gamestage and progression, punative to crafters for no reason

[mr.devolver]

The reason i dont view the exp gain as relevant to this discussion is because no matter how slow of fast we get past that hurdle the game is still going to get more difficult after we unlock this basic crafting recipe whilever its gated behind a lot of leveling, it shouldnt be gated in this manner at all.

Im not talking about how fast the game stage progresses currently (Devs acknowlaged this is an issue)

There have been a few gems of good suggestions in this thread, a player asking for gates to be dynamic and based on player skill instead of his characters skill is excellent IMO.

 

For me getting the none gimped version of the tools should not mean an increase in zombie difficulty, what do the two have to do with each other? Nothing... however if you play XYZ way and loot/trade the tools there isnt any increase in difficulty, if you craft them (need to level) there is.

 

The harvest system completely blows too, leveling up perks (and difficulty) so you dont get gimped ammount of resources for the same ammount of effort is not fun in the slightest

 

It matters not a jot to me how fast or slow his progression is, what does matter to me is that EVERYONES progression in slower in this alpha. (Again)

 

Thats a difference in playstyle/opinon, my horde bases tend to be my living space as well, logic being that building and defending two structures is more work than one, i like the challenge of the horde potentially costing me more than a bare bones horde base too but either way both options have thier merits and it really dosent matter.

 

In my previous game in b199, I had some nice things going on already, but man that was a lot of grind to get there. By the time I found enough acid for wheels for my bicycle, I already had a recipe for motorcycle! I've set up a simple base at Working Stiff Tools building in Navezgane, but I looted what I could in near area and needed to move somewhere else, I decided to pay a visit to trader Joel, because there's a cabin with forge not too far from him, and I've built a temporary base at the intersection on the road between that cabin and trader Joel, it was meant to be a base I could use to protect myself on 7 day hordes. I couldn't find mining helmet until 7 day horde, so I had to craft a bunch of torches and lit up the place a little bit. The first horde wasn't as bad as I thought it will be, but the hordes that came later were much worse than what I would throw at the players playing on the easiest difficulty (!). Then b208 arrived and I started over and somehow I don't even feel like going through all that hassle and grind again. What a shame, we all waited this long for new update and then we got something that cripples our experience in such ways it's no longer fun to replay. I thought this game was meant to have nearly infinite possibilities that would encourage players to play it again. I guess that's no longer true.

[WolfyBlah]

In my previous game in b199, I had some nice things going on already, but man that was a lot of grind to get there. By the time I found enough acid for wheels for my bicycle, I already had a recipe for motorcycle! I've set up a simple base at Working Stiff Tools building in Navezgane, but I looted what I could in near area and needed to move somewhere else, I decided to pay a visit to trader Joel, because there's a cabin with forge not too far from him, and I've built a temporary base at the intersection on the road between that cabin and trader Joel, it was meant to be a base I could use to protect myself on 7 day hordes. I couldn't find mining helmet until 7 day horde, so I had to craft a bunch of torches and lit up the place a little bit. The first horde wasn't as bad as I thought it will be, but the hordes that came later were much worse than what I would throw at the players playing on the easiest difficulty (!). Then b208 arrived and I started over and somehow I don't even feel like going through all that hassle and grind again. What a shame, we all waited this long for new update and then we got something that cripples our experience in such ways it's no longer fun to replay. I thought this game was meant to have nearly infinite possibilities that would encourage players to play it again. I guess that's no longer true.

 

This highlights one of the things iv been saying for a while.... finish the damn game before slowing it down so much, if theres likely to be a patch to fix bugs (this is what experimental is for) ... make progression quicker, give much more exp or it will take all us free testers months to find bugs, imagine the top level of none of the skills working and nobody noticing because it takes so long to get there

 

How long are we supposed to play this build of the game? A day? A week? A month? Its only prudent to balance accordingly and not set stupidly large grinds in stone.

[mr.devolver]

This highlights one of the things iv been saying for a while.... finish the damn game before slowing it down so much, if theres likely to be a patch to fix bugs (this is what experimental is for) ... make progression quicker, give much more exp or it will take all us free testers months to find bugs, imagine the top level of none of the skills working and nobody noticing because it takes so long to get there

 

How long are we supposed to play this build of the game? A day? A week? A month? Its only prudent to balance accordingly and not set stupidly large grinds in stone.

