Perks and Choices

[Kattla]

Remember the time we had lots of books to find to learn to make things. that was a nice gameplay mecanic. the perk system is to big in A16 and wil be even biger in A17.

 

No wonder it is so many emty servers. you need to spend 20+ hours to get a decent carracter. not many peaple want to do that over and over again.

 

Yes, i remember learning from books. Also remember searching for a specific book could take ages. And forum posts

about players that haven't found the "forge ahead" book for 100+ hours. And how rewarding it would feel when you

finally found that last book.

 

IMO, the perk/attribute/xp stuff is possibly more fair then relying on random chance to learn, and it works better

in multiplayer server with no loot respawn. In the latter case, there was a chance of not learning specific skills no

matter if you played 1 or 1000 hours (if books was the only way to learn).

 

So while learning from books was a nice game mechanic , and yes, i did like it very much too, i like to belive the

perk system is a bit more fair. To be honest, i wouldn't mind if both were available. Maybe they will be, can't tell

before A17 is released.

[Numberz]

So if you decide to focus on combat in the early game, you will easily level up your corresponding skills. But if that gets boring and you shift your focus to farming or building, you will have a much harder time to level up those skills.

 

If, on the other hand, you have a learning-by-doing system, you still have exponential curves, but for every individual skill. So if you started some serious mining after 500 hours, you would still reach a pretty good level in a reasonable time. Late game with a perk system and you might need hours to level up even once.

 

Furthermore, if the number of perks you can get is limited, you might not be able to level up abilities at all in late game. If you reached max level without ever, say, using melee, you won't earn any skill points any more and even if you kill ten billion zombies, won't level up that skill ever.

 

This is a very good point. I hadn't actually taken the math behind the skills and perks into account.

 

This is why the action skills should have been left in to handle a good number of the skills (melee, archery, guns, construction, mining), so that you get better with each skill as you use them and each one could be uniquely balanced. No, they weren't perfect, but they could have been tweaked to make them more than acceptable.

 

I'm not against a robust perk system and it looks like TFP have done a decent job with the nuts and bolts of this new one. There are certainly elements of gameplay that perks are just better suited for. It's just that they have gone overboard and reduced EVERY game element down to a perk point. The ideal solution would have been a combination of the two.

[Numberz]

I remember when I had to harvest with a construction tool instead of the proper tool just to grind up some construction skill to buy the Next Important Perk. I did not feel particularly immersed.

That or upgrading random blocks just for the XP from an upgrade action is no less silly than what some complain about.

 

Of course some will only play the game as a puzzle to solve in the most efficient way. If that's their idea of fun then they are welcome to.

Most players just want to play the game and the perks they buy will largely reflect what they are doing. If you do a lot of climbing around you will likely end up with a few levels of Parkour to help with that while you may not buy any farming perks that you don't care about.

 

If all you want to do is dive into the XML data to calculate the Best Way To Play, go nuts. Just don't assume that everyone feels forced to do that.

 

 

Ok. Fair point. There were a few wrinkles to iron out. I just find it hard to believe that the best solution was to lock everything behind a perk point.

 

Spend a point to unlock a forge, another a workstation, another a cement mixer, another a vehicle... + + +

 

What about maybe having a rare chance for an NPC to spawn in a trader outpost that could teach you something for a bag of coins.

Or maybe an expansive quest to rescue an NPC who could teach you a recipe or perk.

Or maybe find a series of rare map fragments that when pieced together lead you to a treasure that contains a rare book that teaches you a perk or recipe.

Or maybe kill a bandit leader who has some precious secret or great reward.

 

Or whatever... but some cool and fun gameplay experience that is more rewarding that spending a single point.

[PiercedFromWithin]

I do like the concept of having perks unlock noticeable new abilities, while your basic abilities improve from doing. It also adds to the excitement of buying perks as you progress through the game. "I can do something new now!" is a good bit more exciting than "I can harvest 3% more resources from doing the same thing now!" No reason those two things can't be combined either so your new abilities are enhanced by your general skill in that area.

[Roland]

I just wanna say that your logic is very flawed.

This is a downgrade in all aspects.

