is A17 removing the much beloved run and gun aspect?

[Kubikus]

Yeah, we openend so many sub-topics and found so many differences of opinion here and there. And sadly we only resolved a few. We have to agree to disagree on a lot of this.

 

It wouldn't be sad if we just disagreed, what's sad is that you dismiss my positions without proper arguments. That makes it look like you had no actual arguments. If you have no actual arguments, why oppose what I say?

 

They don't think they are artists like a movie director is? I'm pretty sure some of them think of themselves as artists. I obviously can't say anything about what TFP developers think. But even courts of law have accepted some games as works of art.

 

I'm not sure what they think, but I think they taylor their art so that it sells well. That is an art that depends on the outside, and not on the inside. Pure art, while of course inspired from outside, is an expression of the within. Pure artists express their impression. Our devs compromise a lot. And when they compromise to please the customer, it'd make sense to try to please as many customers as possible. Logic 101.

 

Success and money is surely one of their motivations, making the game they envisioned and want to play themselves is another big motivation. But whatever motivation you look at, they probably won't listen to your opinion BEFORE you haven't even played the (new) game. Because even if we just look at the money, one or a few grumpy voices in a forum do not make a game fail.

 

One or a few grumpy voices in a forum speak for many more who do not take the time to sign up and write a post.

 

Nearly every change has a few people lamenting in the forum that the game is worse for it, or that they will surely stop playing, or that it will make the game fail. You actually might be right, but they won't believe you because too many forum posters have cried wolf over the years. Only the hard facts, people protesting and abandoning the game in masses after playing the new version (or the absence of that) will show them if they were right or wrong.

 

It's not that simple. For example will I certainly continue playing if they remove backward sprinting, even though it is a core aspect of my playstyle. My dissatisfaction would not be measurable. My dissatisfaction might not even become measurable, if they messed the game up to a degree that I find it unplayable, because I could still go back to an older alpha and enjoy that. For example, I consider to make a mod for A12, when the game was running really good, and not drop below 30 frames as soon as I have 30+ zombies around.

 

And I think the "informed" decision isn't that informed, because people who haven't played with the changes and don't know about everything else that changed don't really know what they are talking about.

 

Yes, they do. It is the power of the brain. Why do you think zombies crave it so much? They're smarter than you think.

 

And even if we suppose that one of them does exactly know how he will be reacting to the change (talking about you here) and TFP believes him they still might not believe all the rest of the detractors.

 

You do not have to "believe" anything I say. I layed out in detail how and why I like backward sprinting. It is logical how and why I like it. It is indeed a matter of taste, other people like to sit in their base at night and feed ammo to their auto turrets. But it is nice and easy to comprehend that and why I like backward sprinting.

 

If TFP decides to make a poll (with discussion, people will post their opinion and discuss it in the forum anyway) whenever they change something and

 

a) the change would normally not be moddable back because of taking the shortest route to implement it

b) and they think it unimportant

c) but with a reasonable/acceptable effort it could be made moddable back

d) and making it moddable afterwards is a lot more work than making it moddable before the change

 

I would be ok with that. But for it to give a benefit to TFP the following must also be true for a sizable portion of all changes they put up for polling:

 

e) the poll or discussion shows the players think it is important

f) and it really turns out to be important after people have played it

 

And I don't think there is a sizable portion there.

 

I would be ok with it, I'm not against getting asked and I want modding to be as powerful as possible.

 

See. And that's all I'm suggesting.

 

And a,b,c and d would already eliminate a lot of changes from getting polled. And there is also the psychologicla thing that it is harder to convince TFP to make something moddable afterwards when they already have thrown out relevant code or didn't do the effort before.

 

But do I think it would be worth it for TFP? Or do I think it would change development or the end product in a big way? No and no.

 

What does that even mean, "worth it"? Financially? Probably not. And what's a "big way"? Changing the game fundamentaly? Probably not. If that's how you think and argue, I can easily top that with "it's just a game, who gives a damn". It's a first world problem. We don't even have to talk about it. It's so irrelevant, when you think about actual problems. I mean, people are starving, and we debate about some obscure feature of an obscure game. It's pathetic.