 

This new Alpha had it's positives, but for the most part it wasn't really fun to play even for the first time, I just forced myself to push forward just to see all the new things and I admit that I probably haven't seen them all and I probably never will, but it's not because there would be so many new things, it's because it takes so much longer to get there now that I got too bored to bother. Bicycle on player level 20 ? Woah... How about somewhere between 7-10 instead? You know, maybe to keep the player interested in exploration, since exploration is crucial and yet it is greatly crippled now to the point it feels like this game should be renamed to 7 Days to Catch Your Breath.

[WolfyBlah]

This new Alpha had it's positives, but for the most part it wasn't really fun to play even for the first time, I just forced myself to push forward just to see all the new things and I admit that I probably haven't seen them all and I probably never will, but it's not because there would be so many new things, it's because it takes so much longer to get there now that I got too bored to bother. Bicycle on player level 20 ? Woah... How about somewhere between 7-10 instead? You know, maybe to keep the player interested in exploration, since exploration is crucial and yet it is greatly crippled now to the point it feels like this game should be renamed to 7 Days to Catch Your Breath.

 

Il give you the response madmole gave in a16, "the game isn't grindy if you take the harvest perks" only slightly modified 'stamina isnt an issue if you take the stamina perks'

 

Rember, skills and perks give us choices, we just have to make certain choices or we are playing the game wrong.

[mr.devolver]

Il give you the response madmole gave in a16, "the game isn't grindy if you take the harvest perks" only slightly modified 'stamina isnt an issue if you take the stamina perks'

 

Rember, skills and perks give us choices, we just have to make certain choices or we are playing the game wrong.

 

You know what's funny? It's the argument "You're playing the game wrong". It's a perfect example of validity of the saying that the exception proves the rule. Saying "You're playing the game wrong" only proves that there is a rule that you must play the game in a certain way now instead of being able to choose the way you want to play it.

[Jedo]

Please stop telling me to go play another game (especially a strictly inferior game with a much younger target audiance) i find it kind of insulting and it dosent really add much to the thread, i have been able to build pretty structures in 7days throughout the alphas.

 

All the alphas have been a WIP. You still can build pretty structures, but now that comes at a different time. That's the nature of alphas. You will have to square with that.

 

Please stop trying to change this game into something akin to Minecraft where you can build whatever you want whenever you want. Survival means wresting what you want from the grips of a world which is working against you. That's what we've got. If you don't like it, I've told you the options.

[WolfyBlah]

All the alphas have been a WIP. You still can build pretty structures, but now that comes at a different time. That's the nature of alphas. You will have to square with that.

 

Please stop trying to change this game into something akin to Minecraft where you can build whatever you want whenever you want. Survival means wresting what you want from the grips of a world which is working against you. That's what we've got. If you don't like it, I've told you the options.

 

Please stop trying to tell me what i want.

 

I clearly stated through out the thread (its even in the title) that i want to game to not be punative to one playstyle over another and it requiring a much higher level to craft the same item as someone who can get lucky and find it is exactly that.

 

im not trying to 'change the game into minecraft'.

[RestInPieces]

Please stop trying to tell me what i want.

 

I clearly stated through out the thread (its even in the title) that i want to game to not be punative to one playstyle over another and it requiring a much higher level to craft the same item as someone who can get lucky and find it is exactly that.

 

im not trying to 'change the game into minecraft'.

 

Yes, but how is crafting a playstyle? Everyone will rush to unlock the recipes, else the game will become even more punitive for them!

[WolfyBlah]

Yes, but how is crafting a playstyle? Everyone will rush to unlock the recipes, else the game will become even more punitive for them!

 

If people are all choosing the same route of buying eg steel tool recipe on day 1 thats an issue with a lack of other compelling choices to make and lack of options, if perks and topl type have a less extensive impact on the gameplay then it stops being somthing all playerd feel like they need to get.

 

Look at the current stamina situation.. everyone needs stamina... so where is the choice in taking those perks?

 

Can we stop calling them 'Perks', to me a perk is getting somthing better than before, somthing that makes the game more fun, not un-nerfing your player damage or stamina or whatever else so the game becomes fun again, make players at day 1 somewhere between level 1 and 200 from a16 and then allow us to choose perks that add somthing to the game instead of just serving to remove a new restriction added to the game.

 

If players can invest thier points into what they choose instead of just grinding needlesly.