Before, it was a hybrid, meaning get better by doing stuff and if u want get better at what u want with xp.

 

It still is that way if you want. You earn xp for almost every action that translates to an improved skill via perks. If you want the feeling of only getting your advancement in farming via farming then do a bunch of farming. Grind those farms out and you will earn xp from farming to spend on farming to improve farming. The only reason you wouldn't do that is if you actually love some other way of playing more than learning by doing...

 

Think if skyrim had done that... instead of getting better over time, they now gave skillpoints... outrage!

 

Yeah, all those players who put a weight on their jump button and then went AFK for a couple hours would have been outraged that they'd actually have to play the game rather than watch Seinfeld reruns...

 

Look, if TFPs want this downgrade, its their system. But if the player has to choose if he wants to be immersed or have a benefit for survival, its not immersive anymore. Freedom should only ever exist WITHIN the world (what do i do next, how to defend myselfff)

NEVER should the player have to decide what game rules he plays by (after the menu). Because that mean EVERY fan of the survival aspect of the game (or as you so 'lovingly' call them:min/maxers) are forced to either make the game harder for themselves (not enjoying survival anymore) or ignore immersion to be the best they can within the world ruleset.

 

What are you talking about? I simply said that the new ruleset allows people the freedom to play how they want. Why shouldn't the player have the freedom to decide how they want to play the game after the menu? Please explain yourself on this because a ton of people want the game to offer more choice and not less. As I explained in A17 I could:

 

1) Play the game as a trading game using the traders and buying and selling to gain advantages.

2) Play the game as a min/maxing grinding puzzle to find the optimal way to gain points and spend them on the best perks to get to the top of the progression the fastest way possible.

3) Play the game as a learning by doing progression by practicing (and in most cases earning xp doing it) the actions I want to enhance by spending points.

4) Play the game by just doing whatever and not worrying at all about how fast or slow I go or caring about how points were earned and where they were spent.

 

Someone like you who claims to be upset that automatic upgrading of skills isn't happening anymore because you like learning by doing should be glad that you can still play the game that way. Why wouldn't you? If killing zombies to earn a point and then spending that point for farming feels off then why do it? Why not earn some farming xp by doing farming and then spend the point on farming since the game is designed to do that? How does this force the player to make the game harder on themselves? Why wouldn't it be the player making the game more enjoyable for themselves?

 

It seems that what you are saying is that if the fastest and most effective way to earn xp for a point to spend on the farming perk is to kill zombies then the player should only spend time killing zombies and then spend that point incongruously on farming because to choose a less effective way would be not playing the game as a true survival game. If that is in fact what you believe then I must disagree and say that you can play a survival game by making suboptimal choices and perhaps you are less interested in the survival genre than you are in the efficiency puzzle genre.

 

 

To put it simple: you are removing survival in favour of sandboxing and roleplaying.

Its you choice, but not one I recommend any other dev to emulate.

 

It's your choice to believe that survival, sandboxing, and roleplaying must be mutually exclusive. It does not violate the idea of a survival game because I got my headshot perk on day 2 instead of day 1 because I wanted to kill 12 zombies with arrows before spending that perk because it would help me feel more immersed in the idea that I was learning by doing. To me, never spending a moment in the game planting anything and spending the perk on farming after killing a wandering horde granted me a point might be highly efficient not very immersive in a survival setting. But spending a day harvesting some crops in the wild and planting some seeds found in loot would very much make that point spent on farming feel more immersive AND I disagree that just because I waited until Day 3 to gain that farming perk until I could do some farming focused gameplay that it disqualifies the game from being survival since I could have more efficiently spent the point on Day 2 right after killing the horde.

[Roland]

This is why:

 

The way I understand the mechanic is this: You do all kinds of things and that levels up your character and when you level up your character, you get perk points to spend. However, leveling up your character is an exponential function, right? You need more and more xp, aka do more and more to reach the next level. So earning that next skill point will become harder and harder. Early game, you pick up a rock, boom, level up. End(ish) game you have to fell a forest worth of trees, kill the zombiefied population of a medium size town, build a castle and farm enough potatoes to supply your local Mc Donalds for a year.