 

*whispers*: But if you do think about it, everything I said is true. And your counterarguments are very weak. It would not be a problem to engage the playerbase before making changes. It would be reasonable. I hear they sometimes do it in the "dev diary", where 20,000 posts are crammed into one thread. And if they have time to follow that mess of a thread, it would be no problem whatsoever to follow a properly organized forum, where, for example, only staff could start threads. Maybe with a function to upvote replies like on reddit, so the most relevant are exposed. There simply is no good reason that speaks against my suggestion.

 

And that's why this conversation has to end here. Of course you may still respond, but unless you surprise me with some really good arguments, you may not expect another reply from me, cuz I'm bored outta my mind here.

 

 

 

You rebutted an imagined argument that sprinting backwards didn't happen. If that's what you think I said, then I see where our communication problems lie.

 

Strange that you would invoke Simon Cowell. Tell me how [uh...that one venture of his that didn't work out] worked out? (Hint: about as well as your assumptions.)

 

Alright, let's take you seriously. You said in response to the clip

 

My point is that the person wasn't really sprinting backwards, at least not a significant amount in the overall time of the interactions with the zombies. In that case, how can you claim that that is an entire style which has been removed?

 

like sprinting backwards was not relevant ("significant") in the clip. Then I make my analysis, showing that the person was sprinting backwards in every segment but one, that yes, the person was "collecting" zombies in one sequence, sprinting forward, but still backward sprinting was essential when taking them down. That overall, the clip is indeed a solid example of the playstyle I'm talking about. Which you deny. Which is strange. And obviously false.

 

So, what that you intended to say, or in your opinion did say, did I not properly consider?

 

Your remark about relative speed is unreasonable:

 

On a different track, motion is relative. The zombies' clearly moved faster than the player could move backwards (didn't usually catch them because they died quickly), then the player had to adjust course. If the rate of change between the players and the zombies remains the same with the removal of backward sprinting, then I fail to see how there is a perceivable change on the player's part.

 

You speculate that the speed of running zombies might be adjusted so that a backward walking player would still be faster. I could've argued for why I assume that's not going to happen, but it seemed too obvious. Here I go, eventually: Cuz the running zombies would be really slow then. They would not run anymore. Since running zombies is a core game mechanic, it's not only unlikely that it's going to be change, it is certain.

 

Do you know reverse psychology..? An advanced technique is the announced reversed psychology, check it out, bro: Am I right to assume that you'll have some kind of obscure reason not to discuss the issue further..?

 

 

Changes are quite often announced in the dev diary and people can provide feedback.

Better than nothing. Myself, however, can I not be bothered to follow that thread and I dare to suspect I'm not the only one. It's a mess.

 

A case of "I hate this" and a feature being canceled has about a 0.00000001% chance of occurring.

And even when those who hate the change argue eloquently for their perspective, the chance is much lower than it would be before a change was actually put in the game. For various reasons, including psychological ones. That's why it would be smart to discuss planned changes upfront.

[Katitof]

Beloved?

People complained always that Zs are too easy to deal with, isn't that a perfect solution?

[Jedo]

I'll see your friendly whisper and raise you a friendly edit.

 

Where's the line there? I didn't think that my political reference had crossed over into a "political view." Would I not be allowed to say, "You're as crooked as Nixon"?

 

Then I make my analysis, showing that the person was sprinting backwards in every segment but one, that yes, the person was "collecting" zombies in one sequence, sprinting forward, but still backward sprinting was essential when taking them down. That overall, the clip is indeed a solid example of the playstyle I'm talking about. Which you deny. Which is strange. And obviously false.

 

So, what that you intended to say, or in your opinion did say, did I not properly consider?

