Jump to content
Report an Alpha 21 Bug!

Death Penalty Poll

Roland

By Roland
in General Discussion

Death Penalty Poll  

308 members have voted

  1. 1. Death Penalty Poll

    • The penalty is fine. The 60 minute timer was best.
      33
    • The penalty is fine. The 30 minute timer is best.
      100
    • The penalty is fine but for no longer than 15 minutes.
      80
    • This penalty should be removed. I'll still play but it's not fun.
      24
    • I won't play the game with this penalty. I'll mod it out.
      34
    • I won't play the game with this penalty. I'll revert to A16
      7
    • I won't play the game with this penalty. I'll uninstall it.
      5
    • Other. Explain below.
      25

Recommended Posts

Odetta Colony Founder

Odetta

Posted
Posted

Maybe instead of a harsh death penalty we should reward players that stay alive.

 

Incremental X time alive, to complete reset on death. With bonuses having a hard cap up to a certain amount of time alive.

 

1. Bonus experience modifiers

 

2. 7 day horde completion bonus

 

3. Quest reward modifiers

 

4. Random occurring air drops

 

5. Animal hordes (deer, board)

 

6. Etc.

 

Scaled down or up depending on difficulty selected. Higher difficultly more rewards. Lower difficulty less to no existent system. This would be coupled with a minor or non death penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OzHawkeye Leader

OzHawkeye

Posted
Posted
Maybe instead of a harsh death penalty we should reward players that stay alive.

 

Incremental X time alive, to complete reset on death. With bonuses having a hard cap up to a certain amount of time alive.

 

1. Bonus experience modifiers

 

2. 7 day horde completion bonus

 

3. Quest reward modifiers

 

4. Random occurring air drops

 

5. Animal hordes (deer, board)

 

6. Etc.

 

Scaled down or up depending on difficulty selected. Higher difficultly more rewards. Lower difficulty less to no existent system. This would be coupled with a minor or non death penalty.

 

You know what I'd expect some people would do if the death "penalty" worked that way? Complain that a single death meant they had to wait for "X" time alive before recovering "6. Etc." buff.

 

PS: This is meant 99.9% light heartedly. Ok? :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Roland RnGesus

Roland

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I expected more than 27,000, since it was ~32,000 during A16 stable + holiday + several days of $9 sales. I just wish we could actually know the % of 27,000 that were actually playing A17e.

 

A drop of ~1/3rd from a holiday weekend to mid-week may not be crazy, particularly due to those special circumstances. I bet there was a lot of people that bought it, played for 2 hours, and will never touch it again. (Not saying that's unique to this game).

 

I don't think you can compare an "opt-in only" release to a stable release that automatically updates all players who have the game installed and thereby notifies them that a new version is here. For A16e the highest we reached was 21k and then 32k for A16 stable. Having reached 27k for A17e I do expect the game to break the old record of 32k when that time comes.

 

This coming weekend is where it will be telling. If the numbers go up even higher then that will be a very good sign. If they remain somewhat static then it could mean anything but if they drop back down to the 10k numbers of the past six months that would be very bad.

 

As for new players buying the game during the sale it could be that a lot of those that bought and played it for a bit and then chose to never touch it again did that based on A16 and not A17e at all.

 

After all, the opt-in method to get A17 is at least as difficult as editing out the penalty for dying...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Poojam Zombie Hunter

Poojam

Posted
Posted
And, how's that working?

 

Judging by the removal of that negative review from the steam store that madmole commented on, which was not flattering for his company, I'd say I might be making a dent.

 

Trying to get in touch with the owner to see if he removed it voluntarily or it got removed "for him." Will report back if/when I learn anything.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

Also. The death penalty has been cut in half. So, I'm halfway there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sergoros Survivor

Sergoros

Posted
Posted
I don't think you can compare an "opt-in only" release to a stable release that automatically updates all players who have the game installed and thereby notifies them that a new version is here.