 

So if you decide to focus on combat in the early game, you will easily level up your corresponding skills. But if that gets boring and you shift your focus to farming or building, you will have a much harder time to level up those skills.

 

If, on the other hand, you have a learning-by-doing system, you still have exponential curves, but for every individual skill. So if you started some serious mining after 500 hours, you would still reach a pretty good level in a reasonable time. Late game with a perk system and you might need hours to level up even once.

 

Furthermore, if the number of perks you can get is limited, you might not be able to level up abilities at all in late game. If you reached max level without ever, say, using melee, you won't earn any skill points any more and even if you kill ten billion zombies, won't level up that skill ever.

 

So these are some purely logic based concerns one might have about a perk system.

 

 

Myself, I don't generally mind a perk system, but if I am supposed to bother myself with one, I want each and every perk I buy to make a meaningful difference, not just a minute increase of damage dealt or a bit of speed increase or some more health or stamina. I want to buy a perk and clearly notice a difference. Here are some examples:

 

- unlock power attacks

- unlock duel wielding

- unlock kicking, stomping, pushing

- unlock specific modifications slots for each weapon (let me select what kind of mod I want: Silencer, extended mag, faster reload, longer range, more damage, ...)

- certain dismemberment when a zombie is below a certain health

 

Recipes should never be unlocked by a perk, they should always be tied to experience (for example, unlock a better club-recipe after killing so-and-so many zombies with clubs, unlock better armor after killing so-and-so many with tools/melee weapons) or quests. I hope the new quest system will be half as brilliant as "I heard devs say". Such as, make a quest where you tell the player to a hub (like 0|0 or 8|9) and then make the engine select a proper building, have the player search the building for a recipe or kill a boss zombie or find a building highly fortified with bandits inside.

 

Sitting in a perk-menu to unlock 5% more damage for your melee weapon is uninteresting.

 

You make excellent points and I did not really believe that anyone would actually try to earn an entire level and thus secure a point by only doing the one xp earning action that most aligned with the perk they wanted to buy. You are correct that you would have to plant and harvest thousands and thousands of crops if you decided to start being a farmer at level 120. I just stated the fact that the option is there for purists who really want the xp for points spent to come from well aligned actions that earned those points.

 

What I am really getting at is the argument that many people use to say the perk purchasing system is bad (that being that points earned are incongruous to benefits gained) is not a foregone conclusion. The middle road is to impose upon yourself some practice--enough to feel justified in having earned the right to spend the point in that area. I'm at level 120 and after a huge screamer horde am able to get to level 121 and have a point to spend and feel like doing some farming. If I really felt that learning by doing was fun and immersive then I could spend one day planting and harvesting and doing farming actions before spending the point. Did all the xp come from that? No. But I'm playing the game the way I claim to like and I reject the notion that putting off spending that farming point by one day to do a bit of roleplaying automatically disqualifies that gameplay from being survival gameplay. I also reject the notion that because the current structure allows for roleplaying to capture the feeling of learning by doing that it makes it a weak structure. I think forcing a quest to practice actions before the perk point can be spent would make for an interesting mod but forcing players to learn by doing without the min/maxing powergrind component included would not be a popular thing for the default game because lets face it: the min/maxing powergrind component is the real candy that those players crave and "learning by doing" is just the excuse.

 

TFP has indeed made their choice and it is against automatic leveling and I'm just offering up a solution that can help those inclined towards role playing. Obviously min/maxers aren't going to apply.

 

Now as to your points about perks I too hope that TFP gets there. There are fewer incremental percentage perk trees than there were when Joel showed the videos because he does want the perks to grant abilities and be more interesting too and he did rework some. Hopefully the remaining uninteresting ones will get replaced with abilities like kicking or stomping etc...

[Roland]

I fall under this category. I love to always be on top of things, I love to always be the best I can be in the game, or the strongest.

 

However, learning how to farm from killing zombies doesn't make sense at all. It never has and never will. No matter how many page-long posts you write Roland. (Same as painting bricks on a metal surface, and all other nonsense combinations of paint and blocks..)