 

I said the word "time" in there. The point being that the backward sprinting happened for 2-3 seconds at a time before strafing or forward moving or circling or stopping happened. (In the nurse clip near the beginning was the only time when there was prolonged backward movement of between 6-10 seconds.) You're telling me that you don't think that in A17 you will be able to aggro zombies and move backward for 2-3 second intervals before killing them or needing to move differently? Strange indeed.

 

You speculate that the speed of running zombies might be adjusted so that a backward walking player would still be faster. I could've argued for why I assume that's not going to happen, but it seemed too obvious. Here I go, eventually: Cuz the running zombies would be really slow then. They would not run anymore. Since running zombies is a core game mechanic, it's not only unlikely that it's going to be change, it is certain.

 

Well, player movement overall has been sped up, so if base speed has been increased anywhere close to the current backward sprinting speed, zombie running speed wouldn't need to be altered much. Of course, since backward movement only needs to happen for 2-3 seconds at a time for your playstyle, I'm not sure that the argument of relative motion is that important any more.

 

Do you know reverse psychology..? An advanced technique is the announced reversed psychology, check it out, bro: Am I right to assume that you'll have some kind of obscure reason not to discuss the issue further..?

 

Now you're moving into uncivil territory. There's no need for that.

[A Nice Cup of Tea]

Changes are quite often announced in the dev diary and people can provide feedback.

 

That doesn't mean it will affect the design but there B]are [/b] cases where an outside-the-box idea was used... or sparked an idea that was used to expand on an existing concept.

 

Every time I think of something, and by coincidence it happens to be how you were going to do it anyway, I'll now feel smug and assume that I sparked your ideas. Even if I never actually suggested them out loud.

 

That's just how influential I am.

[Gazz]

Confidence is important!

 

That one time as a student I held a presentation in front of the class but naturally I had been gaming all night. So I had like nothing.

 

The prof commended me on how calm and confident I could present complete BS. It was an honest and accurate critique.

 

That's not all I do at TFP but it does help that when you do have a good idea, you're not easily cowed if The Boss is thinking different.

[Prisma501]

Dunno. Not my gamestyle.

 

So nothing i personally would miss there.

 

Cheers

[Roland]

Where's the line there? I didn't think that my political reference had crossed over into a "political view." Would I not be allowed to say, "You're as crooked as Nixon"?

 

You made a political statement about a movement that Trump was involved with to make your point. Based on past experience there would be at least another person who would come on and ignore the point you were trying to make and instead rail against you for your statement on the movement itself. That would be followed by others and the thread would be derailed. I have no doubt that that is exactly what would happen.

 

Nixon was long enough ago that there MIGHT not be any blowback to that statement but I always err on the side of the rules which states NO politics on the forums is allowed. So please follow the rules and use nonpolitical examples as analogies

[Morloc]

Beloved?

People complained always that Zs are too easy to deal with, isn't that a perfect solution?

 

When I hear someone use the word "beloved" that much, I get the impression that they live in the woods...

 

...in a gingerbread house.

 

 

-Morloc

[Jedo]

You made a political statement about a movement that Trump was involved with to make your point. Based on past experience there would be at least another person who would come on and ignore the point you were trying to make and instead rail against you for your statement on the movement itself. That would be followed by others and the thread would be derailed. I have no doubt that that is exactly what would happen.

 

Nixon was long enough ago that there MIGHT not be any blowback to that statement but I always err on the side of the rules which states NO politics on the forums is allowed. So please follow the rules and use nonpolitical examples as analogies

 

Fair enough. I see that we have different definitions of what constitutes "politics," so now I know.

 

The rules also say that "commentary on forum moderation must be done by direct personal message to the mods and not as public posts in the forums." I thought you might give leeway on that rule, and I'm glad that you did. I thought that your answer might be instructive for others, hence asking publicly.

[Kubikus]

I said the word "time" in there. The point being that the backward sprinting happened for 2-3 seconds at a time before strafing or forward moving or circling or stopping happened. (In the nurse clip near the beginning was the only time when there was prolonged backward movement of between 6-10 seconds.)

 

In most of the sequences, killing a zombie takes only 2-3 seconds, and using other movements does not make backward sprinting insignificant or downright irrelevant. And if that's not what you're trying to say, I don't know what it is.

