Jump to content

Niil945

Members
  • Posts

    126
  • Joined

Personal Information

  • Location
    San Francisco

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Niil945's Achievements

Hunter

Hunter (4/15)

18

Reputation

  1. I think that's a great point that I don't think has been brought up that I never considered, the variance in the SP and MP experience of hunger/thirst. Unfortunately there's no realistic/logical way to scale food usage or hunger and thirst systems to tailor it so the challenge level is at the expected levels throughout the play through based on number of players. At least not without complicating the system a whole lot (i.e. perishable foods). Artificially it could be done by behind the scenes altering of drop rates on things and how often food/drink show up on vending machines and traders. It's definitely an interesting aspect of the discussion.
  2. If you choose not to acknowledge the point that's your choice. It's not a complicated matter. And this is exactly what I meant about handwaving. It's a survival game. How one can argue that time isn't a factor in almost everything is beyond me as early game time pressure is a big deal in any survival game I've ever played including this one. Time is even referenced in the name of the game which makes your position all the more amusing. Feel free to do so, you're entitled to an opinion. It doesn't change my view on the matter though. Simply repeating your opinion at me when I disagree isn't a discussion. Nor is simply saying it in a more (fake) authoritative way as if you're the arbiter for everyone else what is and isn't true. You have not actually addressed my argument. You've gone out of your way to make your argument about me personally and the way I play. Numerous arguments I've made you've simply said, 'nope' and pretend you're the authority on the matter and think that's the end of it when that's actually not addressing the point at all. You've made no attempt to understand my position and instead have spent the entire time trying to 'win' the argument. Which is silly because there isn't any way to win when we're talking about a subjective matter. 0 point investment comparison - I've explained I don't see it on an even playing field with other skills at 0 and why. I've said I like A19 better than current, but also acknowledged that I think it would be more balanced with some kind of maintenance. You argued that mining less is somehow comparable to not getting seed returns which completely shut down farming, I didn't agree or even see the comparison and the discussion prettymuch ended. That's not addressing the point at all and is the biggest issue I have with the perk now. Time delay between getting a seed and getting the yield - matters to me, you've tried to say it doesn't matter in very longwinded ways. That's not addressing my point at all, that's just handwaving. Seed quantity - I don't see seeds enough to make it worth it at the current yield, I've explained what value of seeds I would need to see to be worthwhile and why, you've attacked my playstyle as an excuse as to why I don't see seeds often, ignoring that doing trader quests is as a focus for progression is pretty clearly an intended method to play and RWG means that POI's that drop seeds may not even exist on a map currently or may be so far away that a player never runs into them. You've never even engaged my comment about 2-3 seeds at a time point because you were too busy throwing side insults (i.e. 'Mr. 3 POI's a game day!') Alternatives - I've presented, as have others, numerous examples of things that I think would be better and explained why I think it would be more balanced both on the low and high end and in ways that doesn't make either end overpowered at all. You've not substantively addressed any of them. Efficiency - You've spent a ton of time/words attacking my playstyle as if that has any bearing on the discussion at all. It was information I volunteered freely in trying to explain why I feel the way I do. This is all fallacious and has zero to do with the arguments I've made. It was tangential exposition in the discussion and you've made it a centerpiece of your argument against my point of view. Some people are going to dislike this change and they have entirely valid reasons for disliking it. You falling all over yourself to bash people who share that view while you 'nope' every argument they make and attack them personally instead of their argument is more than a little childish.