 

None of my pages long posts ever said that it did make sense. In fact the whole premise of this thread is that with a bit of roleplaying you can negate the fact that it doesn't make sense. So in essence this thread is my own proclamation that killing zombies doesn't make you a better farmer. There is a difference in talking about how to make sense of something and arguing that the something makes sense in and of itself. You just confused what it was I was doing. But this post is shorter than a page so it should do the trick for you.

 

As you admitted you aren't a Roleplayer. You like to use the game's rules to maximize efficiency and become the strongest in the least amount of time possible.

 

*waves hand* This isn't the thread you are looking for.

[KingSlayerGM]

None of my pages long posts ever said that it did make sense.

 

Are you suggesting the system does not make sense? In that case, great Roland! We agree on this.

 

In fact the whole premise of this thread is that with a bit of roleplaying you can negate the fact that it doesn't make sense.

 

You forget a fundamental pillar of roleplaying: rules. Which, your suggested way of playing, doesn't have.

 

So in essence this thread is my own proclamation that killing zombies doesn't make you a better farmer. There is a difference in talking about how to make sense of something and arguing that the something makes sense in and of itself. You just confused what it was I was doing. But this post is shorter than a page so it should do the trick for you.

 

Thank you, now I understand: your post was about offering an artificial, constructed, contorted way to make sense of a senseless system.

 

As you admitted you aren't a Roleplayer. You like to use the game's rules to maximize efficiency and become the strongest in the least amount of time possible.

 

One can be both, they are not mutually exclusive.

 

*waves hand* This isn't the thread you are looking for.

 

Very convenient to invite the opposition to leave your thread alone. You are presenting your view about an important topic to the whole community. However I feel compelled to intervene when reality is distorted.

[KingSlayerGM]

BTW Roland, you replied to everything besides one point, which is very important.

I said that in my case (and I explained why) your suggested solution does not work.

 

 

 

More in general:

 

• Self imposing rules breaks immersion and ruins the experience.
  
• Self imposing rules breaks the min/max process.
  
• Self imposing rules is harder when playing online. Cuz your friends advance faster than you.
  

[RestInPieces]

Besides the leveling by usage/vs choosing perks argument.

 

Summing up a thread about perks I made recently and like Kubikus said:

-Tying recipes with the leveling system is a bad idea. Would be much better tying them to exploration/experience.

-Perks in general should offer something more than % increases - some of them thankfully already do.

-I also think that many survival related perks work against survival gameplay. Shrugging off diseases and injuries should not be a thing and both sustenance and medicine related perks only works towards making those supplies less valuable instead of doing the opposite.

[Viktoriusiii]

More in general:

 

• Self imposing rules breaks immersion and ruins the experience.
  
• Self imposing rules breaks the min/max process.
  

 

Cant give too many reputationpoints to one user, so have it in this way:

 

+1 (especially the first point)

[Survager]

By killing zombies, I can spend experience points on farming, but farming will not make it any better? How can this be? )))

[Roland]

Are you suggesting the system does not make sense? In that case, great Roland! We agree on this.

 

Where are you getting “suggested” from? I stated it blatantly. In less than a page. Here, I’ll say it again plainly and you can gloat again that you’ve somehow caught me in something: becoming better at farming by killing zombies makes no sense.

 

You forget a fundamental pillar of roleplaying: rules. Which, your suggested way of playing, doesn't have.

 

So you just want rules? If the quest system was used to force you to harvest 5 corn and 5 potatoes before the perk point spent on farming would activate it you’d be fine? If every perk had a mini quest that forced the player to do an action related to the perk before they could spend the point on the perk then you wouldn’t complain?

 

Thank you, now I understand: your post was about offering an artificial, constructed, contorted way to make sense of a senseless system.

 

Finally. Although I would say it is only completely senseless to those like you who value efficiency above all else. Even without imposing a learning by doing quest upon myself, I largely feel the xp is well representative of whole game play because I don’t insist on taking the one most efficient path.

 

If chopping grass was the most efficient xp gaining procedure you would chop grass exclusively for three days to get the points as quickly as possible and say you were using the rules to survive. Every time you played the game you would always chop grass since nothing else would make sense..especially if you had friends on the server chopping grass because the worst outcome in the game is to be outpaced by your friends...