Not having steel tools is not the thing that is punative, having to level up significantly (invest time and effort and increase thier gamestage (difficulty)) to be able to aquire them via crafting when they are available through other sources is whats punative.

[Jedo]

Please stop trying to tell me what i want.

 

I clearly stated through out the thread (its even in the title) that i want to game to not be punative to one playstyle over another and it requiring a much higher level to craft the same item as someone who can get lucky and find it is exactly that.

 

im not trying to 'change the game into minecraft'.

 

I'm not "telling you what you want" but rather interpreting the obvious conclusion to your points. You keep saying, "I want to build pretty structures" and you want to do so from early on. That would be Minecraft or Creative mode. As I said, you have to square with the survival aspect of the game which would mean that you are going to have to work in order to be able to build pretty structures. Just like somebody who wants to be a BAMF zombie killer will have to work at it over the course of time.

[Vedui]

I'm not "telling you what you want" but rather interpreting the obvious conclusion to your points. You keep saying, "I want to build pretty structures" and you want to do so from early on. That would be Minecraft or Creative mode. As I said, you have to square with the survival aspect of the game which would mean that you are going to have to work in order to be able to build pretty structures. Just like somebody who wants to be a BAMF zombie killer will have to work at it over the course of time.

 

Didn't want to wade into this particular argument, but previous Alphas has to a large degree allowed you to build pretty structures from early on. In survival. In 7 Days to Die. I did that from Alpha 11 when I started. I can't do that in A17 (unless I also cheese the zombie AI, as I can't fight them and survive otherwise).

 

So a better way would be to put it as "If you wanted to build pretty structures early on, forget it, while this was a big feature of previous alphas, we removed it, and now you need to find a new game" which is entirely valid from a game development standpoint. I think it's a mistake however. When people who love the game to build are saying they prefer 16 or modded a16, then you have a bit of a problem with game changes. It's not fatal, just means a certain segment who enjoyed the game no longer does so.

 

But you could turn it around and let's say we removed all the zombies and turned them into peaceful lemmings. Would we then say "Oh if you want zombies and fighting, go get call of duty zombies dlc" and leave it at that? Of course not. Changing a fundamental part of people's gameplay style in a way that might effectively be perceived as removing it, is rarely the right decision. It can be done, but there's a consequences and telling people they need to play a different game is probably not the best solution

[WolfyBlah]

Thats the thing, im not asking for no survival elements or challanages, i enjoyed those aspects of the game in previous alphas and are part of what drew me to the game, just because i dont like the fact that the game is current pushing a difftent playstyle on players that doesnt mean im asking for no zombies, creative mode or any other such nonsense.

 

More difficult survival is great for those that want it (though as always im an advocate for customisation and options). But not if its going to be 'much more difficult survival if you want to craft somthing instead of looting it.

 

With the current implementation there is 0 difference between a steel axe you scavange or trade for thsn one you craft yourself, the only current difference is that one makes the player have a higer gamestage and difficulty and what exactly is the justifcation for that?.

[Jedo]

So a better way would be to put it as "If you wanted to build pretty structures early on, forget it, while this was a big feature of previous alphas, we removed it, and now you need to find a new game" which is entirely valid from a game development standpoint. I think it's a mistake however. When people who love the game to build are saying they prefer 16 or modded a16, then you have a bit of a problem with game changes. It's not fatal, just means a certain segment who enjoyed the game no longer does so.

 

This has to be understood in every single one of these conversations because this game is in development. Really, the people complaining about fundamental things are complaining because they have seen what was possible before but now no longer is possible. That would mean that the answer to them is "I don't think you are suited for early access games." Actually, all of these things only can be weighed against the final product. What will make sense/be appropriate for the people whose first exposure is the final game? If they have no knowledge of formerly being able to build grand structures in the first week, will they be upset?

 

just because i dont like the fact that the game is current pushing a difftent playstyle on players

 

It's not, but feel free to keep saying it.

 

More difficult survival is great for those that want it (though as always im an advocate for customisation and options). But not if its going to be 'much more difficult survival if you want to craft somthing instead of looting it.

 

To my point above, it only is more difficult in comparison to what you had before. Theoretically, the same is true of the zombies. People might as well be complaining, "I liked it better when zombies just turned in circles or couldn't really fight back or there weren't really difficult zombies like ferals. You've made it too difficult for me to be a fighter!" If you had no point of comparison, how would you feel? (If your response is, "I wouldn't have bought this game," then early access games are not for you.)

