is A17 removing the much beloved run and gun aspect?

Brimstone · September 6, 2018

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.

I couldn't agree more. In fact, I doubt anyone complaining could run backwards across uneven terrain for very long, much less actually fight while doing so. Here's a suggestion, though, since this is a game: Bring back the ability to run backwards, but with a default 95% chance to fall down. This is checked every ten points or so of stamina used, and can be decreased by spending points on agility-type skills. If you fall down, you have a base 50% chance of being stunned. Too late for A17, obviously... but you can't get much more "immersive" than this.

bloom_meister · September 6, 2018

I couldn't agree more. In fact, I doubt anyone complaining could run backwards across uneven terrain for very long, much less actually fight while doing so. Here's a suggestion, though, since this is a game: Bring back the ability to run backwards, but with a default 95% chance to fall down. This is checked every ten points or so of stamina used, and can be decreased by spending points on agility-type skills. If you fall down, you have a base 50% chance of being stunned. Too late for A17, obviously... but you can't get much more "immersive" than this.

Oops we got a realist on the loose!

Let me fix that for you:

I couldn't agree more. In fact, I doubt anyone complaining could run backwards across uneven terrain for very long, whilst carrying a motorcycle, 5 thousand tonnes of concrete blocks, 3 workbenches, a cement mixer and their new sofa, much less actually fight while doing so.

There ya, go, realistic right? as in sim..right?

WRONG argument.

Jedo · September 6, 2018

The question is when to abandon realism for the sake of the game. As many have pointed out, one could not build effectively if one was bound to realistic carrying capacities, so realism should be broken in order that the building aspect can continue. In that sense, realism probably should be broken only when it truly hinders the game.

Does not being able to run backwards truly hinder the game? Obviously, people will answer that differently. Whose answer matters most? I'll bet you can guess...

bloom_meister · September 6, 2018

Whose answer matters most? I'll bet you can guess...

I'd guess its..hmm..tough one, lemme see.

Not yours?

My point, is that you cannot use realism as an argument in this game.

Now developer vison? yes you could use that, its TFP's game so they can mix realism and gameplay however they want? sure, you could use that but what you cant do it take a personal subjective view of what constitutes realism and use THAT as a rebuttal, because that's just silly.

Jedo · September 6, 2018

you cannot use realism as an argument in this game.

Since I'm so ignorant, please explain (that is, present rational proof) why this is true.

Now developer vison? yes you could use that, its TFP's game so they can mix realism and gameplay however they want? sure, you could use that but what you cant do it take a personal subjective view of what constitutes realism and use THAT as a rebuttal, because that's just silly.

Who took "a personal subjective view of what constitutes realism" and used that as a rebuttal?

**Roland** · September 6, 2018

Oops we got a realist on the loose!

Let me fix that for you:

There ya, go, realistic right? as in sim..right?

WRONG argument.

I know you weren't talking to me but I wanted to take the opportunity to be crystal clear that I was not playing the realism card.

I was playing the arcade shooter card.

Running backwards and killing enemies is closer to a Serious Sam or Doom style of gameplay. That certainly is fun and losing that style is going to erase that fun. There is no argument about that. I guess the question is whether 7 Days to Die aims to deliver that kind of gameplay. Some will say it should because that is a fun playstyle and 7 Days is already a hybrid game in many ways so there's nothing wrong with a bit of arcade spice.

I don't know the answer. I also think it is fun to run backwards and kill enemies. I also feel very much it is definitely in the realm of "arcade shooter". On the other hand, I also do like the new greater risk imposed by being unable to run backwards and it makes you think about the danger factor more because you are more likely to die by being mobbed by runners than before. Running and gunning backwards reduces the survival horror aspect because you aren't afraid of things you can more easily dispatch. Some would say that having the feeling of survival horror is also fun and the type of fun they want to have when playing this particular game vs Serious Sam.

This is probably why it will require people to play it. To see if the new style of fun is enough or not and that can only be experienced first hand.

bloom_meister · September 6, 2018

I know you weren't talking to me but I wanted to take the opportunity to be crystal clear that I was not playing the realism card.

I was playing the arcade shooter card.

Running backwards and killing enemies is closer to a Serious Sam or Doom style of gameplay. That certainly is fun and losing that style is going to erase that fun. There is no argument about that. I guess the question is whether 7 Days to Die aims to deliver that kind of gameplay. Some will say it should because that is a fun playstyle and 7 Days is already a hybrid game in many ways so there's nothing wrong with a bit of arcade spice.

I don't know the answer. I also think it is fun to run backwards and kill enemies. I also feel very much it is definitely in the realm of "arcade shooter". On the other hand, I also do like the new greater risk imposed by being unable to run backwards and it makes you think about the danger factor more because you are more likely to die by being mobbed by runners than before. Running and gunning backwards reduces the survival horror aspect because you aren't afraid of things you can more easily dispatch. Some would say that having the feeling of survival horror is also fun and the type of fun they want to have when playing this particular game vs Serious Sam.

This is probably why it will require people to play it. To see if the new style of fun is enough or not and that can only be experienced first hand.

Roland I agree with you but need to see how it plays out, I do however find it tiring when people cherry pick one element of the game when it suits them to play the realism card and totally ignore other elements that are wildly unrealistic, I dont mind which one people like, they just need to be consistent in their approach.

Jedo · September 6, 2018

I do however find it tiring when people cherry pick one element of the game when it suits them to play the realism card and totally ignore other elements that are wildly unrealistic, I dont mind which one people like, they just need to be consistent in their approach.

I know! Almost as bad as those people who make assertions unsupported by logic.

Kubikus · September 7, 2018

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.

Voicing my opinion and arguing for it is not stressful and is not "defying gravity". It's a video game.

- "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.

But I am talking about you and me. You "tend not to share [opinions on the changes that TFP makes] because of my viewpoint". That's you doing you. I share my opinions, and that me doing me. Devs gonna do devs. Nothing wrong with any of that, don't you agree.

As far as I am aware, Steam's definition of EA games is not a binding thing.

No. But I agree with their definition, which leads to me doing me. I am aware that the Joel does not have to listen to me. I'm only suggesting it. You seem to not like me suggesting it. So I aid you in understanding why I suggest it.

That's all, really.

(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.)

I include at least Roland, as he seems to have some of the developers' ears and can relay opinions. But there is a decent number of devs and the glorious Joel himself who interact on the forums.

There is, however, also the fact that moderators in general are fairly busy dealing with unflattering opinions, and they must be doing that because they are instructed to. So the company must be interested in what people say. And if they care what I have to say, how about they give me a chance to voice my opinion before they make a change?

I mean, really, if you think about it, there is nothing wrong with what I suggest. You're mostly working on details, definitions and whatnots. I've not seen one proper argument against it.

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"?

I think I had explained that already, but I don't mind to repeat myself: The fun is in the situation of fighting a horde of running zombies on the ground. That involves, but is not limited to running backwards. I often stop, when there is time, I often use terrain, when something is available. I use all kinds of weapon during the process, for fun and variety, including melee, including the sledge hammer. I also run towards running zombies thar run towards me, run through hordes and so on. But the key aspect is running backwards, have zombies chase me, and shoot them down with the pistol, ideally with headshots.

I have built myself arenas with structures that I designed for that playstyle. Ramps, little towers with ladders, that I can climb and then stand on top shooting zombies that follow. I simply erect a large number of 1x1x2 pillars to have some kind of maze that makes things more interesting. But have as well large open areas where I can just run backwards.

As I also mentioned, I have made a mod for that playstyle. Have screenshots:

The map.

https://picload.org/view/dlipcprw/20180906184351_1.jpg.html

Here you can see the number of zombies; it's maxed out:

Me on the ground with zombies chasing me.

