Jump to content

Why are the zombies bleeding to death?


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Kyonshi said:

But its not a reason to freak the @%$# out if someone says it doesnt really make sense in this given context ūüėČ

Who freaked out? I see some disagreement and some people expressing dislike of when these types of complaints come up but all within the normal levels of forum debate and interaction. It is okay to have disagreement.


Wait...are you one of those people where if you your boss pokes his head in and asks you to please make sure to clean up the area around the coffee maker after you're done with it, you then go home and tell people that your boss "totally went off on you today"?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kyonshi said:

When i first saw the blade weapon Mod, i thought "Oh, that's probably useful in PvP, against human players, cuz Zs dont bleed and even if they did, that's not gonna kill them".

What is a blade weapon mod? Are you talking about the blade trap?

And overall you thougth about a trap not causing damage to Zs but humans? Even if this ist the case, what's the sense of a trap only damaging humans but not zombies?  If you play PVE it's pointless and if you play PVP why only damage against players? You need to defend againt players AND zombies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Roland said:

Who freaked out? I see some disagreement and some people expressing dislike of when these types of complaints come up but all within the normal levels of forum debate and interaction. It is okay to have disagreement.


Wait...are you one of those people where if you your boss pokes his head in and asks you to please make sure to clean up the area around the coffee maker after you're done with it, you then go home and tell people that your boss "totally went off on you today"?

 

 

Really? Is it how its gonna go, now?

 

"Holy crap, how the hell did you even take into account playing a ZOMBIE game if you are that pedantic?

 

It's zombies! They don't exist, they are not realistic, no matter how ever you will define a zombie!

 

I hate people complaining about plotholes in an absolute unrealistic scenario.

 

It's like playing a space game and people complaining "but there is no way to travel faster than light"ELF!!!"

 

That's what i can call over-reacting. No offense to the person. Yes, everyone has their right to an opinion, but i've observed this kind of behavior from other people in previous topics where suspension of disbelief and unrealistic concepts were subjects of discussion. Seems there's always some Suspension of Disbelief Police steping in to shut down anyone who are question something in regard to that.

 

Also, please dont assume im a that kind of guy who rant at his boss for such trivial things.You could just have kept it to your first question instead of trying to make me look like an imbecile.

 

You'll notice I didnt explicitly insulted anyone, i just said some people freak out and go way overboard with this.

15 minutes ago, Roland said:

I think he is talking about the serrated blade mod that you add to bladed weapons that causes bleed

Yes that's what i meant. Didnt remember the exact name.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Liesel Weppen said:

I'm not having a problem with the game mechanics. Currently Zombies bleed out. If the next update removes that, i'd be still fine and still won't ask a question why zombies stopped bleeding out. It's pointless, there is no universal  biology atlas that explains how zombies phyisics work you could refer to. The devs decide how the mechanic works, it they decide zombies can bleed out, it is like it is. The "why"-question is invalid, because the since there is no overal rulework, the answer is "because we decided it to work like this".

Well, I get your position, such little things don't bother you; but I don't think you see what I mean with "internal consistency". There's no need for "universal biology atlas for zombies" if TFP themselves have created a system with, in essence, bad logic. You know:

1) zombies bleed from their arms when you wound them.

2) zombies don't bleed from their arms if you cause the largest wound possible, detaching the arm.

and, albeit really rare

3) if you first cause the zombie to bleed from an arm, and you then detach said arm entirely, the zombie will keep bleeding "from the arm". (This would then conflict with Roland's decent attempt, and with step 2)

 

What is taken from the external world, is the basic ideas of "bleeding" and "circulation" and "limbs". No need for zombie atlases. The end result is inconsistent in itself with how bleeding works, until someone comes up with an explanation and inserts it into the game. Preferably in a way that appears in several places in the game - that reinforces the made-up rule in the mind of the player and makes it more, acceptable for lack of a better word.

 

Does this little case matter? Not as much as I have spent time on it. How would I change it? I dunno, taking into account that the Pimps seems to have re-purposed the existing animals-only bleed effect to differentiate Blades from other weapon types, I'd say poisons would be another classic way for similar damage. Zombie poison? Why not, make the recipe use some antibiotics... :)  That would also solve the more generic trope of "undead don't bleed", although of course, they're usually quite poison resistant as well... but I might buy a zombie poison in a world where they've clearly learned to manage the infection somehow as the Duke is stuffing these semi-corpses into every closet in the world ...

