as you play them, as you give feedback, and as the developers update and add content.

 

We like to think of games and game development as services that grow and evolve with the involvement of customers and the community. There have been a number of prominent titles that have embraced this model of development recently and found a lot of value in the process. We like to support and encourage developers who want to ship early, involve customers, and build lasting relationships that help everyone make better games.

 

This is the way games should be made.

You say in your 2nd post:

 

Sure, these companies have focus groups sometimes and they get feedback, but not for every feature and they don't always take that feedback. TFP's focus group is this forum, and the feedback (constructive or otherwise) does make its way to them.

 

Considering all that, I don't see how it would be a problem to announce features and have a constructive discussion about them. Particularly when staff has enough time to fight off criticism afterwards.

 

His comparison was you with Newton. Congratulations! meganoth thinks that you are as smart as Sir Isaac Newton.

 

Also, your test is invalid because you don't have the other features in A17 which might compensate for the loss of that feature. That isn't to say that your impression is incorrect, only that your test cannot validly support your impression. You'll just have to wait. (That is something which happens with scientists: Their theories cannot be confirmed until years later because the technology to do the proper experiment hasn't been invented yet. That's partially what meganoth was saying.)

 

Since we're talking about science, have you ever heard of "thought experiments"..?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

 

My test is valid, because it shows me what I will not have anymore and what I will miss. But yes, features might be added that add enough fun so that the fun balance ends up neutral or positive. I mentioned that somewhere already. To specify: Nothing can compensate the loss the particular fun that backward sprinting is. If that is gone, I will miss it, even if I have other things to enjoy. It's like when I really like strawberries, but never have tasted a pineapple. If strawberries are taken away, and I get pineapples instead, I can still enjoy eating fruit, but I will miss the taste of strawberries, and lament that I can't have both or that I can't trade the pineapples for strawberries, should I like strawberries more.

[Jedo]

The rest of your comment largly is the "it's none of your business what the devs do" and "it's their game" angle, that you elaborate further in your 2nd post. It's fine if you hold it that way, but you do you and I do I...

 

A couple points here:

- You always are welcome to "do you." I'm suggesting that your life will be less stressful if you accept the facts of the matter. A person constantly trying to defy gravity through their own willpower can "do them," but it likely will result in much frustration on their part.

- "You do you and I do I" only works if it really is just the two of us. As it is, we're talking about a third party--TFP. TFP is going to do TFP. That's what you have to come to grips with. See my first point.

 

...and here is a link for you that can help you understand I: <snip>

 

Considering all that, I don't see how it would be a problem to announce features and have a constructive discussion about them. Particularly when staff has enough time to fight off criticism afterwards.

 

I appreciate you trying to aid my understanding.

 

As far as I am aware, Steam's definition of EA games is not a binding thing. Furthermore, it does not specify what form the involvement and feedback will take, nor whether it will be actualized in the games development. You have interpreted the description in a certain way, but that may not be the way in which TFP has interpreted it. Again, right or wrong, agree or disagree, TFP is the standard by which all things related to this game are measured. (We both should keep in mind that we might even have to contend with misunderstanding of TFP's standards, another layer of difficulty.)

 

Finally, just because you don't see how it would be a problem doesn't mean that it wouldn't. meganoth tried to explain why it might be: If TFP already is set on something and they decide to engage in the charade that is "announcing then listening," the result will be more frustration on the part of the playerbase.

 

(You keep saying "staff." Are you including the moderators in that? I mean, most of the devs are not on here arguing with the players. They pop in occasionally, but I don't see them going round with people like Roland does. For the life of me I don't know how Roland has the time for all of his posting, but that's a different matter.)

 

 

 

Since we're talking about science, have you ever heard of "thought experiments"..?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

 

My test is valid, because it shows me what I will not have anymore and what I will miss. But yes, features might be added that add enough fun so that the fun balance ends up neutral or positive. I mentioned that somewhere already. To specify: Nothing can compensate the loss the particular fun that backward sprinting is. If that is gone, I will miss it, even if I have other things to enjoy. It's like when I really like strawberries, but never have tasted a pineapple. If strawberries are taken away, and I get pineapples instead, I can still enjoy eating fruit, but I will miss the taste of strawberries, and lament that I can't have both or that I can't trade the pineapples for strawberries, should I like strawberries more.