The map is completely flat. That block in the center is creating heat that constantly summons screamers, that constantly summon zombies. There are downtimes, though, every other day the block is disabled, so the player has a bit of time to craft and also build defenses - the usual wandering hordes show up, though. After... a few weeks - the mod needs to be played with 10 minute days - all zombies that show up are running, dogs and wolves and bears show up, zombies use several ranged attacks. It's total mayhem, and it simple would not work as I play it if you can't run backwards anymore. Sure, you can focus on building and place a bunch of turrets, but.. That's not as exciting.

Of course this mod is not what the game tries to be, but I use the backpedaling in normal games as well, and me making that mod should illustrate that I am not at all exaggerating my love for that playstyle. And while we seem to be few, I am not the only one who does, I met people on servers who share that preference. The existence of this thread seems to prove that as well, though I think I did not see anybody stating exactly that they play that way. Except for Gazz, which is... curious.

Anyways. :-D

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."

Yes, backward sprinting AND shooting zombies is indeed the thing that I will miss. So I can be as certain that I will miss it, as I can be certain that it should not feel good to stick my hand into lava. A thought experiment is enough to convince me.

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

- made up list of 50 moronic comments -

-Morloc

If that's how you view yourself and this community, you might at least be partially right.

Kubikus · September 7, 2018

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 ?

A dev or a mod makes a post, brief desc of a planned feature, people discuss the pros and cons among themselves. Devs and mods can obviously parttake if they like and find the time (btw, most of us have a job too, and still we find time to write lengthy posts). Relatively few relevant leanings and opinions will crystallize after a while - SHAZAM - valuable input for the devs.

Hey. Make no mistake. I know it's not gonna happen. But it would be a good and reasonable thing and much better than the practise I'm criticising.

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.

If I know that I won't have food tomorrow, is it mere speculation and actually uncertain, that I will be hungry?

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: [something something] mango.

But what if I base my thought experiments on available facts instead of making up fantasy mangos..? And I already said that my playstyle is very 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.

Am I that mob you talk about so much..? lol

I don't really know what you mean, and in my (and not only my) opinion, a "good" number of aspects of the game have been developed in the wrong direction. Vanilla has become nearly unplayable for me, and that is a recent development. When a new alpha came out, I used to play a long game on Navezgane, before I turned to modding. Not anymore. The lack of zombies for example. Go back to the old models and animations if the engine can't handle the new textures.

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

If a person is indifferent or "ok with" the removal of an option, I don't count them as in favor of the removal. I only count people who are in favor of a removal (or change) if it actually improves their playing experience.

I have not seen anybody explain how removal of zombie loot or backward sprinting improves their playing experience. Roland, for example, just tried to make the case that you need to be afraid and whatnot, so backward sprinting is bad. But you don't need backward sprinting to fight a running horde. You can win by sprinting forward or circle strafing and using the appropriate weapon. You can also just run away, with beer, alcohole and coffee you have infinte stamina. You can jump on your mini bike and drive off. And since A16 you can sneak through the night, while seeing everything with nightvision goggles. Hm... Do you think Roland will notice if I just copypaste the rebuttal..? :-D

What about you? Can you argue for any of the removals? Another point is that noone asked for the changes. Noone ever complained about zombie loot, noone complained about backward sprinting. At least I have not seen it. That's just "another point", mind you. Not a prominent argument. More of an indication, that these two changes don't improve the game.

In regard to discussing plans, I am not advocating that the devs should make it a vote. I am advocating to gather feedback and input from the community BEFORE a change is applied to the game. From people who have strong opinions about the game, and who base their strong opinion on thousands of hours playing it. I mark this, as I refer to it from now on. You seem to misunderstand my suggestion to discuss planned features instead of defending them afterwards.

I'd also like to note that I find it quite a bit sad that you and Morloc and Jedo have so little faith in your ability to contribute something valuable to the game's development. Why is that so?

There is no "the players" as a homogenious block.

Yes there is, they just do not have a homogenious opinion.

Make a change and you make some player happy and some other unhappy. Inevitable.

Probably.

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

Some youtube comment sections are terrible. Politics, feminism, religion. But the section on Joel's video is just fine. It's only blunt. No name calling, almost no profanity. People are only voicing their opinion. Also: See the bold comment. Over and over you make the mistake of implying I want a "mob" to make decisions. I want the devs to give the mob a chance to discuss planned features and provide feedback and opinions. That's very different.

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.

In reality, it is perfectly possible to make reasonable statements about changes that one has not yet actually tested, particularly when it's simple removals. Of course I will miss zombie loot, if I enjoyed looting zombies, of course I will miss sprinting backwards, if I enjoyed sprinting backwards. Of course I will miss 1 block ingress, if I enjoyed 1 block ingress. Of course I will miss the old chessboardish hub cities, if I enjoyed the old chessboardish hub cities. Your claim, that one cannot foreknow things, is plain wrong.

Plain wrong as well is your portrayal of people who voice criticism and dislike of certain features as some sort of mindless "mob". I am not a mindless mob, and my logic is not blocked out by emotions, even when emotions are present.

I don't think you bulit a strawman on purpose, but notice you did. 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, eat ♥♥♥♥, millions of flies can't be wrong".

It's a bit of a strawman, but within good manners I think. There aren't any people who really argue for the changes, only people who don't care. But I retract the question, I admit it's more rethoric than an argument.

Still, a lot of people obviously dislike the change and explain why, and once again you declare them an unreasonable mob. That's rethoric outside good manners. I'm not an unreasonable mob.

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.

Really? Can you give a couple of examples? I certainly got better at the game, got the timings right and such, but that did not take me long, and look at me, arguing against the removal of mechanics that make the game easier. My taste has not changed either, it was, btw, a taste I had acquired before 7dtd was ever developed. I also have played a lot with new players, some of which I bought the game for, some people I met on servers, so I kinda know what they like and dislike. One thing, for example, is the many skills and perks, requirements, how to unlock recipes.

Experienced players know the game inside out. They are a great source of feedback. "I mean", that's really a no-brainer, don't try too hard, man.

Brimstone · September 7, 2018

There ya, go, realistic right? as in sim..right?

WRONG argument.

Actually, no. There's realism that promotes tactical gameplay, and realism that cripples gameplay. Running backwards is an example of the former, restricting building inventories is the latter. If you had to to carry realistic amounts of building supplies, you'd have time for little else. OTOH, if you just can't exploit running backwards to avoid damage, you have to be smarter in how you expose yourself to risk.

TBH, if I was making a similar construction game, I would have a paged inventory system. The first page- personal inventory- would be accessible anytime and be weight and volume restricted. The second type- construction inventory- I would only permit access to near designated construction sites (via something like a claim block) or near vehicles capable of transporting large weights.

Balance is key to making a fun game that keeps interest... you don't want to make it too easy OR too hard. Example, back when I was hex-editing Baldur's Gate with the original TeamBG, I created a vampiric sword that (temporarily) increased the toon's HP, stamina, and level with each successful strike. But to balance that out, possessing the sword also drastically increased fatigue accumulation- so you either rested a lot... or killed a lot. And sometimes, it was difficult to be discriminatory on the latter.

Kubikus · September 7, 2018

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...?

Or I just got the page number wrong. My mistake.

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.

You are quite often snarky, probably corrupted to the bone by all your powers. :-/ And - real talk - it simply adds to the overall atmosphere that criticism is beaten to crap by local staff.

My opinion right now on this topic is that the removal of backward sprinting is good for combat with walking zombies.

Because noobs will die more? How is that good? And people with mad skillz can just quickly turn and sprint away forward, besides that once you have a sense for timing and distance, you don't have to sprint at all anymore.