 

EDIT, Woot woot! 500th post :)

Edited by theFlu (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tourist said:

I'm well aware of "suspension of disbelief"; when it makes sense in the current theme.  Dead, rotting corpses walking/running around is the apparent theme.  Having them bleed out when i stab them a couple of times is, in my opinion, contrary to that theme.

This is nothing more than a matter of preference. It's not inconsistent. It's not wrong. It just doesn't suit your tastes. It's a gameplay mechanic to allow players more options for builds. And it's no different than allowing player characters to carry multiple stacks of clay, stone, and iron. If the Devs agreed with your opinion there would be no bleed effect on zombies. They don't so there is.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roland said:

The virus has a defense mechanism for when major wounds happen. 

YES. This is literally what I wrote in my fiction up above, but you have improved it with systemic response to significant trauma. Excellent! You are hired as co-author (but second-billing and 60/40 split)! Seriously it does not take galaxy brain to come up with apocalyptic-fiction-worthy explanations for why fatal damage to you is not fatal to a zombie, or why obviously-fatal-thing X kills the zombies but obviously-fatal-thing Y does not. Color outside the lines, it's fun!

 

The CONTEXT of zombies here is unique to the vision of the designers of 7D2D. We ought not to project our own concepts onto their zombies and then complain that their zombies are inconsistent. Their zombies are their zombies. And they bleed. Is it blood? Who knows? Maybe it's some sort of virubiological hydraulic fluid more like what's in a spider's legs! It doesn't matter. Not our monkeys zombies, not our circus game.

 

If I made a game about tall, slender, pointy-eared dwarves, strong in magic, who lived in trees and who had a long-simmering war with the 30' tall elves who lived in the clouds...would those dwarves be wrong just because you have some other concept of where a dwarf lives and who he/she has a long-simmering war with? It's my dwarven/cloud-elf war, go git yer own! (By the way, if you co-op in this game, it is most fun to party up one tree-dwarf with one cloud-elf. Many hijinks ensue!)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kyonshi said:

Really? Is it how its gonna go, now?

 

"Holy crap, how the hell did you even take into account playing a ZOMBIE game if you are that pedantic?

 

It's zombies! They don't exist, they are not realistic, no matter how ever you will define a zombie!

 

I hate people complaining about plotholes in an absolute unrealistic scenario.

 

It's like playing a space game and people complaining "but there is no way to travel faster than light"ELF!!!"

 

So were you over-reacting in your own post complaining about such statements? Your post seemed a couple factors more reactionary than these statements. And in your own generalized paraphrasing of these actual quotes you were more extra than what you are complaining about.

 

1 hour ago, Kyonshi said:

"Omfg you cant say that zombies aint reaaaaal!!!"

I get that you were exaggerating for effect but when you are calling people out for too much drama you better keep the drama out of your own tone....

1 hour ago, Kyonshi said:

Also, please dont assume im a that kind of guy who rant at his boss for such trivial things.You could just have kept it to your first question instead of trying to make me look like an imbecile.

I didn't assume, I asked. And being sensitive to confrontation isn't being an imbecile it is simply a perspective that colors how you interact with people.  Your reaction to simple disagreement seems to me to be consistent with people who over-react whenever they encounter disagreement or criticism. 

 

But I don't know you so I asked and you said you're not. So okay.

Edited by Roland (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, i didnt over-reacted, you said yourself and understood that i exaggerated for the sake of effect and to illustrate the ridiculousness of how some people flip out over this, like when i mentioned satanical unicorns or zombie cars. Dont know why you keep trying to corner me on this or maybe tilt me off so you can say ''Ah-ha! I knew it, you're triggered too, see?''.

I dont ''hate'' people who complain about stuff in the game like that person said.

You dont think that there's something wrong with that hateful statement but on the other side, im the one who's actually over-reacting? I simply said that freaking out over this is ridiculous. Hating people for their opinon on such detail in game design is kinda pushing it and im sure you can agree on that. We're not in the disagreement section anymore.

And for your last quote, its not about being sensitive to confrontation, its about being sensitive when someone is going a bit out of line by personally insinuating that im some kinda jerk that probably whines about my boss for inoffensive stuff, like they're making my life a living hell. Im not like that, i respect my superiors when they're fair, i do my job in a way that abuse dont happen, from me or from them. I will add that I work in one of the biggest hospital in Canada, in Montréal, where the epicenter of the Covid crisis is, with close contact with patients. I dont @%$# around with my job, i take it dearly and i give it a lot of importance. I hope you can understand my feelings about what you ''asked'' me.