 

Observe when the person fires. They mostly fire when they are sprinting backwards and have zombies follow. They, I think in the lengthy sequence where zombies are being "collected", also fire when moving forward or sideways a few times, but it is not very accurate. The key to the playstyle is lining up zombies in front of you, while running backwards, and then shooting them down. With headshots, preferably. If you never tried, you might lack the imagination to simulate it, but as soon as you actually try it, what I am talking about and what you see in the video will come to you naturally.

 

You're telling me that you don't think that in A17 you will be able to aggro zombies and move backward for 2-3 second intervals before killing them or needing to move differently? Strange indeed.

 

You seem to assume that I believe that running zombies can't be dealt with when backward sprinting is removed. A mistake. I will have no problem to kill running zombies on the ground in A17. I said that multiple times in this thread already, and layed out multiple methods how it can be done. Since I like action, I assume I will just use a shotgun instead of a pistol, and find other ways to satisfy my passion for precision. Ohter games, if necessary, or an earlier alpha. I was thinking about making a fun mod for A12, when the game was still running great with 100+ zombies around.

 

Anyways, what I am saying is that the playstyle in question is fun. And what is fun is what you see in the video, where the person is sprinting backwards and while doing so killing zombies. Because the clip is, as I said, "fit to illustrate the much beloved aspect in question".

 

Well, player movement overall has been sped up, so if base speed has been increased anywhere close to the current backward sprinting speed, zombie running speed wouldn't need to be altered much.

 

Sure, "if". But as I said, that makes no sense. You know it does not. Running zombies, slower than the players backward walking speed? C'mon.

 

Of course, since backward movement only needs to happen for 2-3 seconds at a time for your playstyle, I'm not sure that the argument of relative motion is that important any more.

 

For my playstyle you need to be able to sprint backwards for as long as you like. There also is a difference between fighting a handful of trash mobs or 50 ferals and dogs on horde night. Ferals and dogs are much faster, trashmobs have a speed of "1.1", the feral has "1.3something" and dogs should be "1.6". Feral is now called wig or something. These guys are literally glued to your butt, if you just run away, you need 10 seconds and more to create enough space so you can turn around and fire a few shots. It's no fun at all, you run more than you fight, while the beloved playstyle combines both.

 

Now you're moving into uncivil territory. There's no need for that.

 

Since you invited me over, I didn't want to be inpolite.

[Jedo]

In most of the sequences, killing a zombie takes only 2-3 seconds, and using other movements does not make backward sprinting insignificant or downright irrelevant.

 

It does as far as the changes are concerned. The backward sprinter in that video either kills or is caught after a short interval. If you are able to do the same (I'm contending that you can) in A17, then there is no problem.

 

For my playstyle you need to be able to sprint backwards for as long as you like.

 

This already is not a thing, and will continue not being a thing in A17. None of the changes mentioned for A17 suggest that you will not be able to do what you already can do.

 

You can drop the "you must not understand" lines. It isn't as though this playstyle is a mystery. I would liken it to jumping off a building and firing upward at your enemies (as they fall toward you, to complete the image). It's cool. There's a sense of prowess and adrenaline associated with it because it's more difficult than standing in place and picking off targets (moving or otherwise). My understanding of your playstyle is fine.

[Morloc]

There's always

if things don't work out...

 

It takes the hassle of keeping your opponent at just the right range by creating an arbitrary boundary for you to navigate. The general "left & right" movement should feel gloriously familiar. As with 7D2D, the enemies can reach you, though a little clever footwork and marksmanship and everything's cool.

 

That's a pretty old game though, vector instead of voxel etc. Unsure on availability.

 

 

-Morloc

[Kubikus]

It does as far as the changes are concerned. The backward sprinter in that video either kills or is caught after a short interval.