Removing a movement ability when combat is quite limited already does not sound like a great idea. Even with the second attack that is coming. Lotta people probably have played other games before, and if you compare 7dtd melee with many of them, it doesn't look any good. What you'd really want is more abilities. A kick would be brilliant. Push em back. Make em fall. Stomp on their skullz. Crush their brainz. Like Dead Island does it. I'd be amazed if Unity couldn't pull that off. Or the zombie grab, when they grab you and you have their face in your face. Now that's some scary... gameplay.

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.

Of course it's unrealistic. Lemme also grab this comment:

I know you weren't talking to me but I wanted to take the opportunity to be crystal clear that I was not playing the realism card.

I was playing the arcade shooter card.

Running backwards and killing enemies is closer to a Serious Sam or Doom style of gameplay. That certainly is fun and losing that style is going to erase that fun. There is no argument about that. I guess the question is whether 7 Days to Die aims to deliver that kind of gameplay. Some will say it should because that is a fun playstyle and 7 Days is already a hybrid game in many ways so there's nothing wrong with a bit of arcade spice.

I don't know the answer. I also think it is fun to run backwards and kill enemies. I also feel very much it is definitely in the realm of "arcade shooter". On the other hand, I also do like the new greater risk imposed by being unable to run backwards and it makes you think about the danger factor more because you are more likely to die by being mobbed by runners than before. Running and gunning backwards reduces the survival horror aspect because you aren't afraid of things you can more easily dispatch. Some would say that having the feeling of survival horror is also fun and the type of fun they want to have when playing this particular game vs Serious Sam.

This is probably why it will require people to play it. To see if the new style of fun is enough or not and that can only be experienced first hand.

A relevant question is, why remove it? You have something in, an additional option, a possible additional playstyle: Why take it away? Why make the game smaller? Allow people who want the surivival horror to sneak through the night with their night vision goggles, let the FPS nerds run & gun.

And - I'll write it exclusively for you again - there is still no need to be afraid if they disable running backwards. Simple trick: Run forward. Equip the approriate weapons, such as the shotgun and the the crossbow with explosive bolts. Can you still increase wellness in A17? If you have 250 wellness and the best armor, how often can a zombie beat on you before you die..? Without armor, a trashmob, dealing 10 damage, would need 25 hits. What's to be afraid of..? At night you can sneak. Ever heard about "my mod", dude? I have that ringworld, with different difficulties. You spawn in the center, and the first ring is the most dangerous. You can run through during the day, which is super scary, but you can also wait for the night and sneak. Good... gameplay.

Btw, since you're in the know... Well, though you probably don't know that one.. If you can still build ringworlds, with XML code like so:

<biome_spawn_rules>
<biome_spawn_rule name="city_wasteland">
	<distance_from_center range="0,500"/>
</biome_spawn_rule>

<biome_spawn_rule name="wasteland_hub">
	<distance_from_center range="500,2500"/>
</biome_spawn_rule>

<biome_spawn_rule name="city">
	<distance_from_center range="2500,3500"/>
</biome_spawn_rule>

</biome_spawn_rules>

With the "distance_from_center"-thing. I'm asking because I heard the world is now a square. If you can't do it anymore, the distance-from-center-difficulty thing is gone too. PS it's in rwgmixer.xml, on the bottom. A16 vanilla has it for the radiated biome, like so:

<biome_spawn_rule name="radiated">
<distance_from_center range="10000,20000"/>
</biome_spawn_rule>

Is that still there..?

But I'm chatting.

Now I chat some more, tho:

In that "my mod" of mine, a trashmob deals 49 damage. If you're naked and at 100 wellness, three hits and you're dead. Every tier of armor adds an additional hit, so plant fiber armor = trashmob needs four hits to kill you. Best armor, I think the trashmob needs 8 hits. I did that, because I never even bothered to make armor.

Furthermore, I removed all healing items. Instead, there is a constant buff that slowly heals the player (like it used to be when the game was still... not like today). This is the buff:

<buff id="permaHeal"  buffif="+full > 0">
<modify id="1" stat="health" amount="0.05" rate="1"/>
</buff>

I guess it means 0.05 health per second, so 3 health points per minute. I consider adding healing items that can speed that up, but it's neat as it is already. And it is a total game changer. When I put that in, I started dying again. I started being afraid, actually for the first time ever. If you can't just pop a medkit to heal up, you really don't want to get hit, and if you did get hit, you really don't want to get hit again. Because then you're dead.

That means, you're almost always on your toes, because a small group of zombies catching you off guard can kill you in 2-3 seconds.

Whutcha think, bro, is this not better than "uhm... Game should be harder, err... let's cripple the player so he can't move anymore..." Yeah I know. Boss ain't gonna like it one bit if you're honest now. ;-P I'm playin, plz no ban!!1!

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.

Well, it won't go away. Not enough people will complain.

Anyway, the code is in entityclasses.xml, right on top, where it says name="playerMale". Since the class, unlike zombies, does not have a speed-property (like "WanderSpeed" and such for zombies), I hightly doubt it's moddable. But maybe they'll have a heart and make it possible. And if not, I hope dll-modders will provide.

**Roland** · September 7, 2018

You are quite often snarky, probably corrupted to the bone by all your powers. :-/ And - real talk - it simply adds to the overall atmosphere that criticism is beaten to crap by local staff.

I was quite often snarky before I had any powers. If I am corrupted by my power snark isn't the evidence...

And -real talk- the atmosphere is that no opinions get to sit in a vacuum. Point and counterpoint are allowed and when I get snarky it is because someone is saying something untruthful or being insulting and then my snark is all about what they said and not about them as a person.

All of your criticism is still here in this thread available to be read by all the lurking masses and they'll either shake their heads in disagreement or nod their heads in common vision with you. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to just say your piece and nobody who disagrees could say anything that might "beat it all to crap". You just line item countered what I posted. That's fine. Let people read both and decide who is more compelling.

Now, I'm local staff and despite being snarky about the claim that RPG elements for this game just barely got announced to the surprise of the whole community, I have not been stifling commentary one way or the other in this particular crusade of yours. I have given my opinion on the matter and the reasons behind it but I'm not banning or deleting anyone who is arguing against me. What other local staff are preventing criticism? What does it look like to you to be able to have criticism voiced without it being beaten all to crap by local staff? Are you saying that staff should stay out of conversations and just be lurkers and simply slap people on the wrist when they get out of hand using the infraction system but not post anything publicly?

**Roland** · September 7, 2018

Anyway, the code is in entityclasses.xml, right on top, where it says name="playerMale". Since the class, unlike zombies, does not have a speed-property (like "WanderSpeed" and such for zombies), I hightly doubt it's moddable. But maybe they'll have a heart and make it possible. And if not, I hope dll-modders will provide.

I found it and played around with it. The good news is there is a walkspeed entry with a value of 1.53. When I upped the value to 3 my walk speed was about the same as sprinting. I spawned in a zombie dog and was able to easily stay ahead of it just walking backwards.

So it seems it should be easily edited if you want to be able to be super agile as long as you don't care a whole bunch about relative speeds of moving on foot vs by vehicle etc. But if your main love is running and gunning it should be easy to alter the game that way. There was no way that I could see to separate forward walk speed and backward walk speed.

Huh....I guess I can use my powers for good sometimes....

**meganoth** · September 7, 2018

A dev or a mod makes a post, brief desc of a planned feature, people discuss the pros and cons among themselves. Devs and mods can obviously parttake if they like and find the time (btw, most of us have a job too, and still we find time to write lengthy posts). Relatively few relevant leanings and opinions will crystallize after a while - SHAZAM - valuable input for the devs.

When spamcrafting was removed a lot of people on the forum were sure they would miss the feature and argued they would have nothing to do at night. And maybe a few still do miss the feature, but on the whole most people found out that the game was better without it. And importantly the game was better, not the feature itself obviously. A game is always the sum of all features and you can't just look at a feature, you have to look at the whole game and how that feature influences the game and its balance.

