Jump to content

My A18 feedback


~Kevin~

Recommended Posts

After 15 months of staying away from the forums , i return to the exact reason why i left in the first place. Constant and repeating negativity in just about every thread about the same bloody thing.

 

Welcome back! Do what I do, stop reading the negative posts once they start repeating themselves...lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After 15 months of staying away from the forums , i return to the exact reason why i left in the first place. Constant and repeating negativity in just about every thread about the same bloody thing.

 

So people just spose to pay and not voice their concerns and thoughts. So people repeat it. Doesnt mean anything but passion of what that person feels etc.

 

People have serious doubts on the current path of the game. Yeh you get some fanbois on their knees praising the game and derailing threads. But wont stop people giving their opinion. Its occurred since the beginning of this game. We are in a discussions thread. And you have just as many positives as those that dont see it as the greatest game anymore. Rather then look at things as negatives see them as their views and they paid to express their views.

 

But not gonna stop these threads on trying to improve the game to how they feel it was or is gonna be.

 

If you dont like it you dont have to read it or participate no one is forcing you.

 

:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My concern is that the A17-onward pathing system requires every NPC to share the same pathing grid. That means you can't have NPCs that sometimes know the best way to get from point A to point B, and sometimes take an inefficent path. It would have been cool if the way zombies tried breaking blocks based off flawed zombie logic, rather than just "whichever block has the least health", but then the bandits would have to share that logic. I'm guessing materially challenged bandits are a deal-breaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My concern is that the A17-onward pathing system requires every NPC to share the same pathing grid. That means you can't have NPCs that sometimes know the best way to get from point A to point B, and sometimes take an inefficent path. It would have been cool if the way zombies tried breaking blocks based off flawed zombie logic, rather than just "whichever block has the least health", but then the bandits would have to share that logic. I'm guessing materially challenged bandits are a deal-breaker.

 

Nah, why would they have to share it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They might share the same grid but the knowledge of the length of the path can vary. It already does. Some zombies know the long pathway to get to the player whereas others “forget” the long path and go into destruction mode because they can no longer see a way to reach the player. It still needs work but there is good potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Bub or Michonnes zombies are the exceptions

 

Of course. I said exactly that a few posts back. The "basic" zombie is what I insist it is. All the variations are exceptions.

 

that overcame the urge that generally exists in the zombies in Day in the Dead and TWD. The urge in them still exists or existed at one time. As you yourself said "There is a reason why they behave like so, and that they behave like so is - within the story - remarkable. Unusual. Not normal.". The urge works as a common general expectation, while for example supernatural abilities or higher intelligence is sometimes a general feature of zombie variants in movies and comics.

 

Absolutely.

 

The intention of the devs seems quite clear from the current state of the game and it is only of academic interest whether that intention was there from the start or came about because a rewrite of the AI code was necessary and/or their behaviour was thought as too simple. Sure, they need the story to explain the behaviour somewhat consistently, which isn't really the hard part. The hard part is writing the AI to apply that behaviour consistently while running on any machine that conforms to the current minimal hardware speccs. And that effort is still ongoing.

 

I don't really find the intentions that clear, I don't follow these Dev Diary threads, though, maybe it becomes more obvious there. From my perspective, it kinda seems that their game design is following their problem solving, and then the lore will be stitched on top of it all. Like the perks, first they invest all that time to design LBD-skills, while they already wanted everything to be a perk? Implausible. They originally wanted an LBD/perk hybrid, ran into problems, redesigned. The lack of outside zombies seems to root in the issue that they can't have the number of sleppers they want at the same time. The existence of treasure rooms seems like a necessity if you want all those sleepers. And the current overly intelligent (actually clairvoyant) zombies follows the problems that pathfinding caused before.

 

I could go on, and again: That's how it looks to me.

 

An AI that emulates A16 by simply running at the position of the player and hitting on anything between seems something that could still be done very easy by Fataal. So the more intelligent behaviour is at least at the moment surely intentional, probably because it gets some tower defense gameplay into the horde night.

 

The issue of zombies standing below the player position all night was discussed for quite a while, but yeah, from a TD-perspective the forseeable zombies do make some sense, but I still find it too forseeable, thus way too easy. They should not just all follow the same (forseeable) path.

 

 

Personally I'm all for the more intelligent zombies of A17/A18.

 

Would it not be better to introduce a new type of enemy that is intelligent? I don't mind intelligent enemies, but I also like my dumb Romero-zombies. I don't want them removed. Do you not like them? Or would you agree we should have both?

 

I never wanted to build bases in A16 because there was no point in making more complicated structures as a box with concentric rings of traps. Since A17 I build horde bases, each time something different.

 

If you enjoy designing these kill corridors, myself I find that way too easy. But then again, as I mentioned a couple times before: I'm not much of a builder, and now, I have to build way less to get myself a defendable base than with the old AI. A staircase with a catwalk that can literally be build in one day - like in 101 videos you can find on youtube.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the zombie AI and pathfinding for how it enhances POI exploration. This is a separate issue for me from whether current POI design is better or worse than it once was or than it could be. I like the enemies being relentless and that they can find their way back to me while I'm exploring.

 

So you don't kill them all? When I follow the designated path, I run into all of them - pocket after pocket (aka "sleeper volume") - and kill them. If I don't, for example when I go straight for the treasure room, zombies outside the pocket(s) I enter don't even wake up. Not sure what you're refering to with "back to me". Back from where? Anyways, outside horde night, the AI does not bother me. There were weird cases in A17, though, I don't know if they are gone in A18 or I just didn't run into similar circumstances.

 

I recognize the weakness of the AI and pathfinding for horde night. It is easily exploitable and you do have to build with a mind to how you know they will behave. I don't personally take advantage of exploits and so still have fun on horde nights but I definitely would like for them to fix the flaws.

 

I see the current pathfinding and AI as a better starting point than what we had before. I hope they will keep working at obfuscating what the zombies actually know and work on making them seem more organic than programmed.

 

So you're on board with the critics. Sounds much like it also in other comments.

 

Question, though: How do you decide what's an "exploit"? Compared to a good design?

 

Then you're reading me wrong. Of course I want these things discussed.

 

I might read you wrong, but maybe you're expressing yourself mistakable. Or it's a mix. Of both.

 

What we have now is neither a complete representation of their vision nor is it at a point where it is stuck by technical limitations. It is the early days of their development of a new system where they start out with zombies having perfect knowledge and then work to limit that fact and obfuscate that fact from the player.

 

Yes, yes, that's what we are judging, if we get something else, we will change our opinions accordingly.

 

A17 was the first version and A18 is the second version. I think that A18 is better than A17. If someone thinks that A18 is the culmination and intended stopping point for how the zombies will behave then that is a misconception but it does seem by the way some post that they in fact do believe that TFP are done with zombie AI.

 

I also am under the impression that A18 AI is not as absurd as A17, yes.