  3. Whether or not I'm actively tending to something doesn't obviate the point. If someone offers you 1 million dollars if you wait 50 years or 100 bucks now, which are you going to choose? Which one is more appealing? Which one has more value? What is the cost of making one choice over the other? It's an intentionally silly hypothetical that demonstrates my point. Time matters, whether one has to do anything while they wait or not. Pretending it doesn't is what is laughable. It's not something that changes whether we're talking about game mechanics or real life. The rest of that commentary is just snark and dismissal. More deflectionary tangential arguments. I not particularly concerned with you trying to justify LotL balance by being judgmental about the way I choose to engage in entertainment. What does any of that have to do with LotL in respect to other skills? You're trying to turn this discussion away from LotL and to me personally. That's a rather fallacious way to debate. I can't find a shred of substantive discussion in that section of your post. That's not what I said. Taking a snippet, reducing it to that, and then ignoring context of the rest of what I said isn't actually addressing my position in any way. It does demonstrate why some people think there are condescending, attacking mods on the forums. I'll be here if you want to actually address my argument.
  4. I've had quirky issues with the repulsor that knock them through walls so I stopped using it. After knocking out bulletproof glass in POI's because they glitched through it due to repulsor the third time I just took the thing off. It depends on base design but I usually section off my fences and tripwires inside a U shaped kill area and wouldn't want z's to warp through the walls inside my base if I hit them from the side. The bow changes I liked, but it's just way too slow for me. I absolutely hate the reload time. I use them for explosive bolts/arrows or when thinning large sleeper clusters but generally don't use them because of how slow to reload they are.
  5. I mean, I get that the time to plant isn't significant, which is why it was explicitly spelled out. But when looking at the statements I made and my comment about it taking time, are you going to look at the two values of time I could have been talking about, the mere seconds to plant, or the 2 game days that you wait for the return, when we're talking about the return on the crop, and go with the one that's completely inconsequential and then not talk about the vastly larger value? Seems pretty straitforward what I was talking about particularly in light of the context of the discussion, but if clarification is necessary there you have it. And I don't really have any desire to engage in a debate where you tell me what can and can't be factored into the value of a seed. If I have to wait to get a return on something, how long that return takes to yield something matters to me. If it doesn't matter to you I simply don't care. I'm not speaking about your opinions, I'm speaking about mine. My last playthrough I did nomad til I found a trader in close proximity to where I wanted to setup in the wastelends. Then I played light and focused quests. Once I got the T5 completion reward I relocated to the wasteland near the trader there. This statement is simply not true. I didn't cook anything aside from a handful of bacon and eggs that wasn't necessary and only because I found the recipe in my latest playthrough, it was just a nighttime activity. There are so many other methods of getting food and the payoff for planting a seed or two doesn't even come close to comparing. If one is intending to go into LotL holding onto seeds has value. Even if going into LotL is just 1 point. If not intending to go into LotL, then I don't see it as valuable. And there's no hypothetical upon which you can convince me it is. Almost anything else in that spot is going to be more valuable in my view. My problem is never having extra slots when I finish running POI's, it's having to decide what I really need at a given moment to bring back because I don't have the slots to physically carry everything. A seed sits on the very bottom of the list for me. If it was more than one seed of the same type that would be different, but that's not the case. And I don't even see the return worth even taking the time to move a seed to an adjacent POI that I'm not doing quests for for a later pickup. They're simply worth that little to me in this system when looting one seed.
  6. Don't forget the trader But seriously, I'd estimate I get a solid 1/3 of my loot from trader rewards. More if you perk out DA. The actual items on the trader are generally poor quality so they aren't meaningful to me in most playthroughs.
  7. The value of ammo in loot rooms increases if ammo is more scarce. As it stands running a T5 and ending up with 2k+ 9mm ammo when I'm using an SMG to kill things is ridiculous, let alone the many other stacks of ammo that I just ignore or throw away. One thing it made clear to me is the base game needs a turret that consumes 7.62 ammo though. At least I can dump the other 2 into turrets but that stuff I just don't even know what to do with at those levels.