Many players just look at a feature and their own personal use of it (instead of the whole game) and that narrow view is not how a game designer should look at a game. And in my opinion nothing valuable will come if you listen to a cacophony of hundreds of these narrow views, even when a few voices in there actually have a broader view.

But what if I base my thought experiments on available facts instead of making up fantasy mangos..? And I already said that my playstyle is very rare.

Am I that mob you talk about so much..? lol

I don't really know what you mean, and in my (and not only my) opinion, a "good" number of aspects of the game have been developed in the wrong direction. Vanilla has become nearly unplayable for me, and that is a recent development.

I'm exaggerating a bit here, but it sounds a lot like you seem to have lost the fun with the whole game, just a little part of it still holds your interest.

That means you are an outlier now and your opinion is even less worth to the developers. You have mostly tired of the game as a whole and/or it moved in a direction that doesn't interest you. Should the developer of a team shooter listen to an RPG-player? Should a mango distributor listen to a strawberry aficionado?

No you are not the mob, the mob signifies the mass of voices in the forum, everyone wanting to push the game into a different direction and making bold statements with incomplete information. Even if TFP wanted to share decision making with the community, the mob of voices in the forum is not able to represent the community as a single voice or lead to fair decision-making. If 5 people in the forum tell you A is bad and nobody says A is good you still don't know what the rest of the forum thinks, let alone the "community".

If a person is indifferent or "ok with" the removal of an option, I don't count them as in favor of the removal. I only count people who are in favor of a removal (or change) if it actually improves their playing experience.

Clarification: With the term "ok with" I meant people that were really positive about the change. So to make it very clear:

1) I am for reducing loot on zombies, absolutely positive. My two reasons: Reducing the loot grind, especially after horde night. And making stealth on par with shooting as a scavenger strategy.

2) Someone made a poll in which one choice was positive to the change, one was negative to the change and one was "reserving judgement until I have played it". This poll was a draw, with most people having voted for "reserving judgement" and a nearly equal number of people having voted for and against the change.

I have not seen anybody explain how removal of zombie loot or backward sprinting improves their playing experience.

....

What about you? Can you argue for any of the removals? Another point is that noone asked for the changes. Noone ever complained about zombie loot, noone complained about backward sprinting. At least I have not seen it. That's just "another point", mind you. Not a prominent argument. More of an indication, that these two changes don't improve the game.

But it happened, explanations were given, at least for the loot reduction. Naturally it is easy to miss the relevant discussion in a thread 2000 pages long.

See above, I listed my reasons and if you need longer explanations I can explain in detail. The developers had further reasons, a big one being performance and another one that zombies should not be seen as loot bringers.

That noone asked for the changes is, sorry to say that, a silly argument. Noone asked for removal of spamcrafting, and still it was done and it was good. Noone asked for mods instead of parts and still it was done. You seem to be slightly confusing here who leads the development and who follows that lead.

One could even say noone asked for a minecraft-survival-horror-tower-defense-shooter mix, and still it was implemented.

I am advocating to gather feedback and input from the community BEFORE a change is applied to the game. From people who have strong opinions about the game, and who base their strong opinion on thousands of hours playing it.[/b] I mark this, as I refer to it from now on. You seem to misunderstand my suggestion to discuss planned features instead of defending them afterwards.

I'd also like to note that I find it quite a bit sad that you and Morloc and Jedo have so little faith in your ability to contribute something valuable to the game's development. Why is that so?

Especially the people with strong opinions are not going to change them. When these opinions conform to the opinions of the developers, what does it help them? Nothing. If the opinions are contrary, what does that help them? Nothing, because it just means the vision of the developers differ from the vision this gamer with the strong opinion wants.

What I and Morloc and Jedo, you and even the "mob" can contribute? Apart from the bug hunt we will play the game from beginning to end, for hours. After actually playtesting the WHOLE game we can give our opinion what works and what not. And we can tell them how we played.

If for example 80% of all players stay on a roof at night doing nothing in A17 then they could decide to change something about that. Even if the players say they liked staying on the roof all night! But lets say now before A17 released dozens of players would say "Hey, from what I heard about A17 I'm sure I will stay on a roof all night and will be doing nothing." TFP would be mad to act on this. This is my point: Player's feedback before they played the game is worth nothing. What they do when they play the game for a while, that is valuable.

In reality, it is perfectly possible to make reasonable statements about changes that one has not yet actually tested, particularly when it's simple removals. Of course I will miss zombie loot, if I enjoyed looting zombies, of course I will miss sprinting backwards, if I enjoyed sprinting backwards. Of course I will miss 1 block ingress, if I enjoyed 1 block ingress. Of course I will miss the old chessboardish hub cities, if I enjoyed the old chessboardish hub cities. Your claim, that one cannot foreknow things, is plain wrong.

Is there one bit of useful information in all above? You used "of course" to denote something which is obvious. So no need to tell them, obvious is also obvious to them. But the interesting question is what will the mass of players do with the whole game if this or that small part is missing or added? No feature is an island (except for players who are only interested in one small feature instead of the whole game)

There aren't any people who really argue for the changes, only people who don't care.

I hope I could show you above that this is absolutely, definitely and glaringly wrong.

Still, a lot of people obviously dislike the change and explain why, and once again you declare them an unreasonable mob. That's rethoric outside good manners. I'm not an unreasonable mob.

Explain? The most often cited reason is "I like looting zombies". Now if that reason were enough, a game having just a large area full of lootable zombie corpses would have to be a massive success. And strangely for a few players it really is, the success of games like "Cookie Clicker" demonstrates that. But TFP does not want to produce a cookie clicker game and because of that reasons like "I like looting zombies" are nearly worthless to TFP, at least at this point in time, before anyone really has played the game.

Really? Can you give a couple of examples? I certainly got better at the game, got the timings right and such, but that did not take me long, and look at me, arguing against the removal of mechanics that make the game easier. My taste has not changed either, it was, btw, a taste I had acquired before 7dtd was ever developed. I also have played a lot with new players, some of which I bought the game for, some people I met on servers, so I kinda know what they like and dislike. One thing, for example, is the many skills and perks, requirements, how to unlock recipes.

Experienced players know the game inside out. They are a great source of feedback. "I mean", that's really a no-brainer, don't try too hard, man.

They are a great source if TFP needs information about how much iron you need in end game. They are a terrible source if TFP needs information about how a novice player would feel in the game at any time. I have hundreds of hours in the game. I never ever will feel like a novice again, the best I can do is trying to remember bits and pieces of playing a different version of this game a long time ago.

Gazz · September 7, 2018

Heh. Someone posted in the console section that he would never download an update if it removed spamcrafting... which would be part of the A16 package.

Don't know for sure about any whats and whens of a console update but I find it funny that some play this as a stone shovel crafting simulator.

**Roland** · September 7, 2018

Btw, since you're in the know... Well, though you probably don't know that one.. If you can still build ringworlds, with XML code like so:

The radiation zone still has the distance_from_center property but the other biomes do not. They have the properties of biome_generator_range and the snow, forest, and water also have terrain_generator_range which I believe has to do with elevation. Not sure whether this means you will be able to do concentric circles of doom or not. But I hope you will.

bloom_meister · September 7, 2018

The radiation zone still has the distance_from_center property but the other biomes do not. They have the properties of biome_generator_range and the snow, forest, and water also have terrain_generator_range which I believe has to do with elevation. Not sure whether this means you will be able to do concentric circles of doom or not. But I hope you will.

Hmm

So if I set the world size to 50k whats to stop me setting the rad zone to be from 49k to 50k to ensure the rest of the map is normal biomes? sorry if this is a simplistic question but obviously have not seen the new A17 RGW xml yet.

ps. I found something really interesting with A16 that I only shared with a few people, if you created your map with, for example the default 10k then you got the normal rad border around it BUT if you then, later, edited the map size to be 15k, on the same live map, the game generates the additional 5k OUTSIDE the 10k rad border, what this means is you get a roughly 1/4k rad border at 10k which is possible to cross if you have high health and lots of first aid kits.