 

faatal did a lot of work and he has more to do but he has been tasked elsewhere and so for the time being this is what we have. If the anger over what we have right now is rooted in thinking that what we have is the intended final product then let me reassure that it is not.

 

Good good, I too think that the AI needs more work, same page, that's great, though, waitaminute, "anger"? No anger, Roland, just "just saying".

 

As to what their final vision is for zombies is they want them to be challenging and fun. They don't want them getting stuck on decorations. They want them to be able to navigate effectively. They don't want them easily defeated by the first bloodmoon and then never pose a challenge ever again. They want to fix endless behavior loops. They do have truly intelligent enemies planned in the form of bandits so once bandits are in maybe zombies will be dumbified even more so there is a nice spread of enemy intelligence level.

 

Once more I agree, zombies should navigate effectively, blood moon should be a challenge, zombies should not be intelligent, but it would be great if other enemies, that are intelligent, would be added.

 

In the early days of the game most of these types of conversations about the immersion breaking behavior of zombies was focused on the fact that they could break down wood, concrete, and steel blocks with their bare hands and were upset for that reason that TFP called them zombies. I'll put my own Lorax face on and say that it seems that most players have come to finally accept that behavior as the normal behavior of TFP's zombies.

 

There is actually noone in this thread who is upset over the zombies being called zombies. That's either a misconception or a provocative, fact-twisting narrative. You decide.

 

And while it is being mentioned repeatedly, that it's unrealistic that zombies can break blocks made of materials that are harder than flesh and bones (which it obviously is), I have not seen anybody honestly complain about it, like I see ppl complain about the current AI. Zombies have to be able to break blocks, otherwise there is no game (just like survivors in movies often behave silly, cuz otherwise there would be no movie). The current AI, though, is not necessary, the game did not have it until recently.

 

But it looks like we're all on the same page. The new AI sucks. Here and there are good things, the former bugs are gone, if you say so, they are more efficient in navigating through POIs (can't say I notice that, cuz I kill em all), but horde night needs work. No enemy - in my opinion - should be able to see through walls and know exactly the path that leads to the player, including which blocks are the weakest.

 

I think that the general populace would look at anything that appears to be a zombie and call it a zombie regardless of behavior.

 

But the question is what does the general populace have in mind when you say "zombie". Something else than when you say "vampire". What? Creatures that ride horses and fire rifles? Creatures that spit acid and explode? Creatures that are highly intelligent? Solve crimes? Seek romance? No. They have in mind what we - with a very few exceptions - see in the Romero movies and - with zero exceptions - the TWD series. We all have that in mind when we just hear "it's a zombie game/movie/comic/book". You know, "all (not all though)".

 

However, your thought inspired one of my own: It should be plausible that creators call anything a zombie, that has at least one characteristic of the old Romero zombies. And that's why. Though that, yet again, might be done to provide the consumer with a familiar label to increase sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is only hardcore zombie fans that get upset when they compare anything that claims to be a zombie to whatever cannon they are going by. Regiular people standing around water coolers love the MCU and discuss what they like. Comic Book fans standing around in comic book stores likely hate the MCU and discuss every way it falls short of the cannon.

 

Now we're entering the era of the "ultra hardcore zombie fan", that is some sort of very angry and sensitive extremist who can't be reasoned with and who - thankfully - also isn't of any relevance to anybody but themselves. An odditiy. lol Though I kinda can't help the impression, that I'm categorized as one. *sigh*

 

Anyways: I think of all people, it's the hardcore ultra fans who know that all kinds of creatures are being called zombies. Such fans, though, must indeed be disappointed when a certain game or movie features a flavor they dislike. Or when the zombies of their favorite game are being changed to a flavor they dislike.

 

Just, then again, like anybody else who happens to dislike a certain type of creature. Noone likes it all, right.

 

Personally I don't think TFP should worry about ultra zombie fans but should make their monsters however they wish. The ultra zombie fans will be horrified but everyone else will shrug and not really care that TFP labels what they have created as "zombies".

 

The horrified ultra fans, Roland. Are you serious. As I said, yes, any creator should make their monster however they wish and call them whatever they want.

 

I'm not an ultra zombie fan, myself, so I am pleased with every new special ability they add. I'm glad they can dig and pound their way through blocks. I'm glad they are better at pathfinding especially while exploring POI's. Those aspects that make them predictable enough to be exploited in ridiculous ways I expect to be fixed at some point. I don't think they are at the point where they are stumped by technical limitations. I fully believe they will return to look at zombie behavior and polish it up and make it better-- perhaps at the same time they bring bandits in.

 

As an "ultra hardcore zombie fan" (minus the mental disease (I hope)), I too am pleased with diversity among the enemies of a video game, but I also would very much like to have my favorite flavor of zombies in there. 7dtd used to have that, but - this is where you can mention the alpha disclaimer once more - unfortunately, it's gradually being replaced by something (I consider) silly characteristics when they (the characteristics) are being attributed to - so called - "zombies". Particularly the high intelligence. It's fine to have highly intelligent enemies and spice things up that way, you can even call them "zombies", but I want my Romero-zombies in the mix as well. And if you asked me, and if we would just have a nerdy pop culture discussion, then yeah, I think these highly intelligent enemies should not be (called) zombies, but maybe some form of mutations or demonic creatures or simply "bandits".

 

Any lay person looking at our game on a youtube video and seeing the enemies in action would immediately call this game a zombie game. The only people saying that it should not be called a zombie game any longer are "the experts" who don't agree with what they can do. I don't even disagree with their anger as they are the experts. I just don't think that TFP should concern themselves with it whenever they add the next special zombie ability.

 

Provocation? Misconception? I'm interested.

 

You are supposed to bar the windows and doors because they are the weak points. Zombies should be attacking everywhere and it is the ones who happen to chance upon the door or window that attack those weak points. But for zombies to target them at the exclusion of other parts of a structure is exactly the same thing that happens now. I'm not trolling and I am serious. In the old code their AI priority was doors.

 

So...did you bar the doors and windows because you knew they were weak points that need reinforcement or did you bar the doors and windows because you knew the zombie AI targeted those types of blocks first? For anyone paying attention from A1-A17 it was the latter.

 

Actually, zombies go for light, sound and smell, so attacking the brightest, loudest and smelliest points first just makes sense. It is expectable zombie intelligence and it's fine that we know that it is (of course) programmed like that. And that's a good reason why they would attack windows and doors. Makes sense. Zombies might also attack walls, but - why? It needs a reason. What drives it? How is a zombie attracted by a wall? It only makes sense on horde night, when the zombie - sorta magically - knows where the players are and goes for them in a straight line. If there is a wall between zombie and player, the zombie would attack the wall. Otherwise, a zombie would always follow the player in some way. See that the player went through a door, see the player through a door or window, smell the player, hear the player. Through openings. Or a zombie would see a player on a roof, for example, go straight to the building, run into a wall and start... fiddling about. And that way, somehow circle the building, slide along the wall, and then find a door, where it will naturally going through or smell something, hear something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you don't kill them all? When I follow the designated path, I run into all of them - pocket after pocket (aka "sleeper volume") - and kill them. If I don't, for example when I go straight for the treasure room, zombies outside the pocket(s) I enter don't even wake up. Not sure what you're refering to with "back to me". Back from where?