  8. I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. It's 2 game days or 3 for shrooms. Granted I don't do a lot of farming so that's what I thought the values were. That's what I was referring to. Disregard any changed settings as that's optional alterations people make akin to using various mods that change things. Base balance shouldn't factor those things in. Don't handwave away the point. If you play where you drop storage and keep everything then the inventory value of anything isn't relevant. If you nomad or play light it's going to matter. I've made that choice many times, and it's not a choice between 1 can of beef and 3 seeds, it's between 1 can of beef and 1 seed. 2-3 seeds is where I think it starts becoming an interesting choice for someone with 0 LotL and if that actually happened I'd be fine with the state of farming (at least the return side of the discussion). Most of the raw crops are like 2 food value. So 2-3 seeds equals an minimum of 8 food with an average of 12. 15 food now versus 12 food average and the potential to make it into something more is a meaningful choice if you don't need the food now. First nothing is 'free'. It all takes time to acquire, farm, and utilize. And at weeks into the game a handful of 35-50 point meals that also require other stuff isn't a benefit with the amount of food we need and the rate at which food kits appear, let alone all the other sources of food it competes against as a source. There's a finite amount of food one needs and holding onto the yield of a couple seeds in the hope that it can amount to a days worth of food later is a tad silly. If we had a way to try to get specific recipes that would be different, but we don't. There's no way to 'work' towards any specific recipe aside from perking into the chef line. Though that's similar to most other skills unperked so I don't have an issue with that angle of it at all. But don't hyperbolize it to be more than what it is.
  9. There's nothing wrong with talking about effective values. One can't simply use the largest possible number one could get under limited circumstances to describe the general effectiveness of the perk though which is what I took issue with. And the way we were speaking about it was the relative impact of the trader as a whole which matters too because dukes aren't always getting both ends of the spectrum.
  10. It's not free. It's time, farming effort that I'll agree is minimal to make the plots. And it takes an inventory slot that is precious early game. For ~3 corn or potatoes or whatever, which the combined yield is worth less than most single cans that can be utilized immediately. To make it into something more requires either finding a recipe or perking into cooking and the other combined ingredients. It only becomes profitable when you can get more out of it than the base value which doesn't happen at 0 LotL. Definitely true. Though I try to look at it through the lense of "is this as effective as 0 salvaging, miner 69'er, engineering, etc". I don't think it is, though it's not like everything has to be symmetrical in function.
  11. What advantage? It's not more precise because the value varies. To be accurate you have to give 3 different numbers and estimate how much each part makes up the whole and it's going to vary over gameplay based on the player and how quickly they invest in the perk. Because of that it's a far less concise way to describe the effect and there no explicit average that can be pointed at that really captures a holistic view of the perk throughout gameplay. We'd need vastly more data than we can get a number to point at with any confidence and it still wouldn't be accurate for a specific playthrough or specific point in time. It can be referenced in a manner that gives a ballpark average but, again, that comes with a lot of required caveats to be intellectually honest when talking about it. The only advantage I see is shaping perception about the perk because it can sometimes be a bigger number if one narrowly applies it over the original method, and doing so isn't very useful or meaningful. If we both knew what the numbers mean then when I said that it wasn't a 50% bonus, that it was 25% buying and selling, you could have just said, "Yes, you're right, that's not an accurate value, I'm describing what the value can peak at because sometimes it compounds, when it does it's x, but it doesn't always because not all dukes come from selling and that it's difficult to ascertain an exact value. I think it happens about half the time for me but I have no real way to confirm that at all." But instead you went to great lengths to push the numbers you were providing instead of just acknowledging that we understood it the same way regardless. Initially I was just pointing out that saying 50% or 66% is not accurate. And it's true that it's not. an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. Just because it doesn't say the word intent doesn't mean it's not speaking about it. That's just google. I'm sure wikipedia mentioned something very similar. It's not about unfair. It's about being logically unsound. Why it's logically unsound depends on the specific fallacy, but in the case of a strawman it's not simply misunderstanding what someone says. It's purposefully changing someone else's position and then arguing against that erroneous position because it's easier to 'win' the debate that way. The