CastIronFabric

My assessment of 7 days to die as it relates to this game specifically: I have a lot of complaints about 7dtd and I ended up leaving the game. Many of the points expressed here I agree with. With that said however, I want to point out how 7dtd relates to this game specifically. 7DTD is a pure 100% tower defense game in which you are ALWAYS running at a deficit. Build a city? likely never. Have a heart attack after 200 hours of stress and fighting to have 10 seconds to build something pretty? yes. Do we really want this game to be extreme high action, always fighting, tower defense, non stop 100% of the time for 1000 hours of game play? Do we need another 7days to die building game? I would leave this game if that ever became something that could not be overridden in the settings. There are nearly zero games of this depth that are not also stress/tower/interuption simulators. Can we just have a few that are not that please? I would much rather have a building game in which 'uncompromising' means something other than having monsters smash your face. You know, uncompromising like if someone just dropped you off in the middle of a massive forest with no cell phone. It is possible to make a game very hard and very ' uncompromising' without monsters. real life is a good model for that.

Traders: I wish I could point to something that I like about the changes to traders but I cant. The trading system is already so dispersed that I barely find it useful, now the traders are harder to find as well. The ladders are the bane of everyone's cadence and I get vibes of 7 days to die in the architecture design which god please lets not

god I hope not. regardless, what I think is going to happen is that all of this action focused game play is going to go into the procedural created dungeons which in my opinion is perfect game design. So everyone mark this prediction and check back in a year. Last thing I think any of us want is to be 'mobbed' while we are smithing

I challenge your claim below. I would request evidence that suggests its true. That all said, all of this is not related to the assertion everyone is responding to.

Here we go again. The only evidence that the storms are the way the developers want them is because they are as they are. Which is true for everything in the game. In fact, the same evidence that suggest that they should be ever present is also the same evidence that they should be EXACTLY as they are in total and not changed. The logic you want to apply to 'why they should be global' can also be applied to every single aspect of storms as they exists right now. regardless, that is not related to the point I was making.

My view that 'storms' should be a place you go to is a separate point entirely from what I was saying.

sorry I do not fully follow you I was not responding to you about that

I have seen the argument of forcing a player into an experience that they do not want by removing all methods a player comes up with to avoid the experience in this game and many other games as well. To put it lightly I find this concept very disturbing. I understand there is a gray area but the default should always be 'if the player does not want to do something and has found a way to avoid it with standard game play then leave them alone' instead of 'how dare someone else do something I think they should not do in order to avoid doing something I think they should enjoy but they do not, too bad for them' the latter is just flat out very creepy. So in short: If one want to fight the monsters during a storm one should go do it and not concern themselves with what other people are doing.

How do we come to the conclusion that the are crucial to the game and story? has the dev weighed in on this in anyway that implies that? I actually do not know. I know that storms are referenced in the story but I do not know if to an extent that they are critical to the story baseline.

nope. I reject the notion that cooking is 'uncompromising'. EDIT: to put a finer note, when the ads say this game is 'uncompromising' I am confident that cooking is not the list that backs that up, I also have not seen cooking mentioned in the few videos I have seen that go into detail as to why this game is 'uncompromising' regardless, that is getting into subjective stuff that I am not going to engage in.

I would say your assessment on cooking is extremely subjective. I do not find cooking remotely 'uncompromising'. I am however inclined to avoid engaging anymore

let me walk you thru this. Cooking..'well the game says its uncompromising game thus cooking needs to be uncompromising' would you agree? SIDE TOPIC (EDIT): no, what I am saying is that if the dev decides 'this 'uncompromising' thing is not working out well' they can change it. Its not written in stone. I am not advocating that it be that way I am just saying I reject the arguement that something should be as it is BECAUSE it has been decided to be as it is. I reject that line of logic in all things

when it comes to fishing, I got a boar worth of meat from 3 worms I got with a grunter. I think the fishing feature was in part put in place to balance the berry changes for early game

ok, maybe do not reply

I am not advocating that it should not be. I think you are intentionally cherry picking what I said, I am not sure why you would do that but as a reminder that quote is related to specifically storms not needing to be dangerous because the game is ALREADY uncompromising without the storms.

If one wants continuity of lore I think it would make more sense in this case to change the dialogue at the village to match the experience that the vast majority of players have for most of their game play. The village is arguably late mid game if not late game, so it should take a back seat to be frank.

You: 'The game should be uncompromising' Me: 'The game IS uncompromising right now' One could argue that every single feature in the game should be 'uncompromising'. I personally do not think it should, but the game is already uncompromising without storms. Storms are not required for the game to be uncompromising because the game already is uncompromising That does not mean it cant be uncompromising but it means its not a requirement because the game already is uncompromising. A bit off topic but relevant: not to mention, the 'uncompromising' aspect can change if its so desired to be changed, if any aspect of the existing game no matter how long established causes unpleasant gaming experience by the community and/or developer they CAN change it.

again, you are building the argument that the least engaging features of this game are the most important features of this game becasue they are tied to what you think is an immutable lore of which the developers have never stated is immutable. I am not going to go over every detail of what I have said to re-asset with endless evidence that it DOES apply to what you said, becasue I believe you know better. The above is the bottom line here and its something I do not agree with it at all.

