Vehicles on Horde night

[RestInPieces]

This is something I can't talk about. That is all.

 

Suspicious - should we get hyped?

[Guppycur]

What's the difference between these tactics and simply logging out at 21:59?

[OzHawkeye]

What's the difference between these tactics and simply logging out at 21:59?

 

Not a half bad point that - there will always be a way to avoid the horde.

[Guppycur]

Not a half bad point that - there will always be a way to avoid the horde.

 

I just don't get why people give a crap how or what other people do.

[skullpoker]

And if you dislike certain things, you can still mod it.

 

You negated the rest of your post with this. The game currently contains things that many people enjoy. If you don't like those things, learn to mod.

[OzHawkeye]

I just don't get why people give a crap how or what other people do.

 

I couldn't agree more Guppy - it's why I've never understood the angst of some over underground bases. If someone wants to go full molerat, how does that affect anyone else? Likewise and perhaps more on point for A17, if someone wants to play flyboy through an entire horde night, that's their choice too.

 

I'm not sure TFP's efforts to make underground bases less secure (for example) is even a good goal to have, let alone an achievable one.

[RestInPieces]

What's the difference between these tactics and simply logging out at 21:59?

Not a half bad point that - there will always be a way to avoid the horde.

 

Is it? One could also avoid the horde by playing on creative and going for a cup of coffee, taking a stroll in the park instead of playing and many other ways. TFP could hire some muscle to deal with people doing that, or tbh they can't, so at least I believe that they have to make sure that players have a motive to interact with the game's content when they are actually playing. A simple, painless way to avoid horde nights kind of takes away the motive to interact with horde nights, build defenses and much of the content in the game in general.

 

I just don't get why people give a crap how or what other people do.

 

There's nothing that can't be explained, especially when it comes to how people react. If you can't explain it, perhaps it just isn't there.

[OzHawkeye]

Is it? One could also avoid the horde by playing on creative and going for a cup of coffee, taking a stroll in the park instead of playing and many other ways. TFP could hire some muscle to deal with people doing that, or tbh they can't, so at least I believe that they have to make sure that players have a motive to interact with the game's content when they are actually playing. A simple, painless way to avoid horde nights kind of takes away the motive to interact with horde nights, build defenses and much of the content in the game in general.

 

 

 

There's nothing that can't be explained, especially when it comes to how people react. If you can't explain it, perhaps it just isn't there.

 

There has to be a certain level of playing to your own preferences, and to the game supporting multiple playing preferences. Some people are going to want a big above ground base and will look forward to defending it intensely from the weekly horde. Others will want an underground base that largely disables that mechanics, still others will want something in between.

 

If the game supports multiple playstyles its likely to be more successful with more people than if it just supports one style only. Of course, there can be only so many play styles supported, but if it's more than 1, then it's up to the player to choose not to indulge in a mechanic that doesn't match their play style.

 

ie/ if flying the copter around during horde night defeats even the new Horde AI, then people who don't like that, shouldn't do it (as opposed to the Pimps making the copter magically not work during horde nights). I imagine those players who want safe underground bases would make a very similar argument.

[RestInPieces]

There has to be a certain level of playing to your own preferences, and to the game supporting multiple playing preferences. Some people are going to want a big above ground base and will look forward to defending it intensely from the weekly horde. Others will want an underground base that largely disables that mechanics, still others will want something in between.

 

If the game supports multiple playstyles its likely to be more successful with more people than if it just supports one style only. Of course, there can be only so many play styles supported, but if it's more than 1, then it's up to the player to choose not to indulge in a mechanic that doesn't match their play style.

 

ie/ if flying the copter around during horde night defeats even the new Horde AI, then people who don't like that, shouldn't do it (as opposed to the Pimps making the copter magically not work during horde nights). I imagine those players who want safe underground bases would make a very similar argument.

 

Ok, let's assume that playstyle freedom includes the freedom to cancel out parts of gameplay (which is basically an oxymoron, but I'll humor that notion).

 

There's a difference between playstyle freedom and voluntary gameplay. If you make horde nights voluntary for example, you would actually be hurting playstyle freedom, because it will take away any motive people would have to engage in them. To have real playstyle freedom, choices and each choice's pros and cons have to be in equilibrium. If you want the player to have a real choice for a horde night alternative option, it has to be weighted equally with the former option, else it's not really a choice.