 

I think I know what Roland means. I recently took the plunge and edited the spawning.xml to make 3 changes:

 

a) I massively increased the number of zombies that spawn in the wild

b) I massively decreased the respawn time of wild zombies

c) I massively increased the zombies' perception (distance over which they can detect the player - thru sight or sound? not sure).

 

I must say this has transformed the game utterly. It's fantastic now. SOOOO much better. One of the main effects of these changes is when exploring POIs. As soon as you are inside and following the path, there is a high chance the many zombies will spawn outside in the wild and immediately perceive the player's sounds inside. This will make them head INTO that POI (probably by the same way in the player took due to the path-finding, though some hammer straight through the weaker walls) and then track the player down inside, thus coming up BEHIND the general exploration track. With the respawn so brief this can happen multiple times in larger POIs and greatly increases the tension. We are currently 2 player co-op at gamestage 300+ and this makes POIs absolutely chaotic and scary. Love it.

 

It is the one instance where I celebrate the A17 "intelligent" path-finding AI for adding a great deal to the game. On horde night? No, it's a disaster. But when exploring POIs it's fantastic. Still immersive, and still feels like how zombies would act (because they are not having to evaluate any block strength, the path to the player is typically clear - unless he's shutting doors as he goes even then they will come through the doors which feels "correct").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course. I said exactly that a few posts back. The "basic" zombie is what I insist it is. All the variations are exceptions.

 

 

 

Absolutely.

 

 

 

I don't really find the intentions that clear, I don't follow these Dev Diary threads, though, maybe it becomes more obvious there. From my perspective, it kinda seems that their game design is following their problem solving, and then the lore will be stitched on top of it all. Like the perks, first they invest all that time to design LBD-skills, while they already wanted everything to be a perk? Implausible. They originally wanted an LBD/perk hybrid, ran into problems, redesigned. The lack of outside zombies seems to root in the issue that they can't have the number of sleppers they want at the same time. The existence of treasure rooms seems like a necessity if you want all those sleepers. And the current overly intelligent (actually clairvoyant) zombies follows the problems that pathfinding caused before.

 

I could go on, and again: That's how it looks to me.

 

I see LBD or perks as a detail implementation of the higher goal "RPG system". If a game developer designs the 50th copy of a traditional game he probably has a design document with every perk listed one month after starting development. If a game developer wants to do an innovative game his design documents probably specifiy only high-level goals and maybe ideas of actual implementations to try. So they tried LBD then a mix, then perks. If a developer has the time and money, I see no problem with that.

Existence of treasure rooms seems a decision independent of sleepers but a consequence of a single path dungeon design.

Lack of outside zombies is very clearly a technical limitation. And I don't think optimizations will bring that much here, but the planned encounter system looks promising and a slider for max zombies is a neccessity.

 

The issue of zombies standing below the player position all night was discussed for quite a while, but yeah, from a TD-perspective the forseeable zombies do make some sense, but I still find it too forseeable, thus way too easy. They should not just all follow the same (forseeable) path.

 

 

 

 

Would it not be better to introduce a new type of enemy that is intelligent? I don't mind intelligent enemies, but I also like my dumb Romero-zombies. I don't want them removed. Do you not like them? Or would you agree we should have both?

 

Bandits are on the roadmap and they surely will be the most intelligent type in the game, I don't know how low basic zombies will go in dumbness once bandits are in. I would have no problem if they never go dumber than today but I also wouldn't mind if the lowest zombies are dumber than now. Provided there are enough zombies to follow paths so kill corridors and elaborate designs make sense before lvl 60.

 

I don't view Romero-zombies as the central definition of zombieness anymore and couldn't care less if any zombie conforms or not conforms to that definition. And I bet 90% of all players under 30 won't even really know what a Romero type zombie is. I.e. they would not classify a running zombie as a slightly aberrant zombie, it might be as typical as a shambling one for them.

 

If you enjoy designing these kill corridors, myself I find that way too easy. But then again, as I mentioned a couple times before: I'm not much of a builder, and now, I have to build way less to get myself a defendable base than with the old AI. A staircase with a catwalk that can literally be build in one day - like in 101 videos you can find on youtube.

 

So it seems we are both fine with the state of horde night zombies as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you don't kill them all? When I follow the designated path, I run into all of them - pocket after pocket (aka "sleeper volume") - and kill them. If I don't, for example when I go straight for the treasure room, zombies outside the pocket(s) I enter don't even wake up. Not sure what you're refering to with "back to me". Back from where? Anyways, outside horde night, the AI does not bother me. There were weird cases in A17, though, I don't know if they are gone in A18 or I just didn't run into similar circumstances.

 

I don't follow the designated path very often. I take it seriously that this is a voxel world and I enjoy making my own path. Also I have greatly increased the outdoor spawns so there is often a few zombies that enter the POI from the outside. Finally, one of my favorite things to do is knock back a zombie near a ledge and see them ragdoll over the side and fall below. Sometimes these guys work their way back to my location which is awesome (imo)

 

So you're on board with the critics. Sounds much like it also in other comments.

 

Question, though: How do you decide what's an "exploit"? Compared to a good design?

 

I'm on board with the criticisms that matches my own preferences. I don't agree that A18 is a step backwards. I think it is a much better starting place than what we had but I would be disappointed if it turned out to be the final version. I'm hopeful that they can solve the issues that plague the current system. My biggest disappointment, if you'd like to know, is that before they added the group damage multiplier the zombies tended to pile up on each other. There were times that they would pyramid high enough to crest over the roof of a Shamway store. After they added the multiplier the zombies would bore through too quickly so they wouldn't pyramid as much. This was all pre-A17 release.

 

An exploit in my mind is something that is too simply accomplished without risk or very much effort to match the reward gained by doing it. Also using game functions in ways not intended qualifies no matter how much effort it takes. So using any convoluted method to look through the terrain is an exploit/cheat because the intention is clearly that we shouldn't be able to do it. Each person has to decide for themselves what is an exploit and if they are playing Single Player they are allowed to do whatever is fun, imo.

 

Yes, yes, that's what we are judging, if we get something else, we will change our opinions accordingly.

 

Yes, but there is usually a difference in leeway granted when judging something that is a work in progress vs final product. Some seem to me to be judging by the standard of final product for some reason. But maybe I'm reading them wrong...

 

Good good, I too think that the AI needs more work, same page, that's great, though, waitaminute, "anger"? No anger, Roland, just "just saying".

 

Sorry, I wasn't referring to you. I can think of at least two people by name who have responded in this thread clearly out of anger regarding the current status. You know them too. You referred to them when stating that sometimes people say things in their passion that shouldn't be held against them.