 

But that's not true. Simply. In the sequence with the nurse, it takes fairly long until the nurse is dead and the person is sprinting backwards for quite a long time and in the lengthy sequence with the large group, we do not see the end of it, so the sprinter neither kills, nor are they caught after a short interval. I also mentioned that there are much faster enemies, dogs, ferals, and that you have situations with a lot more zombies, on horde night, where you're being chased by 50 and more. You can't kill 50 and more in 2-3 seconds, and if you continue sprinting backward, you don't get cought.

 

You would - sorry - understand all of that if you simply tried it yourself. Just activate god mode and you'll see. Or have you argued yourself into one of those corners, where you cannot let go of your false opinion anymore, come what may..?

 

If you are able to do the same (I'm contending that you can) in A17, then there is no problem.

 

But you can't do the same thing. You cannot sprint backwards for 1 second anymore, not for 2-3 seconds and not for much longer. What you see in the clip is no longer possible, and if you like doing that, then it is a problem.

 

This already is not a thing, and will continue not being a thing in A17. None of the changes mentioned for A17 suggest that you will not be able to do what you already can do.

 

What? lol Dude, you can sprint backwards in A16. And you can sprint backwards for as long as you want, well, not years, but with a stack of beer you can sprint through the night.

 

And in A17, you can no longer sprint backwards at all. Maybe you missed that info..?

 

You can drop the "you must not understand" lines. It isn't as though this playstyle is a mystery. I would liken it to jumping off a building and firing upward at your enemies (as they fall toward you, to complete the image). It's cool. There's a sense of prowess and adrenaline associated with it because it's more difficult than standing in place and picking off targets (moving or otherwise). My understanding of your playstyle is fine.

 

You say you do, but everything else you say sounds like you don't.

 

Strange!

[meganoth]

You would - sorry - understand all of that if you simply tried it yourself. Just activate god mode and you'll see. Or have you argued yourself into one of those corners, where you cannot let go of your false opinion anymore, come what may..?

 

Are you really suggesting to try something out to form an opinion? Welcome to the dark side.

[Jedo]

But that's not true. Simply. In the sequence with the nurse, it takes fairly long until the nurse is dead and the person is sprinting backwards for quite a long time and in the lengthy sequence with the large group, we do not see the end of it, so the sprinter neither kills, nor are they caught after a short interval. I also mentioned that there are much faster enemies, dogs, ferals, and that you have situations with a lot more zombies, on horde night, where you're being chased by 50 and more. You can't kill 50 and more in 2-3 seconds, and if you continue sprinting backward, you don't get cought.

 

I already said that the nurse was an exception. Exceptions don't define rules. Furthermore, you presented this video evidence, and I am contending with it. If it is not representative or you think that there is better evidence, then you should share it.

 

You would - sorry - understand all of that if you simply tried it yourself. Just activate god mode and you'll see. Or have you argued yourself into one of those corners, where you cannot let go of your false opinion anymore, come what may..?

 

No opinions here. I'm arguing about evidence, facts, and reason. I could be interpreting things incorrectly or not have all the evidence, but this isn't about my opinion. Maybe you forgot what I already said?

Personally, I don't care about this playstyle or that playstyle, so I don't feel a need to try them. I'm sure things that I used to do have been affected. *shrug* I'm not really against this playstyle, and I'm fairly indifferent to the change itself. What I am is skeptical of the arguments used in opposition to TFP's changes.

 

 

But you can't do the same thing. You cannot sprint backwards for 1 second anymore, not for 2-3 seconds and not for much longer. What you see in the clip is no longer possible, and if you like doing that, then it is a problem.

 

This would go back to the relative motion stuff...

 

What? lol Dude, you can sprint backwards in A16. And you can sprint backwards for as long as you want, well, not years, but with a stack of beer you can sprint through the night.

 

And in A17, you can no longer sprint backwards at all. Maybe you missed that info..?

 

This was part of why I stopped engaging: seemingly intentional misunderstanding. Obviously you can sprint backwards in A16 and you can't sprint backwards in A17. It seems that you are trying to win an argument by being as exceedingly arrogant and obtuse as possible. You think that I'm not aware of what we've been arguing about for close to 8 pages?