 

To me, this is senseless as well and it means your game is always very samey and honestly it is also a self imposed playstyle. You are not forced to follow the most efficient path once you find it— you are choosing to do so and then complaining that all the points you earn only come from this one activity and don’t relate to the things you are buying.

 

Sense comes from playing the game in a holistic manner (again a choice) and then choosing how your character progresses as a result.

 

One can be both, they are not mutually exclusive.

 

yeah, but by your own admission you’ll never include roleplaying if it involves a less efficient action. Min/Maxing by its very nature excludes all but the one true most efficient path. It is stupid to do otherwise if efficiency is your goal.

 

 

Very convenient to invite the opposition to leave your thread alone. You are presenting your view about an important topic to the whole community. However I feel compelled to intervene when reality is distorted.

 

That wasn’t an invitation. That was a statement that what I’m describing as a methodology for play under the new rules is not going to be to your liking using a Star Wars reference joke.

 

Here is my invitation: Please stay and keep posting your point of view.

 

The only one who can’t post in the thread is Vik who inexplicably self-imposed that restriction upon himself by choosing not to do so.

[Roland]

BTW Roland, you replied to everything besides one point, which is very important.

I said that in my case (and I explained why) your suggested solution does not work.

 

What’s the use of replying if my self-imposed play choice doesn’t work with your self-imposed play choice? It’s not for you. That’s what my whole OP was saying. Automatic skill gaining is not really about learning by doing. It is completely about playing the game as an efficiency puzzle. Since you can stop self-imposing doing the one most efficient action any time you want and do other slightly less efficient actions in order to learn by doing there isn’t anything more to say other than do it or don’t do it. When you get A17 and eventually find the optimal path and then only play the game that way but then complain that it makes no sense just remember that it’s just your own self imposition making it so.

 

 

 

More in general:

 

Self imposing rules breaks immersion and ruins the experience.

 

Then why do you continue to do it? The game allows you to play in one most efficient path and it allows you to play holistically. Either way of playing is a self-imposed choice.

 

Self imposing rules breaks the min/max process.

 

Using the min/max process is a self-imposed rule, my friend. Nothing forces you to play that way. Believing that min/maxing is mandatory is an illusion. I can play your way and I can play my way—just not at the same time.

 

Self imposing rules is harder when playing online. Cuz your friends advance faster than you.

 

Sounds like you have an issue with peer pressure. Have we come full circle to PvP now? Shall I say it? Okay. The game isn’t designed as a PvP experience although you can choose to do it. I get the pressure to self-impose effiency if you are playing the game competitively and want to have an advantage over other players on the server. What does that have to do with SP and MP PvE which are the two well advertised main modes that the devs are designing the game for?

[Viktoriusiii]

 

So you just want rules? If the quest system was used to force you to harvest 5 corn and 5 potatoes before the perk point spent on farming would activate it you’d be fine? If every perk had a mini quest that forced the player to do an action related to the perk before they could spend the point on the perk then you wouldn’t complain?

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE between "world rules"/game mechanics, and forcing you to do something you don't want to.

If I wanna be a farmer, Ill harvest 5corn and potatoes anyways. So yeah this example is fine.

What WOULDN'T be fine is to say "harvest 100 corn/potatoes", because that is extra chores. But you wanna know what the nice thing in A16 was?

If you only did 70 corn (metaphorically speaking) you would still get 70% of the reward... and every time you pluck one, youd get a small reward.

 

 

 

 

yeah, but by your own admission you’ll never include roleplaying if it involves a less efficient action. Min/Maxing by its very nature excludes all but the one true most efficient path. It is stupid to do otherwise if efficiency is your goal.

 

 

I know this MIGHT surprise you... but I'm roleplaying as a guy in the zombie apocalypse, who will do EVERYTHING IT TAKES to survive. THAT is my roleplay. And in my opinion it should be the main way to "roleplay". I don't roleplay in minecraft that I'm a lost Asian girl and just wanna find my daddy. I could... but don't you think "roleplaying" as a guy stranded in the middle of nowwhere who has to build himself a home" is far more appropriate?

I don'T want to roleplay a guy who is morally scared of driving a minibike at night... or a guy that selfregulates himself so he's always challenged on bloodmoon.