[Exxodous]

 

This game has changed a hell of a lot from what i originally purchased in A9 and i feel almost as if iv been the victim of a bait and switch )

 

Can't you still play A9? Problem solved if this is the version you fell in love with, I recommend playing the heck out of it. That's what I'd do.

[RestInPieces]

If people are all choosing the same route of buying eg steel tool recipe on day 1 thats an issue with a lack of other compelling choices to make and lack of options, if perks and topl type have a less extensive impact on the gameplay then it stops being somthing all playerd feel like they need to get.

 

Look at the current stamina situation.. everyone needs stamina... so where is the choice in taking those perks?

 

Can we stop calling them 'Perks', to me a perk is getting somthing better than before, somthing that makes the game more fun, not un-nerfing your player damage or stamina or whatever else so the game becomes fun again, make players at day 1 somewhere between level 1 and 200 from a16 and then allow us to choose perks that add somthing to the game instead of just serving to remove a new restriction added to the game.

 

If players can invest thier points into what they choose instead of just grinding needlesly.

Not having steel tools is not the thing that is punative, having to level up significantly (invest time and effort and increase thier gamestage (difficulty)) to be able to aquire them via crafting when they are available through other sources is whats punative.

 

I always said that rpg elements have to complement gameplay instead of being the goal so that players' actions are not governed by them (e.g. grinding zombies), but by survival needs - in that regard I agree, but I disagree with you on the details. For example, I find that stamina perks are a decent implementation of perks.

 

The thing is that what you call "fun again" is for me "fun at last". I found that stamina used to be more of a decorative element in earlier alphas (way too large pool, drinking abuse) and I enjoy the player having to be aware of its levels. I don't blame you that you view it as a "nerf" because it was like this for a long time, but at its old iteration it might as well not exist - does it even make sense for it to exist if it never restricts you?

 

Balance between perk trees will be a continued effort, so that they are all viable and meaningful to focus on, so I wouldn't worry about that. MM is also working on the trader economy so it will not be as easy to just buy them. And certainly loot lists have to be revisited imo.

[WolfyBlah]

I always said that rpg elements have to complement gameplay instead of being the goal so that players' actions are not governed by them (e.g. grinding zombies), but by survival needs - in that regard I agree, but I disagree with you on the details. For example, I find that stamina perks are a decent implementation of perks.

 

The thing is that what you call "fun again" is for me "fun at last". I found that stamina used to be more of a decorative element in earlier alphas (way too large pool, drinking abuse) and I enjoy the player having to be aware of its levels. I don't blame you that you view it as a "nerf" because it was like this for a long time, but at its old iteration it might as well not exist - does it even make sense for it to exist if it never restricts you?

 

Balance between perk trees will be a continued effort, so that they are all viable and meaningful to focus on, so I wouldn't worry about that. MM is also working on the trader economy so it will not be as easy to just buy them. And certainly loot lists have to be revisited imo.

 

Im still of the opinon that the current perk system is a strict downgrade to what we had previously in a16 but thats a personal thing.

 

Im 100% okay with stamina and mangement being an issue and i like it being more of an issue in this alpha, what i dont care for is that currently its only an issue if you dont spend perks points on it, currently it goes back to being a complete none issue after the first few weeks.

 

The thing is thats not an intresting gameplay choice to me, stamina management should always be an issue and not change based on you 'choosing' to take perks for it, everyone will perk it to the point of it not being an issue because thats the choice, ♥♥♥♥ or not ♥♥♥♥ stamina

A more intresting thing is lowering your stamina to half of the normal max but as a result running twice as fast or doing extra block damage, thats an intresting choice to make and not just a 'take this skill to not have ♥♥♥♥ stamina' or 'take this perk so you dont get a ♥♥♥♥ty ammount of resources from harvesting'

[Vedui]

This has to be understood in every single one of these conversations because this game is in development. Really, the people complaining about fundamental things are complaining because they have seen what was possible before but now no longer is possible. That would mean that the answer to them is "I don't think you are suited for early access games." Actually, all of these things only can be weighed against the final product. What will make sense/be appropriate for the people whose first exposure is the final game? If they have no knowledge of formerly being able to build grand structures in the first week, will they be upset?