[Kubikus]

I already said that the nurse was an exception. Exceptions don't define rules. Furthermore, you presented this video evidence, and I am contending with it. If it is not representative or you think that there is better evidence, then you should share it.

 

 

 

No opinions here. I'm arguing about evidence, facts, and reason. I could be interpreting things incorrectly or not have all the evidence, but this isn't about my opinion. Maybe you forgot what I already said?

 

 

 

 

This would go back to the relative motion stuff...

 

 

 

This was part of why I stopped engaging: seemingly intentional misunderstanding. Obviously you can sprint backwards in A16 and you can't sprint backwards in A17. It seems that you are trying to win an argument by being as exceedingly arrogant and obtuse as possible. You think that I'm not aware of what we've been arguing about for close to 8 pages?

Ever heard of agreeing to disagree..? I disagree that you know what you're talking about, and I don't think me explaining it another 50 times will make a difference. The playstyle I talk about is shown in the clip, if you don't get it: Alrighty then.

[Jedo]

Ever heard of agreeing to disagree..? I disagree that you know what you're talking about, and I don't think me explaining it another 50 times will make a difference. The playstyle I talk about is shown in the clip, if you don't get it: Alrighty then.

 

And I disagree that you have provided sufficient evidence to support your position. As Roland says, we'll leave our arguments here and let others decide for themselves.

[Kubikus]

And I disagree that you have provided sufficient evidence to support your position. As Roland says, we'll leave our arguments here and let others decide for themselves.

I mean, even your point is completely unclear. Evidence to support my position? My position is that what you see in the clip is fun. To do. What else is there? You basically say "no". To what even? "No, this not fun"? Of course it's fun. Of course it's way to play, aka a playstyle. I've seen it in dozens of videos, btw, many by games4kicks, and z nation ffs and Max Fox. Then you say it's... Irrelevant? Insignificant? There is no evidence for it?

 

I mean... What are you even talking about?

[Kubikus]

Oh, I missed you there.

Are you really suggesting to try something out to form an opinion? Welcome to the dark side.

Yeah but you see, the difference is that Jedo talks about something he never did, and what you refer to is me, knowing that I won't like that something I like doing is being removed. You argue like I could not know how loosing my legs would feel. Maybe I would like it, you argue. No. I wouldn't like it. I might still find happiness in life, but I'd sure miss walking.

[Jedo]

I mean, even your point is completely unclear. Evidence to support my position? My position is that what you see in the clip is fun. To do. What else is there? You basically say "no". To what even? "No, this not fun"? Of course it's fun. Of course it's way to play, aka a playstyle. I've seen it in dozens of videos, btw, many by games4kicks, and z nation ffs and Max Fox. Then you say it's... Irrelevant? Insignificant? There is no evidence for it?

 

I mean... What are you even talking about?

 

There you go again, being obtuse. Seriously? Your arguments have been about "it is fun"? The content of my arguments for eight pages has been "it's not fun"? It's good that we're ceasing our discussion because you lack some basic comprehension skills.

 

Go back and read the discussion you started with Roland in this thread if you don't know what we (you and I and meganoth) have been talking about. Heck, you can just glance at the top of the page where the title asks a question.

[Kubikus]

There you go again, being obtuse. Seriously?

I swear on my life that I have no idea what your point is.

 

Your arguments have been about "it is fun"?

Yes, I argued that sprinting backwards is fun. I admitted that in it's current form it's unrealistic, and I admitted that you can fight running zombies on the ground without sprinting backwards. Just that it's not (as much) fun.

 

What do you think I argued for..?

 

The content of my arguments for eight pages has been "it's not fun"? It's good that we're ceasing our discussion because you lack some basic comprehension skills.

That's always easy to say, but it would be much more impressive if you could lay out in a few simple words what the content of your argument actually is. Because I basically say I don't know. I don't know what you argue against or for. Fun? Necessity?

 

Go back and read the discussion you started with Roland in this thread if you don't know what we (you and I and meganoth) have been talking about. Heck, you can just glance at the top of the page where the title asks a question.