I wanna be the Legend in "I am legend". I wanna be the survivor in "the walking dead" who tries to survive at any cost.

I wanna be that guy in Resident evil who does everything to complete his mission.

 

But if the game says "well... if you wanna be that guy, you are just min/maxing. And that is not for everyone. We want people in Resident Evil 4 to be able to roleplay as Ashley who needs a strong man to safe him! So we implemented a guy who will ALWAYS save you when a zombie has backed you into a corner.

 

HOW IN THE WORLD can you say that "min/maxing" is an extreme mindset?

 

 

 

I give you a few bad examples and I give you a true way of freedom (not all are representative for TFPs):

 

-swimming up on a lake beeing untouchable is "a choice" so we wont implement swimming zombies

-using the trader to have a completly secure base on day 14 is "a choice" so we wont balance that.

-getting better at a thing that you did is too forced, we will just give you xp and you descide what to level up with

 

You wanna know what REALLY would be freedom?

Fix all the above (swimming wont make you untouchable, traders having more balanced prices, give abilityxp and general xp)

and MAKE IT DEPEND ON DIFFجCULTY.

Slow them down so you can run away, let them deal less blockdamage so even a small house will suffice for hordenight, let fewer zombies spawn, let them have less health, food/water goes down slower and so on

-easy:

just go wherever you want! Your base will hold even on bloodmoon, no need to swim on top oif a lake to avoid it.

and if you really want to, zombies are slow enough at night that you can run away from them. (full freedom)

-medium:

you should probably spend some time reinforcing your base, but other then that, do whatever you want (freedom, but with a survival element)

-hard/insane:

ffs find a way to defend yourself! What? You have spent the first 7 days leveling your farming? Well your base will be ripped to shredds within minutes. Find a way to get good weapons early, farm a lot to build traps and reinforce your home, give everything you have! Or you will die! (survival mode)

 

 

 

this way players can CHOOSE if they want more freedom (and roleplay) or if they want a survival horror where everything is fair game as long as they can survive.

[Viktoriusiii]

 

Using the min/max process is a self-imposed rule, my friend. Nothing forces you to play that way. Believing that min/maxing is mandatory is an illusion. I can play your way and I can play my way—just not at the same time.

 

 

WHAT???? NO IT IS NOT. ITS SURVIVAL. EVERYTHING GOES. This is the point of the game. This is not a "Minecraft-friendly" version that just wants to give you a way to be creative... say roland... I have often disagreed with you... but this mindset of yours is SO COMPLETELY wrong that I ask myself if youREALLY think that or if you were just told to defend the new Alpha...

Because you never struck me as arrogant or stupid... but those points about freedom and "min/maxing" beeing just another playstyle in a ZOMBIE HORROR SURVIVAL game... holy hell...

 

YES its also a sandbox... but you disregard 3 different genres (2 if we combine zombie and horror) because one generally gives you freedom.

Like... I... ARGH -_-

 

And now I'm back here posting again because your statements make me furious! If this continues, Ill try and get steam to change the genres to "child friendly, casual, creativity sandbox" -_- (obviously I do not have the power... but if I had...

 

 

*screams into pillow to let out all this pent up rage*

[LuckyStar]

Vik you might want to take a few deep breaths.

 

I have to agree with Roland.

 

Min/Maxing is most certainly a choice of playstyle.

Nothing in the game makes you have to play that way.

 

Example:

 

I am currently in a Gauntlet challenge with 49 others.

- No loot respawn

- No Airdrops

- Insane difficulty

- Zombies always run

- Dead is Dead. You die you delete the save

- Loot at 25%

- 64 Zombie Horde

 

I still found time to make my base look decent.

I still found time to paint the floors and ceiling and put plants around.

 

If I can do that on the hardest mode and still find time to do stuff without min/maxing...

... well that means that min/maxing isn't needed to survive right?

 

I am currently in first place in the gauntlet and although I am pretty efficient, I'm not like you.

I couldn't play that way because I would just find it boring.

BOOOOOOOOOOOORING!!!!!!!!

 

Why do ONLY the most efficient way of things?

Why not mostly? Why not sometimes?