 

There is actually noone in this thread who is upset over the zombies being called zombies. That's either a misconception or a provocative, fact-twisting narrative. You decide.

 

There was one by my count (Prodigy) so if I'm wrong that would be option one of your two choices.

 

And while it is being mentioned repeatedly, that it's unrealistic that zombies can break blocks made of materials that are harder than flesh and bones (which it obviously is), I have not seen anybody honestly complain about it, like I see ppl complain about the current AI. Zombies have to be able to break blocks, otherwise there is no game (just like survivors in movies often behave silly, cuz otherwise there would be no movie). The current AI, though, is not necessary, the game did not have it until recently.

 

Perhaps you were not yet a member of the community to be able to see the complaints. It came up quite a bit and they didn't like being told it was obviously necessary for gameplay. But I already agreed that these days you hardly ever see anyone complain about zombies being able to break things. I think the current AI is necessary so I disagree with you. It has its problems but as a starting place it is better than the old and will eventually become better than the old in all ways (thats hope talking)

 

But it looks like we're all on the same page. The new AI sucks. Here and there are good things, the former bugs are gone, if you say so, they are more efficient in navigating through POIs (can't say I notice that, cuz I kill em all), but horde night needs work. No enemy - in my opinion - should be able to see through walls and know exactly the path that leads to the player, including which blocks are the weakest.

 

Not quite the same page but close enough I suppose. We traded old problems for new problems and as long as the new problems get fixed I'll be happy. I disagree completely about your assessment of AI. It really should be able to see through walls and see all pathways and have perfect information on the health of blocks etc. But the developers MUST then limit and obfuscate that perfect knowledge through intentional "mistakes" in order to make them seem organic and normal to the player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now we're entering the era of the "ultra hardcore zombie fan", that is some sort of very angry and sensitive extremist who can't be reasoned with and who - thankfully - also isn't of any relevance to anybody but themselves. An odditiy. lol Though I kinda can't help the impression, that I'm categorized as one. *sigh*

 

Anyways: I think of all people, it's the hardcore ultra fans who know that all kinds of creatures are being called zombies. Such fans, though, must indeed be disappointed when a certain game or movie features a flavor they dislike. Or when the zombies of their favorite game are being changed to a flavor they dislike.

 

Just, then again, like anybody else who happens to dislike a certain type of creature. Noone likes it all, right.

 

 

 

The horrified ultra fans, Roland. Are you serious. As I said, yes, any creator should make their monster however they wish and call them whatever they want.

 

 

 

As an "ultra hardcore zombie fan" (minus the mental disease (I hope)), I too am pleased with diversity among the enemies of a video game, but I also would very much like to have my favorite flavor of zombies in there. 7dtd used to have that, but - this is where you can mention the alpha disclaimer once more - unfortunately, it's gradually being replaced by something (I consider) silly characteristics when they (the characteristics) are being attributed to - so called - "zombies". Particularly the high intelligence. It's fine to have highly intelligent enemies and spice things up that way, you can even call them "zombies", but I want my Romero-zombies in the mix as well. And if you asked me, and if we would just have a nerdy pop culture discussion, then yeah, I think these highly intelligent enemies should not be (called) zombies, but maybe some form of mutations or demonic creatures or simply "bandits".

 

First of all I wasn't including you at all in the group of people who nerd out over zombie lore. I never said "ultra hardcore fans like you". I talked about them as a third party. When I post it is often keeping in mind what I have read all over the forum. Maybe it is a bit confusing that I respond based on outside sources from this particular thread but that's what I do. I'll try to note it when I do it.

 

Secondly, I wasn't intending it to be pejorative at all. You are adding that flavor into it. I never talked about mental disease at all. You are twisting what I said. It is a fact that anyone who is a fan (fanatic) of a particular thing will be more critical and less forgiving of its portrayal. Gun Nuts get upset about guns in 7 Days to Die. Zombie Philes get upset and particular about what constitutes a zombie. My kids are Harry Potter freaks and were way more critical of the movies than I was. But I often hate a movie if I've read the book first and loved the book version. None of these people necessarily have mental illness. They are simply super passionate about their preferred material.

 

Provocation? Misconception? I'm interested.

 

I choose your misconception that I was referring to you which led to your provocation of accusing me of assigning mental derangement to ultra hardcore fans of things.

 

Actually, zombies go for light, sound and smell, so attacking the brightest, loudest and smelliest points first just makes sense.

 

Are you talking about real zombies or the code for the zombies in this game? The code for this game has nothing to do with smell and everything to do with sight and sound. Light only figures into making you more visible but they are not coded to be attracted to light. They aren't even coded to be attracted specifically to doors any more-- although they used be.

 

It is expectable zombie intelligence and it's fine that we know that it is (of course) programmed like that. And that's a good reason why they would attack windows and doors. Makes sense. Zombies might also attack walls, but - why? It needs a reason. What drives it? How is a zombie attracted by a wall? It only makes sense on horde night, when the zombie - sorta magically - knows where the players are and goes for them in a straight line. If there is a wall between zombie and player, the zombie would attack the wall. Otherwise, a zombie would always follow the player in some way. See that the player went through a door, see the player through a door or window, smell the player, hear the player. Through openings. Or a zombie would see a player on a roof, for example, go straight to the building, run into a wall and start... fiddling about. And that way, somehow circle the building, slide along the wall, and then find a door, where it will naturally going through or smell something, hear something.

 

I agree that if there is a plausible explanation provided for why they attack any particular block and if the programming can be done in a way that makes them behave like instinctive creatures that are attracted by smell, sound, and sight that would be ideal. I also acknowledge we aren't there yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I know what Roland means. I recently took the plunge and edited the spawning.xml to make 3 changes:

 

a) I massively increased the number of zombies that spawn in the wild

b) I massively decreased the respawn time of wild zombies

c) I massively increased the zombies' perception (distance over which they can detect the player - thru sight or sound? not sure).

 

I must say this has transformed the game utterly. It's fantastic now. SOOOO much better. One of the main effects of these changes is when exploring POIs. As soon as you are inside and following the path, there is a high chance the many zombies will spawn outside in the wild and immediately perceive the player's sounds inside. This will make them head INTO that POI (probably by the same way in the player took due to the path-finding, though some hammer straight through the weaker walls) and then track the player down inside, thus coming up BEHIND the general exploration track. With the respawn so brief this can happen multiple times in larger POIs and greatly increases the tension. We are currently 2 player co-op at gamestage 300+ and this makes POIs absolutely chaotic and scary. Love it.

 

It is the one instance where I celebrate the A17 "intelligent" path-finding AI for adding a great deal to the game. On horde night? No, it's a disaster. But when exploring POIs it's fantastic. Still immersive, and still feels like how zombies would act (because they are not having to evaluate any block strength, the path to the player is typically clear - unless he's shutting doors as he goes even then they will come through the doors which feels "correct").