 

Let me get this straight: backward sprinting in itself is the fun thing? Not backward sprinting as part of "running and gunning" or "melee fighting"?

 

The thing with thought experiments is that they require a certain amount of imagination. You say, "Nothing (an absolute) can compensate," but it really should say, "Nothing I imagine can compensate." (Well, unless backward sprinting in itself is the thing that you will miss. The strawberry metaphor would make sense in that context. If, instead, we are talking about a fruit salad, of which strawberries were a part before they were replaced with other things, then you can't yet know whether the new composition will sufficiently compensate for the lack of strawberries.)

 

Edit: By the way, that article also mentions the limitations of thought experiments: "Thus thought experiments belong to a theoretical discipline, usually to theoretical physics, but often to theoretical philosophy. In any case, it must be distinguished from a real experiment, which belongs naturally to the experimental discipline and has 'the final decision on true or not true,' at least in physics."

[Morloc]

 

...I don't see how it would be a problem to announce features and have a constructive discussion about them...

 

TFP: "We'd like to announce this great new feature we've been working on!"

 

001: "Love it!!!"

002: "Hate it."

003: "You're bringing back spam-crafting??! Are you guys insane!?

004: "They didn't say anything about spam-crafting. Reading comprehension!"

005: "This is going to effect Multiplayer badly....very badly."

006: "My girlfriend Katy really hates those. I don't think she'll play if you put them in, so please don't. Thanks!"

007: "1st!!"

008: "We still can't crawl through a 1x1 but now you add THIS??"

Roland: "Crawling through a 1x1 and the TFP's recent announcement have absolutely nothing to do with one-another. TFP can walk and chew gum at the same time."

008: "This isn't about gum either."

009: "Will this be on console?"

010: "Wrong board 009!"

011: "Those friggan things look cartoonish!! If I wanted to play WoW, I would have."

012: "So this means the END of underground bases...once and for all!!!"

013: "This is just going to make living underground and ignoring the game so much easier. I vote no thanks."

014: "You guys need to fire your art department and deport their families."

015: "How much time will this add to the next Major coming out??...."

016: "Does this mean I'm going to have to restart my world again? This is getting ridiculous!"

017: "Ummm, why is it that these female zombies always end up in thongs? #ZToo"

018: "Were you people on acid when you recorded the mocap for that?"

019: "There's no way my graphics card is going to handle this ♥♥♥♥. Thanks for ruining the game for me and most others."

020: "So, we're losing backpack slots....AGAIN??."

021: "I have over 6,000 hours played in 7D2D, and can honestly say that I'm done over this crap. Seriously; goodbye."

022: "I'm just going to mod this all out, so do whatever you want."

023: "We had to give up different wood types and sticks, but you're adding this now? We've come full-circle it seems."

024: "If it looks like poo, then......."

025: "Looks good, but can we talk about my minibike disappearing?"

026: "I don't see the point. I never play with those. I make a stone axe on day 1, and that can take me right through the end-game."

027: "I suppose this is because it makes 7D2D easier to stream isn't it. Yeah, I thought so.

028: "So, if this gets implemented, then there's at least a chance for a hornet-throwing Juggernaut?"

029: "Empyrion has released 3 patches since this thread began. Get with it TFP."

030: "I still prefer the old ambient sounds and intro music."

Roland: "I usually don't get so nitpicky on open threads, but please stay on topic, or at least stop necro'ing complaints from 2 years ago."

Morloc: "Stop picking on Necromancers."

031: "There's already too little brass in the game. This is going to make bullets a thing of the past."

032: "If water physics remain as they are, then there's no way you're going to pull this off, or it's going to be laughably cheesy.

033: "Why can't anyone just wait until TFP rolls this out then decide if it's good or not?"

034: "Because the time for input is now. Once it's out then it's too late to change much".

002: "I still hate it."