 

Games are essentially sets of structured rules and these rules create motives for actually playing and make games what they fundamentally are. For example, it would be no different to say that "we might as well remove hunger, because players who would like to choose the survival playstyle can just eat food at intermittent periods of time - and those who don't, don't have to". You are not accomodating two different playstyles with this - you are just eliminating one, because you make the former playstyle meaningless. In another example you could also accomodate people who like safe scavenging/exploring when they feel like *all in the same game instance*, so, "might as well make enemies stand still/only come out when you signal to them, so that the player challenges them when he feels like" accommodating both playstyles again. Not how it works.

 

Long story short, if choice paths pros and cons aren't correctly weighted, you will just have the opposite of playstyle freedom.

[skullpoker]

"trolling rant"

 

Nicely done, sir.

 

People aren't computers. There are more than two ways.

 

As somebody said earlier, if you don't like how it is you can mod it. The onus shouldn't be on the Dev team to coddle you.

[OzHawkeye]

Ok, let's assume that playstyle freedom includes the freedom to cancel out parts of gameplay (which is basically an oxymoron, but I'll humor that notion).

 

There's a difference between playstyle freedom and voluntary gameplay. If you make horde nights voluntary for example, you would actually be hurting playstyle freedom, because it will take away any motive people would have to engage in them. To have real playstyle freedom, choices and each choice's pros and cons have to be in equilibrium. If you want the player to have a real choice for a horde night alternative option, it has to be weighted equally with the former option, else it's not really a choice.

 

Games are essentially sets of structured rules and these rules create motives for actually playing and make games what they fundamentally are. For example, it would be no different to say that "we might as well remove hunger, because players who would like to choose the survival playstyle can just eat food at intermittent periods of time - and those who don't, don't have to". You are not accomodating two different playstyles with this - you are just eliminating one, because you make the former playstyle meaningless. In another example you could also accomodate people who like safe scavenging/exploring when they feel like *all in the same game instance*, so, "might as well make enemies stand still/only come out when you signal to them, so that the player challenges them when he feels like" accommodating both playstyles again. Not how it works.

 

Long story short, if choice paths pros and cons aren't correctly weighted, you will just have the opposite of playstyle freedom.

 

No, it's precisely NOT like saying let's remove hunger, its saying lets give players the CHOICE to remove it, if they so WISH.

 

That's the beauty of this game (particularly post A10), it can be easily edited to match what an individual player wants, and the only point I'd make to TFP is that the introduction of digging zombies in A17, should come with a relatively easy way to disable that digging so that players who don't want it, don't have to have it.

[Viktoriusiii]

Thanks “restinpiece“ for trying to explain games to them... but I've been trying that as well... they think because they found a way to enjoy a basically broken game (zombie survival where you can easily avoid zombies) that means fixing the game is the same as limiting freedom.

 

I mean that one guy told me, that I should mod out the games mistakes because HE likes them xD

 

I need to write a book:

“Games and their incentive“ for dummies

 

[Guppycur]

But why do you care how others play. It doesn't affect you one iota.

 

"Oh noes, those guys on a server I'm not on in a save I'm not playing aren't playing right! Change the game pimps, force mechanics on them!"

 

...why.

 

Let me be frank. I don't play underground, especially on horde nights, and I doubt I will gyro on them, but I see no reason to be bothered by players who do, and adding digging zombies or anti aircraft vultures doesn't change my game a damn bit, so what exactly is the value add?

 

Will people who have never built underground bunkers suddenly start doing so?

 

No. They will not.

[Pico]

I would imagine a single vulture strike on the gyrocopters rotors would bring the craft down, leaving it needing repairs.

 

Anyone who thinks they can monitor dark night-time skies for a vulture that's approaching from any direction (in 3 dimensions) is dreaming, so fly the gyro on horde nights at your own risk.

 

[Viktoriusiii]

But why do you care how others play. It doesn't affect you one iota.

 

"Oh noes, those guys on a server I'm not on in a save I'm not playing aren't playing right! Change the game pimps, force mechanics on them!"