I know what I and mega are talking about. How about you take a short break from your ad hominen and just write a paragraph laying out what your point is. What you argue for or against. I'm not a native speaker, your point might very well not reach me. I doubt it, but it's possible.

[meganoth]

Yeah but you see, the difference is that Jedo talks about something he never did, and what you refer to is me, knowing that I won't like that something I like doing is being removed. You argue like I could not know how loosing my legs would feel. Maybe I would like it, you argue. No. I wouldn't like it. I might still find happiness in life, but I'd sure miss walking.

 

Well, you are also talking about something you never did, fighting on foot with zombies in A17. A17 with a lot of stuff changed, especially zombie behaviour and weapon handling. You are totally sure that those other changes have no perceptible influence on this part of the game. I am not so sure, I would say you are probably right and that is not enough. And even if you are right it has to be seen if all the changes together lead to positive effects that we can't see yet and make it worth it, even for you.

 

PS: Since you faulted me for hyperbole arguments let me point out that comparing it to loosing your leg is a hyperbole argument as well, right?

[Kubikus]

Well, you are also talking about something you never did, fighting on foot with zombies in A17. A17 with a lot of stuff changed, especially zombie behaviour and weapon handling. You are totally sure that those other changes have no perceptible influence on this part of the game. I am not so sure, I would say you are probably right and that is not enough. And even if you are right it has to be seen if all the changes together lead to positive effects that we can't see yet and make it worth it, even for you.

To begin with do I have no doubt that A17 will be worth playing. The game won't be ruined with the removal of backward sprinting. And I believe to have learned how to mod it back in.

 

And then, I am not totally sure that those other changes have no percetible influence on this part of the game. You'll never quote me saying that. You can quote me saying that I like that certain feature and will miss it when it's gone. Because I really really really like that certain feature. I like that certain feature one hell of a lot, enough to build a whole mod around it, that I played for at least 150 hours. So to make it clear: I really love that feature. It is - for me - among the best things of the game. That's why I know that I will miss it, even if A17 will bring me another type of joy.

 

Another little thingy I noticed: I don't necessarily think that everybody would have to try fighting running zombies on the ground to understand what I'm talking about. It is not necessarily necessary. But since I can't help the feeling that Jedo does not understand it, I suggest that he should try it out. Because then he would - probably - understand. Others will be able to understand it by a description alone or the clip I linked. So doing it is not at all mandatory.

 

PS: Since you faulted me for hyperbole arguments let me point out that comparing it to loosing your leg is a hyperbole argument as well, right?

 

Hmm... Now that I think about it, I made a mistake calling these statements of yours "hyperboles", because a hyperbole is actually a figure of speech, here's the definition:

 

hyperbole

[hahy-pur-buh-lee]

noun Rhetoric.

 

obvious and intentional exaggeration.

an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

 

Here is an example of one of your hyperboles:

 

In EA a developer experiments with features, puts them in and if he doesn't like them removes them again. That is the central point of experimentation. If you demand protection of features just because they were in the game once you are practically restricting the developer to freely experiment with the game. I'm not surprised they don't want to give the players this power.

 

You do not obviously and intentionally exeggerate. You exeggerate and present your exeggeration as a fact. You behave like my request and suggestion, to leave beloved features moddable, would literally restrict the developer to freely experiment with the game. And that is not true at all, they could still do whatever the hell they want.

 

I was wrong to use the word hyperbole. You are using exeggerations, and intend them to be taken literall and want me to counter them, like they were actual arguments.

 

My hyperbole with the missing legs is there to illustrate that I can forsee how I'd react to a severe restriction in mobility. I don't have to loose my legs first to be able to know I'll miss walking. You can understand that, because you love walking too, while you might not be able to understand how I can know I won't like the removal of backward sprinting, because you don't use it.

[meganoth]

You behave like my request and suggestion, to leave beloved features moddable, would literally restrict the developer to freely experiment with the game. And that is not true at all, they could still do whatever the hell they want.