 

That's your thing man. That's what makes you happy.

Doesn't mean TFP have to all kneel at your feet and change the game.

 

The new system allows both play styles.

Is it perfect. Nope!

Will it annoy people like yourself? Yup.

 

PS: I understand your frustration regarding PvP

Hard to do anything but the most efficient way when you're competing against other players.

I won't deny you that.

[Viktoriusiii]

You brought my point home for me.

You don't need minmaxing on the absolute hardest difficulty.

I have played similar challenges and have also been painting and stuff.

 

Im not talking about spending every second in a life or death race.

 

The problem is:

Difficulty 6 has the same 'exploits' or how you like to call it 'choices of freedom' that easy modes have.

 

If they really valued freedom, they'd make changes to difficulty(as mentioned in an earlier post) so that you can just enjoy roleplaying on easy and normal, while giving players a choice to go hardcore.

[RestInPieces]

Guys, when was min-maxing even brought into this discussion...? Min-maxing is something you can do in spreadsheet rpgs, dnd, heavily competitive mmorpgs, arpgs like Path of Exile etc. "Min-maxing" is a term that is used for someone, whose only focus is trying to find the absolute best character builds to achieve specific purposes. 7DTD is a game with lite rpg elements - you can't really min-max. It doesn't have for example, dozens of end-game armor sets or talent trees that achieve the same thing, so that someone can choose one of them to min-max. If min-maxing was a thing here, the forum would be filled with threads discussing about detailed character builds. Has anyone here even played a game where min-maxing is actually a thing?

 

And min-maxing is not as general as "trying to do everything efficiently" - because that is "every-game-ever", except for purely sandbox games like Minecraft's creative mode. In FPS games you try to hit and not get hit, in tower defense games you try to build good defenses, in strategy games you try to expand, in survival games you find ways to survive, in management games you try to make money, in tetris you try fitting the falling blocks in an efficient way etc etc. So let's stop calling this min-maxing because it isn't.

[LuckyStar]

You brought my point home for me.

You don't need minmaxing on the absolute hardest difficulty.

I have played similar challenges and have also been painting and stuff.

 

Im not talking about spending every second in a life or death race.

 

The problem is:

Difficulty 6 has the same 'exploits' or how you like to call it 'choices of freedom' that easy modes have.

 

If they really valued freedom, they'd make changes to difficulty(as mentioned in an earlier post) so that you can just enjoy roleplaying on easy and normal, while giving players a choice to go hardcore.

 

That's a different issue then perhaps isn't it?

 

Insane difficulty might need adjusting.

Though, since A17 is introducing mini bosses, it might not be a problem for long.

Who knows?

 

I just don't see how you think spending points the way you like is an exploit or a weakness in the game.

Is is realistic to mine all night and buy points in headshots? No.

So what?

 

Seriouosly. So what?

It's the game mechanic that TFP went with.

They are considering game play and fun for the most amount of players.

Whatever market research they've done, this was their conclusion.

 

So now we can complain about it or we can accept that 7DTD has:

- This set of rules

- These challenges

- This environment

- These flaws

- Etc...

 

That's about it.

Couldn't we same the same about every other game out there?

[RestInPieces]

That's a different issue then perhaps isn't it?

 

Insane difficulty might need adjusting.

Though, since A17 is introducing mini bosses, it might not be a problem for long.

Who knows?

 

I just don't see how you think spending points the way you like is an exploit or a weakness in the game.

Is is realistic to mine all night and buy points in headshots? No.

So what?

 

Seriouosly. So what?

It's the game mechanic that TFP went with.

They are considering game play and fun for the most amount of players.

Whatever market research they've done, this was their conclusion.

 

So now we can complain about it or we can accept that 7DTD has:

- This set of rules

- These challenges

- This environment

- These flaws

- Etc...

 

That's about it.

Couldn't we same the same about every other game out there?

 

Lucky, there's nothing wrong with constructive feedback even if it's negative. And we can't say the same for every other game out there - I can't, at least.

[Viktoriusiii]

@rip:

Its what most mods and tfps consider minmaxing. Namely trying to find the best or easiest solution.

Its a very VERY lightweight form of minmaxing... if even that...