 

...why.

 

Let me be frank. I don't play underground, especially on horde nights, and I doubt I will gyro on them, but I see no reason to be bothered by players who do, and adding digging zombies or anti aircraft vultures doesn't change my game a damn bit, so what exactly is the value add?

 

Will people who have never built underground bunkers suddenly start doing so?

 

No. They will not.

 

Its not about you. If you dont want to play the game as it is intended, be my guest.

 

But i do.

And I simply dont enjoy a challenge, if i know i can cheese it at any given point.

I myself am a trader. And I argue AGAINST my own playstyle because it is broken.

 

I have nearly full armor, a rifle and electric fences around my house on day 7!

It needs to be balanced.

Am I trying to ruin my fun?

No. I just want a more realistic challenge that isnt completly broken.

 

Think of Skyrim.

Would you argue that bethesda shouldnt have fixed infinie potion stacking?

You would ruin the fun for everyone who enjoyed having 9999 armor and 9999damage on lvl 10.

And other people could simply “not use it“.

 

It takes the fun out of trying the best solution.

Why should i try different basedesigns, when running away has no downsides?

 

 

I dont care if you mod your game to be as easy as taking alolipop from a baby.

I want a challenge suitable to the name of “Zombie Survival“.

[DaVegaNL]

I just don't get why people give a crap how or what other people do.

 

If just more people would use that in politics.. Would mean a lot less problems.

[RestInPieces]

No, it's precisely NOT like saying let's remove hunger, its saying lets give players the CHOICE to remove it, if they so WISH.

 

That's the beauty of this game (particularly post A10), it can be easily edited to match what an individual player wants, and the only point I'd make to TFP is that the introduction of digging zombies in A17, should come with a relatively easy way to disable that digging so that players who don't want it, don't have to have it.

 

I almost can't believe I have to explain this (to you especially - I fondly remember that you always, while not necessarily agreeing, had a solid point of view about most things) - I did not say that options should be taken away, but options to define the ruleset outside gameplay bounds are not the same with options defining the ruleset within gameplay. And options defining the ruleset within gameplay are not the same with playstyle freedom, which is the player being able to choose how to cope with a game aspect in different ways. Can you really not tell the difference?

 

You picked only one of the examples I gave and didn't explain how it not any different. What we were talking about and what I was advocating against is an option to change the ruleset within gameplay. Never said that a menu option of having hunger would be that bad. Removing hunger wouldn't prevent players from eating - it would give them a choice of whether they wanted to eat or not. Going with your philosophy hunger atm is also an imposed rule that shoehorns players into one playstyle. Players choosing to eat or not to eat (because there wouldn't be any repercussions without hunger) would give players an option to change the ruleset within the game, like voluntarily fighting the horde would do.

 

Again, any game in a fundamental level is a set of rules. By giving players an easy and painless option to the choice "should I fight the horde", what you are really doing is shoehorning players into that option, you aren't advocating in favor of playstyle freedom. If you want to give them a meaningful choice, you have to give them something along the lines of "yes you may avoid the horde with the gyro, but you have to make an equal amount effort to do so by doing x and x".

 

Why do you think that in every TD ever, you lose "lives", when monsters get to the end of the line? You get to choose a difficulty before it starts - outside of the gameplay bounds - but what would happen if devs let players decide how many monsters they wanted to kill and just give you infinite lives with the choice to chill anytime you wanted? Because there wouldn't be a game in the first place without this rule.

 

And speaking in general

7 Days to Die is an open-world game that is a unique combination of first person shooter, survival horror, tower defense, and role-playing games.

A combination of genres - the whole point of it - is not a fragmented game to choose whether to engage in one or more of these genres. Especially when it comes to a co-op, this is particularly bad. Yes, devs can give you that ability through menu options or mods outside of gameplay bounds and that would be ok. But a combination literally means that you can enjoy a harmonic blend of their elements within gameplay. Making them skippable or voluntary, means exactly the opposite.

 

But why do you care how others play. It doesn't affect you one iota.

 

"Oh noes, those guys on a server I'm not on in a save I'm not playing aren't playing right! Change the game pimps, force mechanics on them!"