 

If anyone here could edit the game in a direction I’d likely agree with, it would probably be you sir

 

We’re in a similar boat regarding opinions on changes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see LBD or perks as a detail implementation of the higher goal "RPG system". If a game developer designs the 50th copy of a traditional game he probably has a design document with every perk listed one month after starting development. If a game developer wants to do an innovative game his design documents probably specifiy only high-level goals and maybe ideas of actual implementations to try. So they tried LBD then a mix, then perks.

 

With perks being the least innovative progression system of them all, but anyways: All these changes contradict your impression that "The intention of the devs seems quite clear from the current state of the game".

 

Originally my question was "If you want a game with intelligent zombies, that's fine. Do you? Is that the intention of the devs? To me, it looks much like some sort of unavoidable necessity.", so while you want intelligent zombies because you enjoy building kill corridors, I don't know if the devs want intelligent zombies or if they create a new AI system that lead to intelligent zombies, that will, however, and as Roland, hm, speculates (?), be dumbed back down again.

 

And, which is the original point that lead to my original question, if they wanted intelligent zombies - why call em zombies? Why not call em "infected" or "mutants"? If, on top of being intelligent, they can bleed to death, feel pain, can self heal. This is not me insisting they're not allowed - *disclaim disclaim disclaim* - it's just chatting. An art, that seems to be on the decline, right, mega? :-)

 

If a developer has the time and money, I see no problem with that.

 

If the alpha disclaimer trumps everything. I see problems with the changes, cuz I don't like them. You're only right, if such disappointment, that not only I experience, is no problem.

 

And since you don't share that disappointment, but welcome the changes, your stance seems a bit "uninclusive", don't you agree.

 

Existence of treasure rooms seems a decision independent of sleepers but a consequence of a single path dungeon design.

 

How is it not all conected? Paths, sleepers and treasure rooms? It's a package. The single path makes sure you have to go through all the sleepers, and then you get a compensation for your effort at the end. Going straight to a treasure room, aka going straight to a certain room in a poi, which was perfectly normal before A17, now has the flair of "cheating". Cuz you didn't go through the zombies and don't deserve the reward.

 

I wonder how they wanna fix that, if they remove the loot, why would anyone still go through pois full of sleepers, particularly on higher game stages? This whole concept obviously needs another substantial re-design, imho ideally loot that levels along with the zombies and is not in one spot.

 

Lack of outside zombies is very clearly a technical limitation. And I don't think optimizations will bring that much here, but the planned encounter system looks promising and a slider for max zombies is a neccessity.

 

I hope so, but I'm not quite sure about that, because they actively removed the option to spawn zombies outside houses. They removed the "static spawner"-option in the prefabs' xmls. So they don't want it? The number of zombies obviously needs to be balanced with other aspects of the game. You can't even mod it. I don't understand that. Cuz as I said before: The biome spawn ain't cutting it. You need increased numbers of zombies near houses, not 50 zombies randomly spread all over the place.

 

Here, once more, leveled spawn rates absolutely make sense, the higher your level, the more zombies spawn.

 

Bandits are on the roadmap and they surely will be the most intelligent type in the game, I don't know how low basic zombies will go in dumbness once bandits are in. I would have no problem if they never go dumber than today but I also wouldn't mind if the lowest zombies are dumber than now. Provided there are enough zombies to follow paths so kill corridors and elaborate designs make sense before lvl 60.

 

What is it that gives elaborate designs their sense, in your opinion? You don't have to design elaborately today, but you always could and it had a "positive effect" during horde night. Thus, always made sense. Not trying to deny that enjoying intelligent enemies is perfectly valid.

 

I don't view Romero-zombies as the central definition of zombieness anymore and couldn't care less if any zombie conforms or not conforms to that definition. And I bet 90% of all players under 30 won't even really know what a Romero type zombie is. I.e. they would not classify a running zombie as a slightly aberrant zombie, it might be as typical as a shambling one for them.

 

For clarification, though the "concept" really isn't exotic, it's not that I, an ultra hardcore zombie fan, get upset over the simple fact that some zombies in some media don't conform to a definition. It is that I simply like the Romero-zombies and want them in my game. Like I used to have them in 7dtd. And only on top of that, it also just so happens that the Romero zombie is indeed the central definition of zombieness, if we don't count the voodoo-zombie, that is the actual archetype. The Romero-zombie is the modern archetype, that actually would deserve it's own label (instead of "zombie").

 

That is not an opinion. I went to Youtube and did two searches:

 

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=zombie

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=what+is+a+zombie

 

You might want to go through the results and check how zombies are characterised. You will notice that the vast VAST VAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAST majority of videos characterises zombies as Romero-zombies. If they do not show actual footage from Romero movies.

 

You might also want to read the introduction of the Wikipedia article, which is an overview of the history. Voodoo-zombies, Romero-Zombies (inspired by I am legend), then, in the late 90s beginning with video games, variations, first the running zombies, then friendly zombies with feelings and intelligence. The article also says

 

"The modern conception of the zombie owes itself almost entirely to George A. Romero's 1968 film Night of the Living Dead.[1][59][60] In his films, Romero "bred the zombie with the vampire, and what he got was the hybrid vigour of a ghoulish plague monster".[61] This entailed an apocalyptic vision of monsters that have come to be known as Romero zombies."

 

"Dawn of the Dead was the most commercially successful zombie film for decades, up until the zombie revival of the 2000s." I consider it still and by far the best zombie movie ever made, I've seen it probably 20 times.

 

Then the revival with video games, one of which was Resident Evil: "Resident Evil has been credited with popularizing survival horror games, as well as re-popularizing zombies in mainstream popular culture from the late 1990s onwards (along with The House of the Dead), leading to a renewed interest in zombie films during the 2000s. Resident Evil is Capcom's best-selling video game franchise, with over 95 million sold worldwide by 2019. The Resident Evil films are also the highest-grossing film series based on video games." Romero zombies - and other creatures, which is great. And only then the variations start occuring, running zombies first with the game "The House of the Dead", which "has also been credited with introducing fast running zombies, which became popular in zombie films and video games during the 2000s." And the fast running zombie is just 1 characteristic away from the Romero zombie. Why fast zombies? Because it's easier to create tension than it is with a slow moving creature.

 

Then: "In 2013, the AMC series The Walking Dead had the highest audience ratings in the United States for any show on broadcast or cable with an average of 5.6 million viewers in the 18- to 49-year-old demographic." 100% pure Romero zombies.

 

Can you show me anything substantial that would indicate that the Romero-zombie is NOT the archetype of the modern zombie? I bet you can't.

 

So it seems we are both fine with the state of horde night zombies as it is.

 

After arguing reasonably, I'm kinda burnt out and just have a funny gif for you:

 

YxEbb3h.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't follow the designated path very often. I take it seriously that this is a voxel world and I enjoy making my own path. Also I have greatly increased the outdoor spawns so there is often a few zombies that enter the POI from the outside. Finally, one of my favorite things to do is knock back a zombie near a ledge and see them ragdoll over the side and fall below. Sometimes these guys work their way back to my location which is awesome (imo)

 

I see. Modding really seems a necessity to enjoy the game these days. Maybe I should give up my vow not to invest any more time into modding before I can be sure that my effort won't be flushed down the "but the alpha disclaimer" toilet.