035: "You guys have finally jumped the shark...no, the Kraken!...This is so stupid. I bet you worked on Duke Nukem Forever.

036: "My dreams have finally come true! All that...AND lime-green thongs!?? "

037: "You brought back health bars!? SrsyWTF1??"

038: "Those are not hit point bars, they're flashlights."

037: "With laser-like red beams??"

038: "Those are lens flares. JJJRRRAbrams says everything is better with more lensflares. It's like cowbell in 2018."

039: "I can't see a new person being able to figure this out. It's way too complicated just to build the water-wheel and jackshaft."

040: "This is MADNESS. First a drawbridge with an even number of blocks, and now this will be 6? Ever heard of symmetry?

041: "Sure, torches drive up the Heat like madz, but your new thing is supposed to be zombie-friendly?"

042: "OK TFP...please define "feature". No really; I'm asking."

043: "This looks like the end of my playstyle. Probably moving on to Rust."

044: "Thanks Pimps!"

045: "If you guys read all my suggestions, you'd have never needed to put this in."

046: "I have over 20K posts on this board, so what I say has to make sense. Please hold off on this until you replace the game's engine again."

047: "So much for pixie-polls."

048: "You guys used to listen to your player base, now it's all about making a quick buck."

049: "This will take the fun out of land mines. I never use them of course."

050: "About how long would you estimate before this comes out?"

 

 

-Morloc

[meganoth]

Sorry, long post.

 

First of all, we are on the same page about modability. BUT

 

modability of a feature is an ability largely independant on discussing a feature before implementation, i.e. if it is relatively easy it is (or should be done) anyway. If they don't have the time for this, how can they have time for discussing a feature in depth, as this costs time as well ?

 

 

Since we're talking about science, have you ever heard of "thought experiments"..?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

 

My test is valid, because it shows me what I will not have anymore and what I will miss. But yes, features might be added that add enough fun so that the fun balance ends up neutral or positive. I mentioned that somewhere already. To specify: Nothing can compensate the loss the particular fun that backward sprinting is. If that is gone, I will miss it, even if I have other things to enjoy. It's like when I really like strawberries, but never have tasted a pineapple. If strawberries are taken away, and I get pineapples instead, I can still enjoy eating fruit, but I will miss the taste of strawberries, and lament that I can't have both or that I can't trade the pineapples for strawberries, should I like strawberries more.

 

Yeates uses the word "speculate" in his definition of thought experiment (see your wikipedia link). And that is exactly the right word. You can speculate. We didn't leave the theoretical sphere, we just plucked some holes in a theory. The most famous thought experiment with a cat did not really give away any secrets of the physical world and it definitely didn't bolster the validity of quantum theory. It just showed to non-scientists how weird the consequences of quantum theory really are.

 

On strawberrys:

 

thought experiment 1: You also get a mango to taste. And to your surprise you discover that mangos are the superior fruit by far. Sure you have lost strawberries, but since the game can only support one fruit, without that loss you would never have tasted mangos. Your situation now is better.

 

thought experiment 2: You don't like mangos better. But lots of other peoples do. Some of them even hate strawberries, so they have waited for mangos a long time, some are just surprised that they like mangos better. For you it is a loss. For others a win. The developers don't view your taste as more important than that of the others, they design the game with players in mind who incidentally seem to like mango.

 

I assume Gazz can make suggestions, but not decisions, and I don't know the inner climate of the company, how open for debate the decision makers are. I do know that Joel is a decision maker, and as I already said, to me it sounds like he was expecting people to absolutely adore the upcoming alpha. He also wanted to make a video "next weekend", which is last weekend, I wouldn't be surprised if he did not make one because he was upset about the reactions, and did not expect them. The way he talked about the changes of zombie loot, he seemed to be convinced that he was doing us a service, by saving us time and getting rid of useless clutter. I also have no idea how much Joel knows about how people play. Does he watch streamers frequently? Don't know. But I know that not many people use running backwards to fight running zombie hordes. It's rare.