 

 

@lucky:

The 'Problem' is that they went from a complex, intuitive, immersive system to a flat uncreative standart.

Yes they can do that (even though I doubt they do any more marketreseach other then what steam shows)

that doesnt change the fact they dumbed the system down under the cover of freedom.

 

A fun (not to be taken too serious) parallel:

Imagine a big gaming studio that made excellent and deep games for pc. And ppl expect this from them. This is why they love and buy their games.

Now suddenly they come forth with a new release... a dumbed down mobile game... because “everyone has a phone, so more ppl will enjoy it“...

 

It is their game... and they say it gives ppl more access... dont you think gamers who have grown up loving deep gameplay that is simply impossible on mobile, have a good reason to be upset?

 

 

Same with this. I have played 2years with an excellent system that just needed tweeking and balancing to be perfect... and now they completely removed that feature without a trace.

 

Saying “you can still put points into thoseskills if you want“ is kinda like saying “well dont you have aa phone,?“

[SnowDog1942]

 

A fun (not to be taken too serious) parallel:

Imagine a big gaming studio that made excellent and deep games for pc. And ppl expect this from them. This is why they love and buy their games.

Now suddenly they come forth with a new release... a dumbed down mobile game... because “everyone has a phone, so more ppl will enjoy it“...

 

Hello Diablo Franchise

[toores]

You make excellent points and I did not really believe that anyone would actually try to earn an entire level and thus secure a point by only doing the one xp earning action that most aligned with the perk they wanted to buy. You are correct that you would have to plant and harvest thousands and thousands of crops if you decided to start being a farmer at level 120. I just stated the fact that the option is there for purists who really want the xp for points spent to come from well aligned actions that earned those points.

 

What I am really getting at is the argument that many people use to say the perk purchasing system is bad (that being that points earned are incongruous to benefits gained) is not a foregone conclusion. The middle road is to impose upon yourself some practice--enough to feel justified in having earned the right to spend the point in that area. I'm at level 120 and after a huge screamer horde am able to get to level 121 and have a point to spend and feel like doing some farming. If I really felt that learning by doing was fun and immersive then I could spend one day planting and harvesting and doing farming actions before spending the point. Did all the xp come from that? No. But I'm playing the game the way I claim to like and I reject the notion that putting off spending that farming point by one day to do a bit of roleplaying automatically disqualifies that gameplay from being survival gameplay. I also reject the notion that because the current structure allows for roleplaying to capture the feeling of learning by doing that it makes it a weak structure. I think forcing a quest to practice actions before the perk point can be spent would make for an interesting mod but forcing players to learn by doing without the min/maxing powergrind component included would not be a popular thing for the default game because lets face it: the min/maxing powergrind component is the real candy that those players crave and "learning by doing" is just the excuse.

 

You're saying the new system prevents grinding levels?

Cause it seems to me that instead of grinding different skills in a different way (a16), the new system just requires you to find one way to grind all perks. What ever gives XP the fastest will level all your perks the fastest. Min/maxer's life actually gets easier.

 

Am i getting something wrong? Because your farming example kind of scares me a bit. So at level 120 I wouldn't dream of getting the perk to put into farming by actually farming because "planting and harvesting thousands and thousands of crops" takes ages more time then killing a "a huge screamer horde".

 

Already I can tell killing zombies is way faster. Maybe there's something even better. Of if there's not, how does this balance out for the guy who plays stealthy character? Tough luck to go with stealth?

[Grymgem]

When I think about how humans learn IRL, I find some similarities to perk systems like the pimps are trying.

 

When I'm using a small tool to fix a bracket on my greenhouse, I'm learning and applying skills that are adjacent, such as hand eye coordination, dexterity, mechanical problem solving etc.

When I'm chopping firewood, I'm learning better stance, methods to preserve stamina, swings with less wear and tear on my tools, and say situational awareness. etc.

 

When I'm tinkering in my maker shed, I'm thinking of ways to make a better deal with one of my suppliers.

 

We're don't throw out these accumulative adjacent lessons IRL, so it feels natural to me to have some system to represent that in game.

 

Im just an A15 lurker, but it seems like the pimps system is approaching a solid equilibrium.