Some friends and I did this on a big pvp server and it really added a unique element to exploration and game dynamics as it took quite a while for people to discover it and even longer before people were able to get across.

A really interesting unintended consequence of the current build parameters

Jedo · September 7, 2018

ps. I found something really interesting with A16 that I only shared with a few people, if you created your map with, for example the default 10k then you got the normal rad border around it BUT if you then, later, edited the map size to be 15k, on the same live map, the game generates the additional 5k OUTSIDE the 10k rad border, what this means is you get a roughly 1/4k rad border at 10k which is possible to cross if you have high health and lots of first aid kits.

Some friends and I did this on a big pvp server and it really added a unique element to exploration and game dynamics as it took quite a while for people to discover it and even longer before people were able to get across.

A really interesting unintended consequence of the current build parameters

I wonder whether Aldranon knows about this. I think he always was wanting something like that, and it does seem pretty cool.

Kubikus · September 7, 2018

You are quite often snarky, probably corrupted to the bone by all your powers. :-/ And - real talk - it simply adds to the overall atmosphere that criticism is beaten to crap by local staff.

I was quite often snarky before I had any powers. If I am corrupted by my power snark isn't the evidence...

And -real talk- the atmosphere is that no opinions get to sit in a vacuum. Point and counterpoint are allowed and when I get snarky it is because someone is saying something untruthful or being insulting and then my snark is all about what they said and not about them as a person.

All of your criticism is still here in this thread available to be read by all the lurking masses and they'll either shake their heads in disagreement or nod their heads in common vision with you. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to just say your piece and nobody who disagrees could say anything that might "beat it all to crap". You just line item countered what I posted. That's fine. Let people read both and decide who is more compelling.

Now, I'm local staff and despite being snarky about the claim that RPG elements for this game just barely got announced to the surprise of the whole community, I have not been stifling commentary one way or the other in this particular crusade of yours. I have given my opinion on the matter and the reasons behind it but I'm not banning or deleting anyone who is arguing against me. What other local staff are preventing criticism? What does it look like to you to be able to have criticism voiced without it being beaten all to crap by local staff? Are you saying that staff should stay out of conversations and just be lurkers and simply slap people on the wrist when they get out of hand using the infraction system but not post anything publicly?

I left my quote in: I'm saying that there is an overall atmosphere that criticism is beaten to crap by local staff. That's an unsubtle phrasing, obviously. I'm not saying that one cannot voice any criticism, but there is an atmosphere, that criticism is not actually welcome. The atmosphere is that criticism is some sort of contaminant. It has to be cleaned up quickly, with various methods. Snarky replies, playstyle shaming, threads are close, moved, edited. Criticism is policed.

Example? I note that, in 1 sentence, among many more, that deal with the thread topic, and a mod shows up and write a fairly lengthy post only about that 1 sentence, denying it is true. No "hm...", no "yeah, but...".

Instead "No!" If I was using unsubtle phrasing, I could say he's beatin my criticism to crap.

I found it and played around with it. The good news is there is a walkspeed entry with a value of 1.53. When I upped the value to 3 my walk speed was about the same as sprinting. I spawned in a zombie dog and was able to easily stay ahead of it just walking backwards.

So it seems it should be easily edited if you want to be able to be super agile as long as you don't care a whole bunch about relative speeds of moving on foot vs by vehicle etc. But if your main love is running and gunning it should be easy to alter the game that way. There was no way that I could see to separate forward walk speed and backward walk speed.

Huh....I guess I can use my powers for good sometimes....

Sounds basically good, thanks for looking, but if there is no seperate property for backward speed, it won't do the trick. I don't want to be twice as fast overall. Just not unreasonably slow moving backwards.

The radiation zone still has the distance_from_center property but the other biomes do not. They have the properties of biome_generator_range and the snow, forest, and water also have terrain_generator_range which I believe has to do with elevation. Not sure whether this means you will be able to do concentric circles of doom or not. But I hope you will.

Yes, it sounds much like it still works, it's normal that it's only there with the radiation zone, because that is the only biome that depends on distance in vanilla. It would even be excellent if the biomes would be built as squares instead of circles, because then you could control the cells much better - cells are squares in pre A17, so cells and rings mostly don't match. If they would in A17, you could at least make street material matching the biome. A feature that allows to design streets by biome (street in biome x looks so and so) would be great anyways.

Thanks again for looking.

Kubikus · September 7, 2018

When spamcrafting was removed a lot of people on the forum were sure they would miss the feature and argued they would have nothing to do at night. And maybe a few still do miss the feature, but on the whole most people found out that the game was better without it. And importantly the game was better, not the feature itself obviously. A game is always the sum of all features and you can't just look at a feature, you have to look at the whole game and how that feature influences the game and its balance.

I don't think most players look at the whole picture, they just look at a feature and their own personal use of it (without looking at the whole game) and that narrow view is not how a game designer should look at a game. And in my opinion nothing valuable will come if you listen to a cacophony of hundreds of these narrow views, even when a few voices in there actually have a broader view.

Even the comment, that people fear they have nothing to do at night, is not useless feedback, because it shows that the game does not offer something better to do than spamcrafting. It is also false to argue that all feedback from the community is useless, by cherry picking a comment that appears silly to the unenducated eye. There has been a large variety of comments about spamcrafting. I believe, I made some myself, and while I'm certainly an exceptionally interesting read, I'm not the only one.

I'm exaggerating a bit here, but it sounds a lot like you seem to have lost the fun with the whole game, just a little part of it still holds your interest.

That means you are an outlier now and your opinion is even less worth to the developers. You have mostly tired of the game as a whole and/or it moved in a direction that doesn't interest you. Should the developer of a team shooter listen to an RPG-player? Should a mango distributor listen to a strawberry aficionado?

"Accusing" people of being burned out when they criticise essential features of the game is another shaming tactic.

I give you an example. Once upon a time, if you chopped down a tree, you had to chop down the whole tree before you got anything. And what you got were logs. And you had to craft the logs to planks, and you could craft the planks to sticks. And you would need the different stages for different things. Planks for blocks, sticks for arrows. And such.

Then they "streamlined" the game. Now when you chop down a tree, you constantly get "wood" from it. An abstract idea of wood that is. It has no shape or anything, it's just "wood". You kinda chip away from the tree constantly, "wood" for "wood". For a block, you need so and so much "wood". For an arrow, I guess you need one "wood". For a stone axe, you need three or so. Three "wood". Ideas of wood. Abstract principles of the material "wood". You also need 5 "stone". A funny stone axe that is, made of five "stone" and three "wood".

Anyway.

The tree remains standing if at least one unit of "wood" remains. So you might have something that looks like a tree in front of you, but really, it is merely 1 arrow worth of "wood". Absurd, innit. Before, a tree (of course) also could be damaged to 1 remaining hitpoint, but if you hit the tree again, you would get all the logs, so it was just like it was almost cut through. Reasonable.

See, I don't like the new way. I like the old way better. In my modded game, I bring that back. But I also pick up the idea that you constantly get something from a tree while you're chopping it down, so you get "branches". Like branches would be falling down from the tree while you're chopping. A branch is good to make a stone axe or stone shovel or a stone spear. You can craft it into a stick too, that is good for an arrow and some other things. From the tree, if you have actually felled it, you get logs again, and to craft them into planks and then sticks, you need a "crude workbench" (which is just a log) and a tool. With a stoneaxe, though, you get less planks out of a log and less sticks out of a plank. You get more with a saw. A realistic approach, because I like realism.