 

...why.

 

Let me be frank. I don't play underground, especially on horde nights, and I doubt I will gyro on them, but I see no reason to be bothered by players who do, and adding digging zombies or anti aircraft vultures doesn't change my game a damn bit, so what exactly is the value add?

 

Will people who have never built underground bunkers suddenly start doing so?

 

No. They will not.

 

As long as you insist on believing that players care about how others play, you will never get an answer. It doesn't even make sense (only for the occasional sociopath), that someone over the internet would care about how you play. I tried to my best of my capability in the previous and this post to explain why but it seems to fall on deaf ears.

[Manchild]

What's the difference between these tactics and simply logging out at 21:59?

 

that would work but not worth that extra long loading time.rather be eaten by horde

[SnowDog1942]

I couldn't agree more Guppy - it's why I've never understood the angst of some over underground bases. If someone wants to go full molerat, how does that affect anyone else.

 

Believe it or not, the world doesnt revolve around you. Me, myself, and I all WANT to play underground WITH threats. Do whatever YOU want, I just want to have zombies in MY underground, so why do people want stop ME, MYSELF and I from playing how WE want?

[Manchild]

Believe it or not, the world doesnt revolve around you. Me, myself, and I all WANT to play underground WITH threats. Do whatever YOU want, I just want to have zombies in MY underground, so why do people want stop ME, MYSELF and I from playing how WE want?

 

I want an underwater base but we cant do that yet.

[Guppycur]

So why can't the logic of "if you want to be safe, mod your game that way" be "if you want your game to be hard, mod your game that way"?

 

Just saying. If you don't want people flying around at night on gyrocopters during horde night because you like to stay on the ground and melee, mod the gas usage and gas stack size to the point where it's not doable.

[RestInPieces]

"trolling rant"

Nicely done, sir.

 

People aren't computers. There are more than two ways.

 

The maturity level in quoting my post as "trolling rant" can only be rivaled by the level of your substantive reply. Takes special effort to achieve that.

 

As somebody said earlier, if you don't like how it is you can mod it. The onus shouldn't be on the Dev team to coddle you.

 

So why can't the logic of "if you want to be safe, mod your game that way" be "if you want your game to be hard, mod your game that way"?

 

Just saying. If you don't want people flying around at night on gyrocopters during horde night because you like to stay on the ground and melee, mod the gas usage and gas stack size to the point where it's not doable.

 

Personally never said "if you want to be safe, mod your game that way" because I wouldn't stoop to that level of condescension. I blame the moderators first of all, giving the "so mod it, if you don't like it" example to everyone and his aunt, everytime someone gives feedback. Why is there feedback needed in the first place - just mod it!

 

Seriously though, seems you didn't even bother reading my posts. This isn't about difficulty, this is about gameplay mechanics having no incentives behind them, being voluntary and shallow as a puddle as I explained in these posts. And (once again), these options are great to have outside of gameplay - but within gameplay, they only manage to work against this playstyle freedom you supposedly support, by cancelling out the alternatives.

[Guppycur]

I read them, I just disagree.

 

Specific to ug bases, my stance is simple... Digging zombies are the lazy way out. I'd prefer different challenges, not just more of the same.

[RestInPieces]

I read them, I just disagree.

 

Specific to ug bases, my stance is simple... Digging zombies are the lazy way out. I'd prefer different challenges, not just more of the same.

 

Would be nice if you elaborated on your disagreement but nevermind.

Of course digging zombies are the lazy way out. Not only that, but anyone who enjoys the underground will eventually end up being "above ground". Furthermore it's more of the same, no playstyle variety or differentiation. Not to mention the glitches, clipping etc (which will 100% happen) and the aesthetic part. I would prefer a different kind of hazard as well.

[Morloc]

Gentlemen. The Blood Moon is already a fanciful ~mystical~ plot device. SCIeNcE!! does not tread there.

 

Now...who's to say that this big sanguine Jackie Gleason in the sky doesn't also completely immobilize anything more high tech than a bicycle?

Nobody!

Neil Degrasse Tyson and 4 out of 5 dentists who chew gum endorse this idea.

 

 

-Morloc