 

Ok. So if TFP suddenly made all zombies friendly, and will never attack a player, would you then be happy with the final result? If the answer is "yes" then I follow your logic (though disagree with it). If your answer is "no" then you're also not suited for early access games as well. And then none of us are are likely suited for an early access type of game along that reasoning just because we might disagree with the final result.

 

Many people that I talk to come from the view that:

 

1) I knew I could build, I enjoyed it, and taking it away makes the final game much less interesting for me.

 

2) If I had seen this game in the final stage without the building aspect, without knowing it was possible before, I would find it less interesting.

 

People can have one or the other or both views, and they're equally valid. Why wouldn't they be? The final result isn't inherently good just because it's the final result. It can be good or bad, better or worse both in itself and compared to previous versions.

 

It might be "You're not suited for 7 Days to Die Early Access" as well as "7 Days to Die is not your kind of game". But that doesn't make peoples feedback less valid. I'd definitely be unhappy if all zombies were now friendly. I'd not be ok with it, and I'd give that feedback. Whether it's the final product or an incremental version doesn't matter to me, it doesn't become better or worse depending on version.

 

If things change fundamentally, they should express their unhappiness. Constructively. Respectfully. That gives TFP the most data to work with to make the final game a better game. It might still be the wrong game, but it's far better than a game developed in isolation without feedback

 

My views anyhow!

[Randomdude]

1) I knew I could build, I enjoyed it, and taking it away makes the final game much less interesting for me.

 

This would be me.

[RestInPieces]

Im still of the opinon that the current perk system is a strict downgrade to what we had previously in a16 but thats a personal thing.

 

Im 100% okay with stamina and mangement being an issue and i like it being more of an issue in this alpha, what i dont care for is that currently its only an issue if you dont spend perks points on it, currently it goes back to being a complete none issue after the first few weeks.

 

The thing is thats not an intresting gameplay choice to me, stamina management should always be an issue and not change based on you 'choosing' to take perks for it, everyone will perk it to the point of it not being an issue because thats the choice, ♥♥♥♥ or not ♥♥♥♥ stamina

A more intresting thing is lowering your stamina to half of the normal max but as a result running twice as fast or doing extra block damage, thats an intresting choice to make and not just a 'take this skill to not have ♥♥♥♥ stamina' or 'take this perk so you dont get a ♥♥♥♥ty ammount of resources from harvesting'

 

I want meaningful choices between perk trees myself, but perks must still feel like a decent upgrade. Wouldn't worry too much about that though since balancing is a usually a process or hit and miss and I am pretty sure that's what TFP want as well - well-weighted choices.

[WolfyBlah]

I want meaningful choices between perk trees myself, but perks must still feel like a decent upgrade. Wouldn't worry too much about that though since balancing is a usually a process or hit and miss and I am pretty sure that's what TFP want as well - well-weighted choices.

 

Id have to disagree on that point, TFP have no idea what they want, if they wanted meaningful choices and deapth then we wouldnt have the absolutely awful current implementation. If we can objectively say that the current choices are lame there is no reason they couldnt have spotted that when this system was on the drawing board.

If they had a clear idea of what they wouldnt YOYO on mechanics like skills and perks (a16 system was a complete waste of time since they now decided that a 'level by doing' approach isnt what they wanted.)

[Jedo]

Ok. So if TFP suddenly made all zombies friendly, and will never attack a player, would you then be happy with the final result? If the answer is "yes" then I follow your logic (though disagree with it). If your answer is "no" then you're also not suited for early access games as well. And then none of us are are likely suited for an early access type of game along that reasoning just because we might disagree with the final result.

 

Many people that I talk to come from the view that:

 

1) I knew I could build, I enjoyed it, and taking it away makes the final game much less interesting for me.

 

2) If I had seen this game in the final stage without the building aspect, without knowing it was possible before, I would find it less interesting.

 

People can have one or the other or both views, and they're equally valid. Why wouldn't they be? The final result isn't inherently good just because it's the final result. It can be good or bad, better or worse both in itself and compared to previous versions.

 

Your example of making zombies friendly isn't great because that is part of the game which is essential the the "zombie survival" element. A better example might be if they took out the underground altogether. If they did that, ok. It wouldn't be what I would prefer, but I totally would respect it as a design choice. It isn't essential to the game even though it has been in there forever.