1. Berry bush mechanics have existed as is LONGER than the story. 2. Have they stated that the story is immutable? have the stated that berry bushes are mutable? because unless they have EXPLICTLY stated it, the berry bushes are actually more immutable than story becasue they have been around as is longer than the story. 3. There are two features of this game that are the least popular, least directly engaged in, least intresting by the player base. Those two features are the exact features you all claim are critically important to keep in place because they are tied to lore of which most people are not even well versed in the lore, do not even interact with the lore until mid to late game. So the arguements here are actually the EXACT opposite. Berry bushes are objectively more important than the lore for reasons i have spelled out but I can itemize them again if you like lets be clear, the position you are framing is that currently in the game as it stands now, some of the most important features of the game play experiece and could possibly destroy the entire game if changed too much is A. monsters spawning around your base B. storms Do the developers personally think story is critically important in this game? perhaps, I have not seen them say that explictly however even if they did, it does not mean its unchangeable. I watch way more VS youtubde videos than is likely healthy and I have to say over the course of 12 months I have seen literally ONE video that talks about the story of the game. I submit that for this game, the story is really not as important as you think it is.

I will say this about that. The reason this game is 'uncompromising' and the reason there exists currently videos talking about how 'hard core' and hard this game is CURRENTLY is not because of storms. its because of food, monsters at night and hostile animals. Storms barely even enter the orbit

its not obvious. you keep making assertions that are not only not obvious often times are illgocial. 1. The idea that lore sets the basic architecture for the overall game is FALSE and not founded on evidence. 2. The idea that people play this specific game mostly because of the lore is FALSE and not remotely close founded on evidence 3. The idea that if you changed something in the game that affects the lore that the VAST majority of people do not even know is lore somehow affects everyones experience in the game is FALSE 4. The claim that the developers consider the lore to be well established is founded on ZERO evidence of that anymore than they have consider berry bushes to be well established and founded. 5. your reasoning is completely circular and could be applied to anything in the game, pause and think about it for a second. I can walk you thru it if you like. Its ironic how the two specific features of this game that are the least engaging for the player to the point of most players just finding it a bother is proclaimed by many here to be the most important aspect of the game. Those two features are monsters spawning around your base and storms. The importance of those two things proclaimed here on the forums are actually the EXACT opposite in the game play experience. Lore? well most players do not even know the lore and those that do only learn about in the game play by around late mid game.

when the last time you experienced a storm in real life in which said storm was global? why do we presume the storms have to be global when real life storms do not operate that way and there is zero reference in the lore that even suggests storms are global let alone should be global.

the counter arguments are 'the developer is the final say on lore' however nobody wants to respond to my point that using the exact same logic 'the developers are the final say on Farming, smithing, smelting, cooking and EVERYTHING in the game' There does not exist evidence that i have seen that the developer considers the story more important than any other feature in the game and in fact changing FARMING has more of an impact on game play than changing Lore. The very premise that lore is the most important foundation in this game would logically suggest that the most important reason a person is compelled to play this specific game is because of the lore, which of course is completely and totally absurd and unbelievable. The story? really they lore? the lore is the main reason most people play this game? I reject that Story is NOT the creator of the tone, mystery, and thematic direction that is a myth people have been taught to believe. It CAN be but its not by FAR the main or only mechanism for that. More over, reading lore as if its a legally binding document absolutely positively will NOT affect tone, mystery, or thematic direction D&D is a good example, before they introduced story telling to Chainmail it has tone, mystery, and thematic direction. I would give you an example using the lore in this game but to be frank despite playing the game for about 1000 hours and enjoying the tone and overall feel I have no idea what the lore even is at all whatsoever other than storms do not have to be global. I also do not know anyone personally who knows the lore and yet they still love the game. You have to boil this absurdity to its core. If what you are saying is true the following would also be true. 1. the vast majority of people who enjoy this game would have to be playing it BECAUSE of the story. Reality is most people enjoy this game for thousands of hours and barely even know the story at all. 2.Minecraft, same thing. 3. Call of Duty, same thing. etc This is all just silly I know people get upset when Star Trek Lore gets broken, I do not know enough about Star Trek to really dispute or agree with that but the difference is that is 100% a story, this is a video game. In a video game there is plenty of strong evidence to support the assertion that the story is NOT the most important part of game play and is NOT the driver of the ton, it CAN be in some 'cut scene simulators' but not in this game, not in this game.

The developer is the final authority over all features including farming, spears, husbandry, cooking, smithing, smeltiing and in that sense those features are immutable using the EXACT same logic and EXACT same words

I keep repeating this like a broken record but I will have to do it again. The EXACT same logic you are using here can be applied to farming mechanics, berry mechanics, spears, armour every single aspect of the game this logic can be applied. Its circular logic. 'why it is good? becasue it has been decided to exist' that line of logic appears to ONLY be applied to lore, nothing else even though from a logic perspective it can be applied to everything created at this point in time. Additionally the presumption that the story is the foundation and that everything needs to revolve around it is fundamentally false and completely arbitrary .EDIT: In fact for this specific game, changing farming mechanics has more impact on game play than changing Lore. So this whole idea that Lore is the most immutable aspect of this game is just completely arbitrary and I suppose based on well assumptions (I want to go more into detail on that but it would lead this conversation very astray) @LadyWYT (tagged so so its read by Lady)