 

That paragraph you cited was a direct reply to a paragraph in which you stated "In any case, yes, I believe that if possible, all kinds of playstyles should be protected" and that is in its generality a different statement than above. And that was in reply to a **general** statement by me that said: ""playstyle" as a word is used much too often in this forum. Every single action anyone does can be styled a "playstyle" and then protection of that demanded."

 

In that first statement I was not talking about your beloved feature-moddable request at all, but about the general misuse of the word "playstyle" and the demands to not change at all because of being "my playstyle"

 

That is the danger of parallel discussion on multiple topics in a forum, somewhere inbetween the original train of thought on many of these topics gets lost.

[Kubikus]

That paragraph you cited was a direct reply to a paragraph in which you stated "In any case, yes, I believe that if possible, all kinds of playstyles should be protected" and that is in its generality a different statement than above. And that was in reply to a **general** statement by me that said: ""playstyle" as a word is used much too often in this forum. Every single action anyone does can be styled a "playstyle" and then protection of that demanded."

 

In that first statement I was not talking about your beloved feature-moddable request at all, but about the general misuse of the word "playstyle" and the demands to not change at all because of being "my playstyle"

 

That is the danger of parallel discussion on multiple topics in a forum, somewhere inbetween the original train of thought on many of these topics gets lost.

 

"Demand" is another of your hy... oops, exeggerations. The quote I used is just one of several examples. See, I expect that you read my posts as a whole, and try to understand what my viewpoint is. I expect of you to be... complaisant in a discussion. I don't need you to be on the hunt for mistakes I certainly make, for stuff that you can interpret to "my disadvantage". I want you to assume I'm a reasonable person who says reasonable things. Had you that attitude towards me, you would've understood that when I speak of "protection", I mean moddability.

 

And in that post you mention, actually in part two, I write this lengthy double paragraph about what I mean, here comes the quote:

 

And yes, I want to have influence insofar that I want the option to mod features, that I have in the game for years, and that possibly are a lot of fun for me, back in if they take them out. And I do not understand why the devs would not want to give us that power. Maybe except if they do not have the time, but I kinda doubt they do not have the time, because they obviously take whatever time they need.

 

Yes, it is their game, but their game is not a hobby, it is not even a piece of art like an "actual artist's". It is a product. That is created to be sold to make money. I am quite certain that a lot of changes were made to sell the game better, for example graphical changes, that decrease the performance drastically. But a good looking game sells better. Dumbing down is another such area, making crafting more simple, gathering material more simple, making the upgrade path more simple, making sure that people don't get frustrated when they don't unlock every recipes within a few ingame days. From the business perspective, it would be a smart move to give the player every power possible. because it increase the probability that players stay long term and therefor recommend the game to more people. And outside time, there is no reason not to make every change a modding option, particularly when it's a "much beloved" feature. Like 1 block ingress was. Why not have a simple property in the player entity class "1 block ingress yes/no"? For people who don't want to spend 50 hours learning how to use a third party software that might (or might not) allow them to bring that back.

So when you read me saying that, and directly afterwards argue that my "demands" and the "obligations" that I allegedly believe the devs have, practically make development of the game impossible, it looks much like there is no actual interest in even recognizing my viewpoint. But an actual interest to twist my viewpoint around, so it sounds like some utter absurdity.

 

What for?

 

Btw. I have now actually found a way to mod the speed of backward movement. This is the principle:

 

https://7daystodie.com/forums/showthread.php?41860-Crouching-Through-1-Block-Tall-Spaces-UABE

 

Just that you search for "PlayerRun" and change the entry "MotorBackwardsSpeed". For me, a value of 0.6 feels nice, vanilla currently has 0.8. Obviously I haven't tested it much. This should be in an easy to access xml-file. Why not? I might've not written more than "I don't like it, but since it can be modded, it's ok I guess" in this thread. Maybe I would've argued why I believe that simply removing backward sprinting is a bad decision in general, but our discussion would quite probably not have happened.