 

And yet you think you Can compare A16E and A17E. Even thought difference in changes to the core game is colossal. A16 only added to existing game mechanics, which didnt really require alot of gameplay and testing. On the other hand, A17e is so different, that devs and mods recommend veterans to relearn the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Roland RnGesus

Roland

Posted
  • Author
Posted
And yet you think you Can compare A16E and A17E. Even thought difference in changes to the core game is colossal. A16 only added to existing game mechanics, which didnt really require alot of gameplay and testing. On the other hand, A17e is so different, that devs and mods recommend veterans to relearn the game.

 

I'm not making a comparison of content or composition between A16e and A17e. I'm making a comparison of number of concurrent players during November of 2018 and June of 2017. If the numbers in November (when A17e released) were the same or less than the June numbers (when A16e released) that could indicate a lessening of interest despite a new update. But the fact that we exceeded it is good news in my mind and shows that the game is still growing and there is still plenty of interest.

 

I think the two months are comparable because they are both months in which an experimental build that only players who are in the know could opt into and play. Yes the two builds are very different. We will have to wait and see over the next few months whether the differences in A17 are generally well received (The numbers stay at current levels or improve) or not (the numbers fall back to A16 levels of the past six months or lower).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Roland RnGesus

Roland

Posted
  • Author
Posted
...and here I thought moderators are supposed to be the mature ones in the conversation.

 

I can't joke about the tone of the forums over the past week? You realize that joke was about the forum atmosphere itself and not really about you right? If you want a serious and stern moderator I invite you to participate in the Red Cross forums where I'm sure topics of true gravity are had. Around here we just discuss video games that cost $25 except when they cost $9...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sergoros Survivor

Sergoros

Posted
Posted
I'm not making a comparison of content or composition between A16e and A17e. I'm making a comparison of number of concurrent players during November of 2018 and June of 2017. If the numbers in November (when A17e released) were the same or less than the June numbers (when A16e released) that could indicate a lessening of interest despite a new update. But the fact that we exceeded it is good news in my mind and shows that the game is still growing and there is still plenty of interest.

 

I think the two months are comparable because they are both months in which an experimental build that only players who are in the know could opt into and play. Yes the two builds are very different. We will have to wait and see over the next few months whether the differences in A17 are generally well received (The numbers stay at current levels or improve) or not (the numbers fall back to A16 levels of the past six months or lower).

 

As was my old point to you in another thread, the one of the reasons why more ppl feel like they have to play this experimental, is because they have to relearn new mechanics, which takes more playhours, than just joining creative and testing few new additions for a16. Imho, comparing a16E and a17E numbers is just unfair. Same as comparing a16 stable and a17E. In both comparisons, we have completely different conditions. Which makes any results irrelevant, or, at least, irrelevant for what are you testing for, aka how interested are players in new alpha. Since to many factors are skewed in favour of A17E.

 

Depending on how much weight you give those factors, you might either be happy with how many players are playing right now, or worry, why not as many, as you would have expected, are playing right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Roland RnGesus

Roland

Posted
  • Author
Posted
As was my old point to you in another thread, the reason why more ppl feel like they have to play this experimental, is because they have to relearn new mechanics, which takes more playhours, than just joining creative and testing few new additions for a16. Imho, comparing a16E and a17E numbers is just unfair. Same as comparing a16 stable and a17E. In both comparisons, we have completely different conditions. Which makes any results irrelevant, or, at least, irrelevant for what are you testing for, aka how interested are players in new alpha. Since to many factors are skewed in favour of A17E.

 

Depending on how much weight you give those factors, you might either be happy with how many players are playing right now, or worry, why not as many, as you would have expected, are playing right now.

 

If we hit 41K+ with A17 stable I could care less why it happened. I'll just be super glad and give deserved kudos to TFP for a job well done. Regardless of the why, creating a game and developing it over the years and being able to attract that many people to even just give it a try is more than I have ever been able to do. So it seems pretty impressive to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...