 

I'm on board with the criticisms that matches my own preferences. I don't agree that A18 is a step backwards. I think it is a much better starting place than what we had but I would be disappointed if it turned out to be the final version.

 

What if you had to choose between A18 and A16 as the final version?

 

I'm hopeful that they can solve the issues that plague the current system. My biggest disappointment, if you'd like to know, is that before they added the group damage multiplier the zombies tended to pile up on each other. There were times that they would pyramid high enough to crest over the roof of a Shamway store. After they added the multiplier the zombies would bore through too quickly so they wouldn't pyramid as much. This was all pre-A17 release.

 

That is an interesting biggest disappoint, aka "I wish I had your problems". Can't say that these pyramids were a mentionable element in my games. My biggest disappoint probably is the world design and the removal of zombies spawning outside buildings.

 

An exploit in my mind is something that is too simply accomplished without risk or very much effort to match the reward gained by doing it.

 

What would that be during horde night? Building a stairway thingy that causes zombies to loop for example?

 

Also using game functions in ways not intended qualifies no matter how much effort it takes. So using any convoluted method to look through the terrain is an exploit/cheat because the intention is clearly that we shouldn't be able to do it.

 

I'd call that just cheating.

 

Each person has to decide for themselves what is an exploit and if they are playing Single Player they are allowed to do whatever is fun, imo.

 

Sure. I'm just curious if you think that using the AI to one's advantage is an exploit, or better, at which point using the AI to one's advantage begins to be an exploit, cuz obviously, you have to use to AI to your advantage, you can't just ignore it, if you wanna engage bloodmoon hordes from inside a base and not fight them nose to nose in the streets or just wait them out on the next best roof. Which, ironically, still is no problem at all.

 

Yes, but there is usually a difference in leeway granted when judging something that is a work in progress vs final product. Some seem to me to be judging by the standard of final product for some reason. But maybe I'm reading them wrong...

 

Yeah well, "leeway". We all know development is ongoing, so it's kinda obvious that we judge what we see. Noone is getting their torches and pitchforks out, just ppl commenting the current state of things.

 

Lemme combine all this stuff:

 

Sorry, I wasn't referring to you. I can think of at least two people by name who have responded in this thread clearly out of anger regarding the current status. You know them too. You referred to them when stating that sometimes people say things in their passion that shouldn't be held against them.

 

There was one by my count (Prodigy) so if I'm wrong that would be option one of your two choices.

 

First of all I wasn't including you at all in the group of people who nerd out over zombie lore. I never said "ultra hardcore fans like you". I talked about them as a third party. When I post it is often keeping in mind what I have read all over the forum. Maybe it is a bit confusing that I respond based on outside sources from this particular thread but that's what I do. I'll try to note it when I do it.

 

Secondly, I wasn't intending it to be pejorative at all. You are adding that flavor into it. I never talked about mental disease at all. You are twisting what I said. It is a fact that anyone who is a fan (fanatic) of a particular thing will be more critical and less forgiving of its portrayal. Gun Nuts get upset about guns in 7 Days to Die. Zombie Philes get upset and particular about what constitutes a zombie. My kids are Harry Potter freaks and were way more critical of the movies than I was. But I often hate a movie if I've read the book first and loved the book version. None of these people necessarily have mental illness. They are simply super passionate about their preferred material.

 

I choose your misconception that I was referring to you which led to your provocation of accusing me of assigning mental derangement to ultra hardcore fans of things.

 

The problem is that I don't see anybody who matches the description of your "ultra hardcore zombie fan", so naturally, I think that's how you describe the next best thing. Which includes me (if it isn't literally me). You're talking about Prodigy? Uncertain, cuz here's what he said:

 

Regarding "Sorry they don't act like your preconceived notion".... Well, I feel you should think about that. Zombies have decades of historical portrayal in a certain light that's inextricably driven into everyone's mind. So, when your product's premise and hook uses "zombie" to bait consumers, there's a rightful expectation that what you deliver matches the portrayal we all know and expect. To not do that is misdirection and, if egregious enough, a very bad business practice. To be clear, I don't think how zombies are portrayed in 7DtD is nearly to that point, but I feel your "get over it not being what you expect it to be based on decades of experience" attitude is the same type of attitude that would excuse those aforementioned business practices.

 

Is that they hardcore guy goin round tryna forbid creative minds to call their creatures zombies..? "To be clear, I don't think how zombies are portrayed in 7DtD is nearly to that point" he says. And does this sound angry to you? Horrified? Enraged? I find it perfectly calm. So... where are these ppl..?

 

Btw. This is what anger looks like:

 

https://7daystodie.com/forums/showthread.php?153226-Catering-to-New-Players-hurts-Replayability-for-Experienced-Players&p=1109182&viewfull=1#post1109182

https://7daystodie.com/forums/showthread.php?153226-Catering-to-New-Players-hurts-Replayability-for-Experienced-Players&p=1109881&viewfull=1#post1109881

 

There is also a general trick in phrasing things: When, for example, a lot of people dislike the new AI, don't speak of the most extreme form of that dislike, which might indeed be anger. Like when you said "If the anger over what we have right now is rooted in thinking that what we have is the intended final product then let me reassure that it is not." It's hella confusing if I have to understand that in your direct response to me, where you quote me complaining about the AI, you are actually reassuring others, who are angry, instead of me, that this is not the final product. How could I not think you mean me? If you need to extend something you say to more people than the one you're directly adressing - and this is the general trick - use the lowest common denominator. Such as, in case of the AI, "dislike" or "disappointment". Not "anger" or "hate" or "rage" or "horror". That way, everybody will understand you're adressing their concners, including those who rage like someone just strangled their doggo, but noone, including those who are only mildly upset, can falsly believe you're mocking their displeasement.

 

Isn't that wise, Roland. You should found a cult that follows and spreads my teachings. The Kubikurians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you were not yet a member of the community to be able to see the complaints. It came up quite a bit and they didn't like being told it was obviously necessary for gameplay. But I already agreed that these days you hardly ever see anyone complain about zombies being able to break things.

 

I have seen such complaints (or actually better "remarks") repeatedly over the years, I might've made them myself, when I wanted to point out, that the game is far from being realistic. If ppl were seriously upset, I'd say that's kinda weird, unless they had reasonable alternatives, of which I can't think. I mean, more realism is always great, but since you can place blocks anywhere, you'd just have to put down a wooden block in a prefab's doorway and a winner is you. Or were these guys Minecraftians and did not understand the substantial difference between the games' concepts?

 

I think the current AI is necessary so I disagree with you. It has its problems but as a starting place it is better than the old and will eventually become better than the old in all ways (thats hope talking)

 

The current AI is not necessary insofar that we had a working game without it. It's not like you didn't enjoy 7dtd until A17, on the contrary, you loved it. There would not have been a game if zombies could not break a wooden block.