Another large part is the skill system. I basically like a progression system, very much so, even, but I don't like the unimmersive spending of skillpoints and, particularly, the requirements, that block free progression. Sitting in a skill menu and planning what skills and perks to buy is terrible. I also don't like the elaborate gating system, that you cannot progress in skill so and so, if you do not have level so and so. So I reworked that as well.

Two examples of many. Does that sounds like or indicate that I lost fun with the whole game..? I don't think so. I think it sounds like I don't like the direction of the development. The dumbing down, so the game can be sold to each and every simpleton that's registered to Steam, and the attempts to control how people play. Let em play how they want, don't force them down routes.

Clarification: With the term "ok with" I meant people that were really positive about the change. So to make it very clear:

1) I am for reducing loot on zombies, absolutely positive. My two reasons: Reducing the loot grind, especially after horde night.

Well, I have read the poll-thread... kinda "again", didn't really follow it, and I admit that there is that one reason to like the change, which is that people don't like to go from gore block to gore block, open the container, often to get nothing. While the change, if that is true, makes it so that only a very few zombies drop a bag, so you know something is in there, and - which is what I am not certain of, only read it in player comments - that these bags contain approximately as much loot as you would get from zombies before. So, if you would've looted 50 zombies in A16 and get so and so much loot, now you loot a very few bags and get the same.

If that is indeed the case, y'all do have an argument and I was underinformed. If, however, and your 2nd reason indicates that's the case, loot is simply severely reduced, y'all have no argument, because if y'all just dislike looting corpses and are fine with a severe reduction of loot, y'all could just not loot corpses, but let us, who like the looting, continue to loot. Cuz we would we have to miss out, because y'all can't control y'allselves.

And making stealth on par with shooting as a scavenger strategy.

Not sure if I understand you right. Stealth means avoiding zombies. So it means not killing them, thus not getting loot from them. And you dislike that people who kill zombies get.. more loot? Is it more? Probably, because zombie killers can also loot trashbags, so they have more loot sources. But... Firstly I don't see why you would care how much loot someone else is getting, why it could be important to you, that someone else is getting less loot, because you don't kill zombies, and 2ndly, can you loot trashbags and whatnot while others kill zombies. While they kill zombies, they can't loot trashbags. So, time management. And if they still kill zombies when zombie loot is reduced (if it is reduced) then your stealth playstyle has the advantage. You don't "waste" your time with killing zombies, but loot trashbags instead. I spend my time killing zombies, but get nothing.

However, as I said, if the new mechanic will give me the same amount of loot, just compressed in less containers, your argument makes not only no sense anymore, I would even have a greater advantage, because I have to spend less time looting corpses.

Anyway. :-D

2) Someone made a poll in which one choice was positive to the change, one was negative to the change and one was "reserving judgement until I have played it". This poll was a draw, with most people having voted for "reserving judgement" and a nearly equal number of people having voted for and against the change.

A simple "vote" doesn't matter, I need reasons. And plausible ones, not "I don't need it", no "it makes no sense", no "I don't like the grind". If your gripe with zombie loot can be solved by simply not looting zombies, you have no good reason to like the removal. Might sound harsh, but those are the rules.

But it happened, explanations were given, at least for the loot reduction. Naturally it is easy to miss the relevant discussion in a thread 2000 pages long.

See above, I listed my reasons and if you need longer explanations I can explain in detail. The developers had further reasons, a big one being performance and another one that zombies should not be seen as loot bringers.

Feel free to add more detail, I'm unsure what your reason is.

That noone asked for the changes is, sorry to say that, a silly argument. Noone asked for removal of spamcrafting, and still it was done and it was good. Noone asked for mods instead of parts and still it was done. You seem to be slightly confusing here who leads the development and who follows that lead.

One could even say noone asked for a minecraft-survival-horror-tower-defense-shooter mix, and still it was implemented.

Isn't it kinda funny that I have forseen exactly this response and wrote a disclaimer, pointing out it's not an actual argument, but an additional indicator..? It does make me lol, so.. guess it is kinda funny.

Kubikus · September 7, 2018

People, as far as I remember, and btw, did complain about spamcrafting. For example server owners, because of dropped stone axes that slowed down the server, or people on servers who spam their stone axes in containers and block them. Another complaint was that you had to spamcraft certain items if you wanted to get them to a higher quality, particularly armor was a problem. I am, however, not sure if these complaints and arguments came before or after the change.

The removal of spamcrafting came with the introduction of skills, right? To increase the quality of your stuff, you have to buy crafting skill levels (perks, actually). That is not good. That is clumsy. I admit that it is more convenient than having to spamcraft, but I believe to have found a better solution. Fortunately I love to hear intelligent people with good ideas talk, so I'll gladly explain.

Many items have properties in the XMl, like the stone axe:

	<property name="ActionSkillGroup" value="Construction Tools"/>
<property name="CraftingSkillGroup" value="craftSkillTools"/>

Action skill feeds xp to the noted skill when the item is used, crafting skill when the item is crafted. So here - though it is obsolete - you gain XP in "craftSkillTools" when you craft the item. When you got enough xp to level up, the quality of the crafted item and some other aspects improve. Here's the XML code of the skill, that, though, now is a perk, meaning, that you don't level up by feeding xp, but by spending skill points, but the principle is the same:

	<perk name="craftSkillTools" max_level="10" skill_point_cost_multiplier="1.26" skill_point_cost_per_level="3" exp_to_level="5000000"
icon="tool_smithing" description_key="craftSkillToolsDesc" title_key="craftSkillTools" group="tools" exp_gain_multiplier="0">
	<requirement perk_level="2" required_player_level="5"/>
	<requirement perk_level="3" required_player_level="10"/>
	<requirement perk_level="4" required_player_level="20"/>
	<requirement perk_level="5" required_player_level="30"/>
	<requirement perk_level="6" required_player_level="40"/>
	<requirement perk_level="7" required_player_level="60"/>
	<requirement perk_level="8" required_player_level="80"/>
	<requirement perk_level="9" required_player_level="100"/>
	<requirement perk_level="10" required_player_level="120"/>
	<effect name="CraftingTime">
		<multiply skill_level="0,1" value="1.0,0.95"/>
		<multiply skill_level="1,2" value="0.95,0.90"/>
		<multiply skill_level="2,3" value="0.90,0.85"/>
		<multiply skill_level="3,4" value="0.85,0.80"/>
		<multiply skill_level="4,5" value="0.80,0.75"/>
		<multiply skill_level="5,6" value="0.75,0.70"/>
		<multiply skill_level="6,7" value="0.70,0.65"/>
		<multiply skill_level="7,8" value="0.65,0.60"/>
		<multiply skill_level="8,9" value="0.60,0.55"/>
		<multiply skill_level="9,10" value="0.55,0.50"/>
	</effect>
	<effect name="CraftingQuality">
		<setvalue skill_level="0" value="25"/>
		<setvalue skill_level="1" value="50"/>
		<setvalue skill_level="2" value="100"/>
		<setvalue skill_level="3" value="150"/>
		<setvalue skill_level="4" value="200"/>
		<setvalue skill_level="5" value="250"/>
		<setvalue skill_level="6" value="300"/>
		<setvalue skill_level="7" value="350"/>
		<setvalue skill_level="8" value="400"/>
		<setvalue skill_level="9" value="450"/>
		<setvalue skill_level="10" value="500"/>
	</effect>
	<effect name="RepairTime">
		<multiply skill_level="0,1" value="1.0,0.93"/>
		<multiply skill_level="1,2" value="0.93,0.86"/>
		<multiply skill_level="2,3" value="0.86,0.79"/>
		<multiply skill_level="3,4" value="0.79,0.72"/>
		<multiply skill_level="4,5" value="0.72,0.65"/>
		<multiply skill_level="5,6" value="0.65,0.58"/>
		<multiply skill_level="6,7" value="0.58,0.51"/>
		<multiply skill_level="7,8" value="0.51,0.44"/>
		<multiply skill_level="8,9" value="0.44,0.37"/>
		<multiply skill_level="9,10" value="0.37,0.30"/>
	</effect>
	<effect name="RepairAmount">
		<multiply skill_level="0,10" value="1,1.2"/>
	</effect>
	<effect name="RepairQualityLoss"> <!-- .666 for Fixer.  Loss at no Fixer skill and QL 600 = 40,32,25...6,5,4 -->
		<multiply skill_level="0,1" value="0.0670,0.0533"/>
		<multiply skill_level="1,2" value="0.0533,0.0425"/>
		<multiply skill_level="2,3" value="0.0425,0.0338"/>
		<multiply skill_level="3,4" value="0.0338,0.0269"/>
		<multiply skill_level="4,5" value="0.0269,0.0214"/>
		<multiply skill_level="5,6" value="0.0214,0.0170"/>
		<multiply skill_level="6,7" value="0.0170,0.0136"/>
		<multiply skill_level="7,8" value="0.0136,0.0108"/>
		<multiply skill_level="8,9" value="0.0108,0.0086"/>
		<multiply skill_level="9,10" value="0.0086,0.0068"/>
	</effect>
</perk>