 

A different interpretation would be that he is trying to sell the feature, even if he knows it won't be universally liked. But I don't know. It isn't really important to me because I prefer following MMs vision to following the vision of the loudest mob on the forum. Because it worked in the past and mob-rule is not democracy and a forum can only accuratly simulate a mob.

 

And in all clarity, you so summarily say "as if he was doing us a service" with zombie loot implying he didn't. Please don't just discount me and a lot of other people who specifically said they liked the change. While the backlash was certainly expected it was by no means a clear case. Someone made a poll shortly after the announcement expecting a landslide win for the unhappy and it amounted to a draw.

 

And that is the normal case: ANY change will bring out the people critical to it announcing their dissatisfaction. Most of the people that are indifferent or ok with a change will NOT post anything, unless the ruckus from critics gets too loud. As a developer you would be mad to listen to the critical voices because they are

 

1) not an indication of the views of the whole player base

2) more often than not highly emotionally fueled

3) based on thought experiments and incomplete information that really really can't replace the true test of a feature

 

what the players really want and what they are passionate about, because the forums are heavily moderated. Youtube comments seem to have no moderation, go to Joel's videos and compare the climate there and here. There, blunt criticism is very prominent.

 

There is no "the players" as a homogenious block. Make a change and you make some player happy and some other unhappy. Inevitable. If we listened to blunt criticism on youtube, we would be Nazis now. What was your point? No really, youtube comment section is mob rule

 

tl;dr: The removal of a new feature is announced out of nowhere. Then staff is busy holding criticism down.

 

Because they are confident their change is the right way. And only testing it can reveal the absolute and irrefutable truth. Not a cacophony of voices who are at their loudest when their emotions are blocking out any logic. Mob rule.

 

If it's so obvious that noone likes the change (and again, Joel sounds like he thought we'd all love it), then why is it being made?

 

This is quite far from anything I was saying. I said it was inevitable that protests would happen. That doesn't mean that the "mob" doing the protests is anywhere near a significant number of players. And even if they were a significant number, there is a german proverb coined by a comedian: "People, do eat ♥♥♥♥, millions of flies can't be wrong".

 

Well.. Yes. If they ignore good advice and think they know better, you are right. But I like to think that they are not stupid and understand that the opinion of people who have played the game for thousands of hours is valuable.

 

This is wrong for a different reason: People who have played the game a thousand hours are not anymore a typical new player, with decidedly different tastes and abilities while vanilla has to target the new players.

[Roland]

Roland's posts on the first page at least are fairly condescending, when someone makes a mistake or so, see #29.

 

Now wait a sec.

 

On the first page I re-read my post and there isn't an ounce of condescension to it. I was strictly informative friendly....maybe a bit cavalier in saying that backward sprinting was the lesser of the two changes that would affect running and gunning-- the worse one being horrible accuracy unless you stop and aim. I tried to read it every which way I could to make it sound snide and condescending and just couldn't do it.

 

er....Projection maybe...?

 

Now post 29......yes, I'll cop to that. But in fairness that was someone exaggerating timelines and it had nothing to do with the thread topic. Timelines are simple math and I got the sense he was being dishonest to try and make a point. I do tend to get snarky in the face of dishonesty. True.

 

 

My opinion right now on this topic is that the removal of backward sprinting is good for combat with walking zombies. I can understand the criticism of its removal when battling running zombies. I personally think that being able to run backwards at the speed we can in pre-A17 while shooting zombies is unrealistic and puts the game in a more arcadey feel than a survival horror feel. However, I also know that by making this shift they are removing something that is admittedly fun which is always disappointing. The running and gunning abilities we had in A16 and earlier tend to reduce the fear you have in going out at night or meeting a feral during the day. Sprinting backwards means that if you keep your wits you are almost guaranteed to win in such a battle. Not being able to run and knowing you can't means going out where running enemies might be is going to be a huge risk. It makes it thrilling and scary knowing you very well could die if you get more than two enemies that can run hunting you.

 

It is a tough one and we will have to see how things go during experimental. I have no idea whether backwards speed is moddable which is why I didn't answer. Where would I look for player character attributes like speed etc? I'm happy to try and find it and see if there is a value on it that can be changed.