method in which the argument is altered varies, reductivism and hyperbolism were used by someone else above that I pointed out, etc. But yes, lots of people throw around claims of fallacies without actually understanding what they mean because they want to use them to 'win' arguments. That's fallacious too It's something that tends to amuse me a lot. I'm directly speaking to what I believe about why you're saying what you're saying. If you presume I'm speaking about it as if I'm stating a fact I can see how you'd perceive it that way but to reach that conclusion you'd have to ignore context from statements before and after it. That context matters. Granted, I may get facts wrong and I'm happy to admit it and be educated on whatever I'm speaking about that's incorrect, but I don't fabricate a 'fact' because it supports my argument and I don't pretend my opinion is a fact. Part of it is the tone I write in too I think. If I see someone giving snark I tend to reciprocate in the way that I write by being sharper. The lines between objective discussion and subjective discussion can get blurred there with strong phrasing. Oh absolutely. English is a very murky language. We could tangent on the failings of the language for quite a while, let alone someone who isn't a primary speaker of the language using it and the common miscommunications that happen. But neither of us are perfect and I certainly don't see your commentary as trollish, even if we don't share the same perspective on things.
  12. It was the first T5 POI I went into after A20 and it was a mess. Now though I run into the area, trigger the zombies, then run back a ways. I leave myself fallback points for when I need to reload as there are so many damn irradiated in there they can easily swarm me while mid reload. This separates the fast moving from the slow moving zombies and chokes them up making them easy fodder. The stairwell areas are a bit messier as while the bulk of them will run down the stairs some will just fall over the side and land behind you which can be a pleasant surprise when you start taking damage. When they have to come up the stairs it's a bit easier. I tried this building when pretty high level with all T6 gear and lots of bandages on the drone as a fort build while punching them down using heavy armor. While I was never really in danger of getting killed I did get every wound possible, broken arm and leg included, and walked out with around 50% infected heh. My drone was spamming me with bandages the entire way because the injuries reduced my max health under the trigger point but due to injuries I couldn't actually get above ~80 health. Off all the T5's this seems the quickest to do and the better geared one is the easier it becomes. It's definitely harder than most if you're just starting T5's just due to sheer volume of zombies in massive clusters but it's significantly smaller in terms of ground one has to cover to clear it. That said to the general topic, I don't really consider any T5 worth the effort right now. I get numerous loot containers that have literally nothing in them and the loot room loot isn't good. It's usually just a massive amount of ammo. I know these are things they're working on fixing for 20.1. Even moreso considering Crack-A-Book was my go to location to hit up when book farming and they're far too rare to be worth the time now. The other large factories are still good if you want construction materials like cobblestone and concrete as they have tons of them and the Shamway Factory has a lot of food in it. I've done a building that was just a marked a factory and it was a bit mazelike and had zombies after the loot room that needed to be cleared but it wasn't too bad. Still not worth it loot wise but not terribly difficult to run. They cleaned up the apartment skyscraper with the pool and it's better. Still long and I end up always missing a sleeper or two that just never wake up even though I walk very close to them and kill their friends that I have to go back for. I haven't done the pharmaceutical skyscraper, the hospital, or any of the other new ones in A20 though.
  13. Once you get to the roof on one of the far sides is a metal rail staircase that goes down on the building exterior. Then you have to hop over the rail onto a tiny ledge that goes around the building to a broken window that opens into the elevator shaft. From there you climb a ladder down to the lower levels. It's easy to miss, particularly if you're used to the old version of the building.
  14. That's odd, I think it's the easiest tier 5. The path seemed rather straight forward to me. It does have several locations with a ton of z's, but all the tier 5's seem to have that. The biggest difference to me is that instead of many small clusters of z's there are a couple rather large areas that have a lot. It's definitely not one to melee through, even if geared, but using an auto shotty or an m60 it seemed fine. Just make sure to bring enough ammo (even though you'll probably loot it all back x3 once you get to the end and from all the bags. But what do you mean by hard? The z's? How complicated it is to navigate the POI? How large it is? It's going to depend a lot.