So before it became a perk, these things improved when you crated the stone axe, better quality of the item, faster crafting and repairing, etc.

Here is the code for the action skill, that still is a skill and is improved by using the item:

	<action_skill name="Construction Tools" exp_to_level="500" icon="resource" description_key="constructionToolsDesc" title_key="constructionTools" group="tools">
	<effect name="BlockDamage">
		<multiply skill_level="1,10" value="1.00,1.32"/>
		<multiply skill_level="10,20" value="1.32,1.45"/>
		<multiply skill_level="20,30" value="1.45,1.55"/>
		<multiply skill_level="30,40" value="1.55,1.63"/>
		<multiply skill_level="40,50" value="1.63,1.71"/>
		<multiply skill_level="50,60" value="1.71,1.77"/>
		<multiply skill_level="60,70" value="1.77,1.84"/>
		<multiply skill_level="70,80" value="1.84,1.89"/>
		<multiply skill_level="80,90" value="1.89,1.95"/>
		<multiply skill_level="90,100" value="1.95,2.00"/>
	</effect>
</action_skill>

Only the block damage is increased. Also note that the crafting skill (perk) now has requirements. You can only buy level 2 if your player level is at least 5. I particularly dislike this, if I want to focus on a certain perk, let me spend my skillpoints as I want to.

My solution to the spamcrafting problem is that I have both of the skill groups, the one for crafting and the one for using the item, feed into the same skill. Like so, for stone axes:

	<property name="ActionSkillGroup" value="Stone Items" />
<property name="CraftingSkillGroup" value="Stone Items" />

So you level up that skill by crafting and by using the stone axe (and other items made of stone). The skill looks like this:

<action_skill name="Stone Items" exp_to_level="100" icon="resource" description_key="Stone ItemsDesc" title_key="Stone Items" group="tools">
	<effect name="BlockDamage">
		<multiply skill_level="1,10" value="1.00,1.32"/>
		<multiply skill_level="10,20" value="1.32,1.45"/>
		<multiply skill_level="20,30" value="1.45,1.55"/>
		<multiply skill_level="30,40" value="1.55,1.63"/>
		<multiply skill_level="40,50" value="1.63,1.71"/>
		<multiply skill_level="50,60" value="1.71,1.77"/>
		<multiply skill_level="60,70" value="1.77,1.84"/>
		<multiply skill_level="70,80" value="1.84,1.89"/>
		<multiply skill_level="80,90" value="1.89,3.00"/>
		<multiply skill_level="90,100" value="3.00,4.00"/>
	</effect>
	<effect name="CraftingTime">
		<multiply skill_level="1,10" value="1.0,.95"/>
		<multiply skill_level="10,20" value=".95,.90"/>
		<multiply skill_level="20,30" value=".90,.85"/>
		<multiply skill_level="30,40" value=".85,.80"/>
		<multiply skill_level="40,50" value=".80,.75"/>
		<multiply skill_level="50,60" value=".75,.70"/>
		<multiply skill_level="60,70" value=".70,.65"/>
		<multiply skill_level="70,80" value=".65,.60"/>
		<multiply skill_level="80,90" value=".60,.55"/>
		<multiply skill_level="90,100" value=".55,.50"/>
	</effect>
	<effect name="CraftingQuality">
		<setvalue skill_level="1,100" value="6,600"/>
	</effect>
	<effect name="RepairTime">
		<multiply skill_level="1,10" value="1.0,.93"/>
		<multiply skill_level="10,20" value=".93,.86"/>
		<multiply skill_level="20,30" value=".86,.79"/>
		<multiply skill_level="30,40" value=".79,.72"/>
		<multiply skill_level="40,50" value=".72,.65"/>
		<multiply skill_level="50,60" value=".65,.58"/>
		<multiply skill_level="60,70" value=".58,.51"/>
		<multiply skill_level="70,80" value=".51,.44"/>
		<multiply skill_level="80,90" value=".44,.37"/>
		<multiply skill_level="90,100" value=".37,.21"/>
	</effect>
	<effect name="RepairAmount">
		<add skill_level="1,10" value="1,5"/>
		<add skill_level="10,20" value="5,10"/>
		<add skill_level="20,30" value="11,105"/>
		<add skill_level="30,40" value="15,20"/>
		<add skill_level="40,50" value="20,25"/>
		<add skill_level="50,60" value="25,30"/>
		<add skill_level="60,70" value="30,35"/>
		<add skill_level="70,80" value="35,40"/>
		<add skill_level="80,90" value="40,45"/>
		<add skill_level="91,100" value="45,65"/>
	</effect>
	<effect name="RepairQualityLoss">
		<multiply skill_level="1,10" value="0.0670,0.0533"/>
		<multiply skill_level="10,20" value="0.0533,0.0425"/>
		<multiply skill_level="20,30" value="0.0425,0.0338"/>
		<multiply skill_level="30,40" value="0.0338,0.0269"/>
		<multiply skill_level="40,50" value="0.0269,0.0214"/>
		<multiply skill_level="50,60" value="0.0214,0.0170"/>
		<multiply skill_level="60,70" value="0.0170,0.0136"/>
		<multiply skill_level="70,80" value="0.0136,0.0108"/>
		<multiply skill_level="80,90" value="0.0108,0.0086"/>
		<multiply skill_level="91,100" value="0.0086,0.0005"/>
	</effect>
	<effect name="StaminaDegradation">
		<multiply skill_level="1,100" value="1,0.5"/>
	</effect>
</action_skill>

It combines both skills from vanilla, so I increase the block damage and the quality and the crafting time and so on, and I feed xp by using and crafting the item.

Kubikus · September 7, 2018

I know what you will say: "But Kubikus, now people can spamcraft and not only improve the quality of the item, but also the block damage! Your solution is poop!" Well, to begin with, my only issue with spamcrafting is that you had to do it. Just using the stone axe and only crafting a new one when it broke was not fast enough. Talking realism, I also believe that it makes sense that if someone crafts stone axes all day, their quality will improve and he will get more familiar with the tool, so he also is using it more effectively. But I still added a little something to counter spam crafting, which is a craft time:

<recipe name="stoneAxe" count="1" craft_time="60">
<ingredient name="branch" count="1"/>
<ingredient name="sharpStone" count="1"/>
<ingredient name="yuccaFibers" count="2"/>
</recipe>

Look at that beautiful recipe, btw, and compare with crude vanilla:

<recipe name="stoneAxe" count="1">
<ingredient name="rockSmall" count="4"/>
<ingredient name="yuccaFibers" count="2"/>
<ingredient name="wood" count="2"/>
</recipe>

Four rocks. Where do they go? How do you need two wood? Look at the stone axe model in your hand, where are the stones, where is the wood? What an ugly recipe.