 

If it is necessary to build something better than we had before - I'll change my opinion once that arrives. Atm, I'd gladly take the old AI back, I consider the problems it had of moderate relevance.

 

Not quite the same page but close enough I suppose. We traded old problems for new problems and as long as the new problems get fixed I'll be happy. I disagree completely about your assessment of AI. It really should be able to see through walls and see all pathways and have perfect information on the health of blocks etc. But the developers MUST then limit and obfuscate that perfect knowledge through intentional "mistakes" in order to make them seem organic and normal to the player.

 

I don't know how AI engineering works, so maybe omniscience is a necessary starting point. Seems, though, like unnecessary data would be collected if every zombie was given all that knowledge and had to update all that knowledge all the time, since the player might move and so the path would change. But I'm obviously not talking about the mode of operation under the hood, I (just) don't want ... well. What we have on horde night these days.

 

Are you talking about real zombies or the code for the zombies in this game? The code for this game has nothing to do with smell and everything to do with sight and sound. Light only figures into making you more visible but they are not coded to be attracted to light. They aren't even coded to be attracted specifically to doors any more-- although they used be.

 

Real zombies. And the virtual ones should behave like the real ones, so use sensations (see, hear, smell). For example when they see a player entering a building, I'd approach the coding so that the zombie tries to go straight to the last point where it saw the player. They should not already know (code wise) where exactly the player is. So they would go to the door. And then there might be smell, which would have to be something that needs to be programmed to, like an invisible object that fades and eventually disappears. The zombie might hear the player and move into the house. And if there is no physical information, there should be some kind of random shambling algorithm that just makes them move around, maybe into the building, maybe not. Otherwise? I mean, while the zombie is approaching the door and has no longer sensory input, the player is moving and changing position. How would the zombie (realisticly) keep track of that position, and why would the coded zombie have to get all this input, constantly updated, on top of the computing power that is necessary to keep track of it's own position? Seems like an overkill to constantly calculate a constantly changing path.

 

I agree that if there is a plausible explanation provided for why they attack any particular block and if the programming can be done in a way that makes them behave like instinctive creatures that are attracted by smell, sound, and sight that would be ideal. I also acknowledge we aren't there yet.

 

But you want them to know which block to attack? And then stitch an explanation on top of that? I'd have to call that inelegant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With perks being the least innovative progression system of them all, but anyways: All these changes contradict your impression that "The intention of the devs seems quite clear from the current state of the game".

 

Originally my question was "If you want a game with intelligent zombies, that's fine. Do you? Is that the intention of the devs? To me, it looks much like some sort of unavoidable necessity.", so while you want intelligent zombies because you enjoy building kill corridors, I don't know if the devs want intelligent zombies or if they create a new AI system that lead to intelligent zombies, that will, however, and as Roland, hm, speculates (?), be dumbed back down again.

 

And, which is the original point that lead to my original question, if they wanted intelligent zombies - why call em zombies? Why not call em "infected" or "mutants"? If, on top of being intelligent, they can bleed to death, feel pain, can self heal. This is not me insisting they're not allowed - *disclaim disclaim disclaim* - it's just chatting. An art, that seems to be on the decline, right, mega? :-)

 

Lets say previous states should be known as well to infer the intentions of the devs. Also my statement was about AI not the other changes you then brought up.

The mild corrections to AI since A17 seems to indicate that good pathfinding abilities of the zombies is not regarded as a mistake but part of making tower defense work. I may still be wrong on that and they might make ALL zombies A16-dump again after bandits are in, but I would have to ask them then why tower defense is in the game only at end game.

 

Many players critisize the intelligence of the zombies even though I would not call that intelligence. An intelligent human won't see that you have a hidden entrance on the backside of your tower. A dump dog though might sense that your smelly foot prints always go to the backside. So a dog is more likely to find that back entrance than a human.

 

Is a Romero zombie able to go through a clearly visible opening 5 meters left of him instead of trying to attack the wall if his target is behind the wall? No idea, I'd have to watch Romero movies again to find out. But I can readily give them that kind of "intelligence" (on the level of a dog) in this game without having problems with identifying them as zombies.

 

You are right, they could be renamed infected or even mutants if anyone inside TFP would put any importance into that. But in seemingly half the zombie movies nowadays there are infected with a tendency to rage. So even if 7D2D relabeled them as infected, I bet 99 of 100 people would still call this a game with zombies. So it would be work for TFP without really making something better. Oh, and the kickstarter promised zombies (not Romero zombies, zombies) so relabeling them to mutants might not be the best idea.

 

If the alpha disclaimer trumps everything. I see problems with the changes, cuz I don't like them. You're only right, if such disappointment, that not only I experience, is no problem.

 

And since you don't share that disappointment, but welcome the changes, your stance seems a bit "uninclusive", don't you agree.

 

I bought lots of released games that I put down again after minutes of playing them. And that at a time when you couldn't give them back after opening the shrink wrap. I never complained because I willingly entered that bargain. I could have tried demos instead before buying if I wanted to prevent that. It was clearly my own fault and as an adult I have to accept the consequences of my actions.

 

When kickstarter became popular and later alpha development I occasionally warned people to consider the risk and not expect too much. I (silently) expected a lot of those people that put thousands of dollars into a kickstarter game to be hugely disappointed because game development even without a publisher doesn't guarantee an exceptional game. History shows and logic demands that there is no guaranteed recipe for a good game.

 

The disclaimer is there for a reason. It tells you not to expect more from the deal than what is part of the deal. The disclaimer looks at you as an adult who can view a contract and infer reasonable expectations from that.

 

If I put myself in your shoes and imagine I had bought a turn-based RPG in EA that turned to RtwP mid-development, I would surely tell them that I don't like that change. But then grudgingly try the new RPG and either play that or leave when I don't like it. I accept the developers rights to make the game he wants (in the limits he advertises on the store page). I know I gave up my customer rights to vote with my money when I bought in advance. Simple as that.

 

How is it not all conected? Paths, sleepers and treasure rooms? It's a package. The single path makes sure you have to go through all the sleepers, and then you get a compensation for your effort at the end. Going straight to a treasure room, aka going straight to a certain room in a poi, which was perfectly normal before A17, now has the flair of "cheating". Cuz you didn't go through the zombies and don't deserve the reward.

 

I wonder how they wanna fix that, if they remove the loot, why would anyone still go through pois full of sleepers, particularly on higher game stages? This whole concept obviously needs another substantial re-design, imho ideally loot that levels along with the zombies and is not in one spot.

 

In more detail: Generally a dungeon path in a game can have traps, blind alleys, puzzles and riddles that open doors, beautiful vistas, side quests. No matter what is in between the expectation is that there is a McGuffin or treasure at the end of the dungeon. Like the suspense climax at the end of most movies. This is a general rule with lots of exceptions, but things to fight are just one of a variety of things inbetween. Specifically 7D2D has only traps and far far too seldom blind alleys beside the fights, but the expectation of something worthwile at the end is still in common with other dungeons crawls.