 

My only point about the final product vs. EA is that this matters for when you are making comparisons. Because of it being "alpha," some things are placeholders which wouldn't need to be there if the game wasn't open for public testing. Again, the problems that we have are not necessarily ones that somebody who buys the final product would have. They'll never know the joys (or pains) of having to find a forge book. They'll just know, "I have to get to level 20 before I can get a forge," and there's no reason that it should be a problem for them.

[WolfyBlah]

Your example of making zombies friendly isn't great because that is part of the game which is essential the the "zombie survival" element. A better example might be if they took out the underground altogether. If they did that, ok. It wouldn't be what I would prefer, but I totally would respect it as a design choice. It isn't essential to the game even though it has been in there forever.

 

My only point about the final product vs. EA is that this matters for when you are making comparisons. Because of it being "alpha," some things are placeholders which wouldn't need to be there if the game wasn't open for public testing. Again, the problems that we have are not necessarily ones that somebody who buys the final product would have. They'll never know the joys (or pains) of having to find a forge book. They'll just know, "I have to get to level 20 before I can get a forge," and there's no reason that it should be a problem for them.

 

Please stop using the 'its an alpha' defense as its actually counter to what you are trying to achive, This an alpha, and early build of the game where core systems are added and iterated on, there is 0 reason for it to take 20 hours for us who are taking a sneak peak the game and submitting bug reports. We are supposed to be restarting often due to updates and patches.

 

In any development methodology iv ever seen there is a beta phase for stress testing and balancing and these sort of decisions 'how long should it take to get a forge' belong there, remaking that decision over and over is why we have been in alpha for 5 years.

 

The focus should be on getting the game done and adding cool as ♥♥♥♥ features, why cant i tie 2 chainsaws to a log and attach it to the front if my motorcycle yet?

[Jedo]

Please stop using the 'its an alpha' defense as its actually counter to what you are trying to achive, This an alpha, and early build of the game where core systems are added and iterated on, there is 0 reason for it to take 20 hours for us who are taking a sneak peak the game and submitting bug reports. We are supposed to be restarting often due to updates and patches.

 

In any development methodology iv ever seen there is a beta phase for stress testing and balancing and these sort of decisions 'how long should it take to get a forge' belong there, remaking that decision over and over is why we have been in alpha for 5 years.

 

So your only problem with the current level gates is because it's alpha? If they had zero level gates from now until beta, then decided that it needed to be locked behind level 20, you wouldn't have a problem with that?

[HerrKingsley]

So your only problem with the current level gates is because it's alpha? If they had zero level gates from now until beta, then decided that it needed to be locked behind level 20, you wouldn't have a problem with that?

 

All previous progression (skill/level/perk/gate) systems in previous alphas has had flaws. And the recipe for that for TFP seams to be to replace it now and then. I guess they have their reasons but i have never heard why they didn't balance/fix it instead of scraping it and replacing it with a new one.

 

I will admit that I haven't read all post from devs. But usually you will snap that up through quotes or referring from forum users.

[WolfyBlah]

So your only problem with the current level gates is because it's alpha? If they had zero level gates from now until beta, then decided that it needed to be locked behind level 20, you wouldn't have a problem with that?

 

NO!

My issue is that things there were previously an option are no longer an option as part of the new system, if this system is so 'mod friendly' TFP clearly realize people will want to change it how they wish as more options, more games, more replay value = better product.

If thats the case then where are the options to do so?

 

"Buuu you can edit XML"

So lets says say i want to remove crafting timers from the game, when i bourght the game it was an option in the main menu, now it requires changing every single crafting recipe in the game.

 

Okay and i want to change zombies that spawn and thier behaviour, used to be able to set them to never run with a simple option, now... have to remove every feral zombie, footballers, ect.

 

And this time i want to try the game where zombies ran indoors during the day time because of the light level, im not even sure how to go about trying to do this via the XMLs.

 

This time i want all zombies to always run, this i can change in the menu easily.

 

At this point i have to modify and edit probably half the game to do simple ♥♥♥♥ that used to be optional.

 

How easy would it be for me to go back to having the forge gated behind the forge ahead book?

How easy would it be for me to re-add molds to forging?

 

And yes id be fine with TFP turning around and saying at release 'we settled on it taking this long to make a forge' because after release people can mod the game anyway they wish.