Anyways: I counter spamcrafting with the craft time of 60 seconds. You practically can't spam craft anymore, it'd block your crafting queue. And since I have a lot more to craft (for example stone arrow heads, you can't just tie a rock you find on the ground to a stick and have an arrow), that is very impracticle. And who manages to micromanage all that: Dude, let em "spam"craft away, they deserve the benefits.

And now I would like you or anybody else tell me, how the solution the "Fun Pimps" use, which is "buy a perk", is in any shape or form fun, realistic/immersive or overall better than mine. Certainly might I overlook something, but until someone can show me, I can't help but find my solution superior by far. And it is even simpler. The (overly glorified) new player does not have to know they have to buy that certain perk, and they do not get blocked by annoying requirements. Craft a stone axe and use it, and that makes you better at it.

I have, btw, other solutions for other items.

Especially the people with strong opinions are not going to change them. When these opinions conform to the opinions of the developers, what does it help them? Nothing. If the opinions are contrary, what does that help them? Nothing, because it just means the vision of the developers differ from the vision this gamer with the strong opinion wants.

With strong opinion I mean an opinion that the one who has it can lay out in detail and that they can argue for eloquently. I'm not talking about stubbornness. And when someone knows exactly why they like something, that can help the devs to understand why something is liked. If they understand why something is liked, they can design the game to satisfy such a predilection. As many as possible. Instead of closing doors and nailing them shut.

What I and Morloc and Jedo, you and even the "mob" can contribute?

No. Why you guys have so little faith in yourselves that you believe you have NOTHING to contribute.

Apart from the bug hunt we will play the game from beginning to end, for hours. After actually playtesting the WHOLE game we can give our opinion what works and what not. And we can tell them how we played.

If for example 80% of all players stay on a roof at night doing nothing in A17 then they could decide to change something about that. Even if the players say they liked staying on the roof all night! But lets say now before A17 released dozens of players would say "Hey, from what I heard about A17 I'm sure I will stay on a roof all night and will be doing nothing." TFP would be mad to act on this. This is my point: Player's feedback before they played the game is worth nothing. What they do when they play the game for a while, that is valuable.

You illustrate your point with a completely absurd example. That strongly suggests that your point itself is absurd (just like Morlocs list of moronic comments). Because for good points, you have good examples. Like so:

When the devs decided to reduce backward sprinting speed immensely, they might not have thought about people who literally love to fight hordes of running zombies on the ground. They might've only thought about making melee more difficult. I'm not sure, but it is possible. So they might've overlooked something relevant to the design change. Had they announced the change before, I could've told them what I am now laying out afterwards, and they could've considered it. There are indications that they actually did not consider this. Kinyajuu for examples says that FPSish playstyles don't suffer. So it sounds much like he is not playing like me, because it clearly suffers. Gazz said he strafes mostly, so he might not be playing that way either. Joel only talked about melee when he mentioned the change. Nothing indicates they considered a playstyle, that is "much beloved" by at least a few players (but combined, certainly dozens, probably hundreds, maybe even thousands).

Making changes to changes afterwards, might be problematic, because the architecture of the change was not designed to easily allow the desired alteration, and might lead to the devs arguing against it overall. That's human nature. If something is inconvenient, your brain starts producing arguments not to do it. Cuz always remember: They're men. Not gods. And if it only affects a few, it is all the more "plausible" not to invest the effort.

Furhtermore, if they announced the change beforehand, along with a reason why they want to change it, what their intention is, like, I believe, in this case making melee more difficult, experienced players might have an alternative solution, as I provided one by suggesting to have the player accelerate when starting to sprint. If the player needs two seconds to get to full speed, the intended difficultisation of melee would be achieved, while the beloved playstyle would still work.

On top of that. "Even" said playstyle could've been questioned and overhauled. Reasonably, cuz now, it is not "realistic", as Staff and some players advertise it as. It'd be realistic to move backwards much faster. I would not at all mind to make that more challenging and more realistic, as long as it still works. I would be fine with reducing backward sprinting speed to a reasonable value.

Is there one bit of useful information in all above?

Of course.

You used "of course" to denote something which is obvious.

See.

So no need to tell them, obvious is also obvious to them.

We're talking about wether or not I'm able to know things, how I like things, before they happen. Not "them". You insist I can't know if I will miss a beloved feature that is being removed. It'd be merely speculation. If I have a dog and love it much, I could not be certain I'd be sad if it died.

That's your logic.

But the interesting question is what will the mass of players do with the whole game if this or that small part is missing or added? No feature is an island (except for players who are only interested in one small feature instead of the whole game)

The game certainly won't break, if that's what you're asking.

I hope I could show you above that this is absolutely, definitely and glaringly wrong.

Just because you might indeed have 1 weak argument, I'm not the wrongest person in the known universe, so calm down a little. See, another upside of discussing upcoming features is that person A can show person B an advantage of the feature B did not notice by themselves. And you contributed to my enlightenment, so be proud of yourself, your feedback is valuable.

Explain? The most often cited reason is "I like looting zombies". Now if that reason were enough, a game having just a large area full of lootable zombie corpses would have to be a massive success. And strangely for a few players it really is, the success of games like "Cookie Clicker" demonstrates that. But TFP does not want to produce a cookie clicker game and because of that reasons like "I like looting zombies" are nearly worthless to TFP, at least at this point in time, before anyone really has played the game.

Actually, people explain quite well why they are in favor of loot. Yes, it is simply fun to loot corpses and be happy to find something good. Because some zombies drop really good stuff, weapons, tools, materials. Getting the loot is itself a reason why people like looting zombies, as it gives you stuff, is a resource, just like loot you get from trashbags and other containers. Another guy argues that on servers static containers can often be empty, so zombies are a good source. Having a source for fat, rotten flesh and bones is another argument I heard multiple times.

They are a great source if TFP needs information about how much iron you need in end game. They are a terrible source if TFP needs information about how a novice player would feel in the game at any time. I have hundreds of hours in the game. I never ever will feel like a novice again, the best I can do is trying to remember bits and pieces of playing a different version of this game a long time ago.

According to that logic, the company should only allow people design the game, that know it for < 100 hours. Fire the dev team every 3 weeks.

Feedback from people who know the game well is valuable. However, feedback from people who are new is either.

**Roland** · September 8, 2018

Example? I note that, in 1 sentence, among many more, that deal with the thread topic, and a mod shows up and write a fairly lengthy post only about that 1 sentence, denying it is true. No "hm...", no "yeah, but...".

Instead "No!" If I was using unsubtle phrasing, I could say he's beatin my criticism to crap.

wut?

Kubikus · September 8, 2018

wut?

Sure.

In 1 sentence, that is part of a much longer post, I criticise moderation a bit. You pick up that 1 sentence - ignore most of the rest of the post, cept you kindly examine the xml-files, as I asked - , and write a fairly lengthy post to declare my criticism wrong. You, as I phrased it in my unconventional style, "beat my criticism to crap", instead of considering that it might be valid.

So the way you deal with my criticism is an example of what I criticise and - isn't it ironic? - evidence that my criticism is valid. Not proof, certainly, but it is not the only evidence and example, however, I did and do not wish to have a lengthy discussion about it, that would lead this thread off topic.

Speaking of XML: Might you be willing and allowed to share some more information about those? To pass the time? I'd be interested in an array of things. Could you maybe even provide the complete xml-files, so I can have a look? Certainly, other modders would be interested too. If any of that is possible, I suggest you open a thread in the modding forum or prompt me to do so.

Sign In

is A17 removing the much beloved run and gun aspect?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Archived