  15. Okay, so all of this back and forth was predicated on the desire for me to write about the skill using the bigger number because you feel it's the 'right' way to speak about the bonus of the skill, even though the game describes it that way and it's mathematically accurate to simply say 25% bonus to buying and selling and it doesn't require any exposition on when and how it's worth more than 25%? First, and I'm not trying to be intentionally mean here. No, I won't speak about it that way. I use terms the game uses and it's a hell of a lot less wordy when talking about it. The fact that it's %'s on two different things that sometimes interact means that the 'effective' value is sometimes going to be higher by nature. It doesn't need to be explicitly defined and can actually be erroneous if you give it a value as it fluctuates. The closer to end game you are the more opportunity one has to sell junk and buy things resulting in more of someone's dukes coming from the combined bonus particularly as the tier and quality increases and the sale values get higher and higher, but at the same time the less 'need' someone has to buy things from the trader. It becomes more convenience and less of a survival factor exactly like solar is. If the only source of dukes was buying and selling that would change the situation for me but it's not, and that phrasing could easily be misconstrued to make it seem like BB is far more powerful than it actually is. It also doesn't make sense to speak about a bonus in terms of 'up to x% effectiveness' on a tooltip. Particularly when people want to know exactly what they're spending points on and there's already a way to explain it that's simple and encapsulates all the situations where that 'up to' would matter exactly the way the game details it. So no, I won't use phrasing that's imprecise and potently misleading. Second, a strawman is when someone changes the argument another makes with the intent of refuting that altered argument. I'm not doing so. I think you can easily acknowledge that I've been debating excessively with you over the actual content of the argument you're making. I'm saying I don't believe your claim regarding your intent/motivation for arguing about the topic in the first place. That's not me putting words in your mouth, that's me putting words in mine so to speak. And while it's not a binary thing the precision/accuracy argument makes no sense to me. Your methodology of describing it is not more precise or more accurate than the way the game already describes the perk and it's far more concise to boot. But it's natural that you don't like that I don't believe your claim. Unfortunately your response to my question about whether BB is OP doesn't shake my assessment, it strengthens it. Had you said no I would have had to reconsider even if I thought your desire to have everyone speak about it in the personal 'right' way was weird. Maybe my phrasing could be better, but when I talk about things like motivation it's me conveying my opinion not a factual presentation or an insinuation at all. As above where I straight up said that I don't believe you. I'm pretty blunt. People don't need to infer anything from me. Whether it's a discussion style you like isn't really relevant to me, though it does make sense. We're very different personalities, I'm very direct and explicit, I say exactly what I mean. It's a matter of logic not emotion to me. You're not as direct and are often on the other side of the fence as to debate style. I can point to a dozen places in the last post where you implied things or places where you could have clarified but you left things vague. It's far more common for people to be like you than like me so I'm not trying to say there's anything wrong with it. But saying it's 'bad discussion style' is just an emotional appeal that doesn't mean anything to me. I don't feel the value in limiting my voice so that other people feel better when I have things to say that I know they won't like. That doesn't mean those things are intentionally mean or hurtful, just I don't sugar coat things or powder people's backsides so they don't have a negative emotional reaction to what I'm saying. But I do appreciate your arguments are often substantive even if we don't agree. Even the snarkier elements of your posts aren't really that snarky. I see it as a positive outcome when people can have a discourse and walk away disagreeing but with an understanding of perspective of the other side. I don't even see anything wrong with the view that the trader is too much of an influence on the survival aspect whether I agree or not. I can certainly see how players who want it to be more of a pure survival experience see the trader as easing gameplay challenges. That's merely a matter of preference and it's one that players can lean into or away from based upon how they choose to play.
×
×
  • Create New...