 

Going to the treasure room (especially in the sky scrapers) was a recipe to make A16 easier as well. It had the same flair of "cheating" to simply open the staircase and go up directly to the loot. There exist a few practicable solutions for 7D2D I would be ok with any or all of them: 1) Distributing the loot but still having as much loot in the last room as any other room in that POI. 2) Make 2 or 3 variants of every POI that has the final loot room somewhere else. 3) Add a key you need ot find on the way before you can open the final chest.

 

Loot already levels along with the zombies.

 

I hope so, but I'm not quite sure about that, because they actively removed the option to spawn zombies outside houses. They removed the "static spawner"-option in the prefabs' xmls. So they don't want it? The number of zombies obviously needs to be balanced with other aspects of the game. You can't even mod it. I don't understand that. Cuz as I said before: The biome spawn ain't cutting it. You need increased numbers of zombies near houses, not 50 zombies randomly spread all over the place.

 

Here, once more, leveled spawn rates absolutely make sense, the higher your level, the more zombies spawn.

 

What do you think is more likely: That the developers actively use their precious time to prevent modders from doing something even though they want modding as part of the game. Or that modding is very low on the immediate priority list when adding new features and removing legacy code.

 

A reccurent task in modern software development is refactoring and pruning old code so that the software is in a maintainable state. Another task is to replace one method of doing something with a totally different method.

If I were developing a game I would never add modding before release because refactoring and pruning and new features replacing old features would always get in the way of mods and modders. I'm not a TFP developer and can only guess but for example if the static spawner option in xml vanished it is probably because the internal code that acted on that xml simply was replaced with something entirely new and the xml consequently had no reason to exist anymore. It may even be that the xml could be made to work with the new feature as well but that would need another 2 days of development and the developer had some more important tasks in his queue.

 

 

[had to cut that because of character limit]

 

Can you show me anything substantial that would indicate that the Romero-zombie is NOT the archetype of the modern zombie? I bet you can't.

 

You proposed the following definition in a reply to Roland: "It should be plausible that creators call anything a zombie, that has at least one characteristic of the old Romero zombies". Now the problem is that zombies, ghouls, skeletons, all are undead, like a romero zombie. Jason X and some other supernatural serial killers never run. Illithid eat brains. My comment was a bit of a side comment to that idea. I have no problem in calling the romero-zombie the archetype of zombies and in other words, yes, a romero zombie is without a doubt a typical zombie. But maybe classifications like undead or shambling have largely lost their meaning in a definition of zombiness.

 

[another cut]

 

I might see you not being content with the current state, but judging by your words I also don't see how A16 would really make you happy, as horde nights in A16 were at least as trivial if you "exploited" the knowledge of zombie AI. So whatever horde night AI would make you really happy it can't be the return of the old AI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if you had to choose between A18 and A16 as the final version?

 

A18 hands down. I have already played more A18 than I ever did A16 and A16 was around for 1.5 years. A17 really breathed new life into the game for me and A18 has improved on it. I enjoy vanilla still but I really enjoy my own modifications I've made to de-emphasize the need to kill zombies but at the same time add more of them to the outside world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen such complaints (or actually better "remarks") repeatedly over the years, I might've made them myself, when I wanted to point out, that the game is far from being realistic. If ppl were seriously upset, I'd say that's kinda weird, unless they had reasonable alternatives, of which I can't think. I mean, more realism is always great, but since you can place blocks anywhere, you'd just have to put down a wooden block in a prefab's doorway and a winner is you. Or were these guys Minecraftians and did not understand the substantial difference between the games' concepts?

 

Nope. Those guys were Romero zombie fans. "Romero zombies can't break blocks." "Romero zombies are decrepit flesh and bone that would be pounded to mush long before a single crack formed in a block of concrete." It always came back to Romero and/or The Walking Dead. No real "remark" about Minecraft at all. Just purists who felt that what TFP was pushing wasn't the true definition of zombie. Pretty much the same reason for the objections to the current "smart zombies" now.

 

 

 

I don't know how AI engineering works, so maybe omniscience is a necessary starting point. Seems, though, like unnecessary data would be collected if every zombie was given all that knowledge and had to update all that knowledge all the time, since the player might move and so the path would change. But I'm obviously not talking about the mode of operation under the hood, I (just) don't want ... well. What we have on horde night these days.

 

I can't remember how often it updates but it isn't each and every zombie it is one pathing grid. All zombies follow the same pathing grid. What can be done is to make a percentage of the zombies forget the long path to the player so for them the player seems unreachable and so they go into destruction mode. faatal has said that he has more work to do on it.

 

 

Real zombies. And the virtual ones should behave like the real ones, so use sensations (see, hear, smell). For example when they see a player entering a building, I'd approach the coding so that the zombie tries to go straight to the last point where it saw the player. They should not already know (code wise) where exactly the player is. So they would go to the door. And then there might be smell, which would have to be something that needs to be programmed to, like an invisible object that fades and eventually disappears.

 

This is the function of the "breadcrumb system" which was introduced in A18. There will be more work on the breadcrumb system but it's intent is to have the zombies function exactly as you described.

 

 

But you want them to know which block to attack? And then stitch an explanation on top of that? I'd have to call that inelegant.

 

I just want them challenging. I don't care what they do. In A17 when I saw that ferals could path all the way from the ground up through the hospital and out onto the roof where I was standing I was thrilled. It was scary and fun that they could get to me everywhere. I am definitely not bothered by the whys and the hows or the rules of zombiehood. I just think the enemies behave in ways now that are more fun than they did previously. There are some changes I would like to see in regards to horde night but I worry that those changes will make POI exploration less fun. It already is a bit less fun in A18 than it was in A17 due to the fact that it is obvious some of the zombies have been made stupid and will pound on a wall rather than walk through an open doorway to where you are...

 

As I stated, I personally prefer them pyramiding up on top of each other rather than boring into a single weak point and at some point I'll look to see if that is something I can mod.

 

I can see how the current AI would be a deal breaker for someone who sees the Blood Moon event as the reason for playing the game and who will also utilize any method of exploiting the zombie AI whether that ruins the fun for them or not. For me, I see the Blood Moon as 1/7 of the things I do during a given week. Exploring and clearing POI's is much more where my gaming time is spent and the AI rings true for that part of the game for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A18 hands down. I have already played more A18 than I ever did A16 and A16 was around for 1.5 years. A17 really breathed new life into the game for me and A18 has improved on it. I enjoy vanilla still but I really enjoy my own modifications I've made to de-emphasize the need to kill zombies but at the same time add more of them to the outside world.

 

My experience is the exact opposite of yours. A16 hands down. Played more A16(still do) than I believe I will ever play future versions. A17 sucked the life out of the game for me. And before someone chimes in with "learn to adapt to the changes", I did. It didn't make it fun though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...