That, you can call it over-reacting if you want. I call it having self-respect and demanding it from someone to whom i never showed disrespect and left his personal life out of any discussion we may had prior to that, at the best of my humble knowledge and if im wrong, you can tell me. Otherwise, you can be sure i will stand for this and you can label it like i blew a fuse, i dont give a damn. With the status you have here, you should know better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Kyonshi said:

No, i didnt over-reacted, you said yourself and understood that i exaggerated for the sake of effect and to illustrate the ridiculousness of how some people flip out over this, like when i mentioned satanical unicorns or zombie cars. Dont know why you keep trying to corner me on this or maybe tilt me off so you can say ''Ah-ha! I knew it, you're triggered too, see?''.

I'm not laying a trap for you so be at peace. Its just that your reaction was at least as reactionary as the ones you quoted. How do you know they weren't just exaggerating for effect? The whole job thing was just a joke but if you took it as being in poor taste I apologize. 

 

The point is that people are going to be for and against everything and I haven't seen anything in this thread approaching what I consider "freaking out". But thanks for your feedback and if things spiral out of control I'll be sure to reign it all in and lock it down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, theFlu said:

Well, I get your position, such little things don't bother you; but I don't think you see what I mean with "internal consistency". There's no need for "universal biology atlas for zombies" if TFP themselves have created a system with, in essence, bad logic. You know:

1) zombies bleed from their arms when you wound them.

2) zombies don't bleed from their arms if you cause the largest wound possible, detaching the arm.

and, albeit really rare

3) if you first cause the zombie to bleed from an arm, and you then detach said arm entirely, the zombie will keep bleeding "from the arm". (This would then conflict with Roland's decent attempt, and with step 2)

 

What is taken from the external world, is the basic ideas of "bleeding" and "circulation" and "limbs". No need for zombie atlases. The end result is inconsistent in itself with how bleeding works, until someone comes up with an explanation and inserts it into the game. Preferably in a way that appears in several places in the game - that reinforces the made-up rule in the mind of the player and makes it more, acceptable for lack of a better word.

 

Does this little case matter? Not as much as I have spent time on it. How would I change it? I dunno, taking into account that the Pimps seems to have re-purposed the existing animals-only bleed effect to differentiate Blades from other weapon types, I'd say poisons would be another classic way for similar damage. Zombie poison? Why not, make the recipe use some antibiotics... :)  That would also solve the more generic trope of "undead don't bleed", although of course, they're usually quite poison resistant as well... but I might buy a zombie poison in a world where they've clearly learned to manage the infection somehow as the Duke is stuffing these semi-corpses into every closet in the world ...

 

EDIT, Woot woot! 500th post :)

But what if 3 can be explained after some scientist makes it the center of its research? "Haha", he says triumphantly, "I know now how it works. It is because of, oh wait, where does this bite mark come from. Oh, my right eye hurts, I have to lie down a little........."

 

Why does only this scientist know the solution? Why don't we get an article in the journal tab that explains all this? Well, an author can do this. He can leave events a total mystery and simply not explain how this or that machinery works.

 

  Dr. Emmett Brown never told us how the flux compensator really worked in detail, Bram Stoker never explained how Dracula became the first vampire. Is there an explanation that would be internally consistent? We'll never know. And I'll bet there never will be an explanation inserted into 7D2D either.

 

What has this to do with bleeding? Nothing. But what has this to do with Zombies? A lot. Because zombies are never really explained anywhere, so you can't really put up theories about the way they bleed. Can their arms be connected to the body even when it is amputated? In an occult or magic world sure. Are zombies occult beings? The authors didn't say.

 

-----------------

 

An alternate answer to the "internal consistency" argument is that 7D2D has so many big holes in it's internal consistency already, that ship has sailed a long time ago. ūüėČ

 

 

 

Edited by meganoth (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the biggest reason it bugs me is the overall inconsistency of how weapons work.  I can shoot them in the face with arrows and they just keep coming despite resembling Pinhead from Hellraiser, but if i stab them a couple of times they can just bleed to death.  It's the same with guns.  It doesn't make sense to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, meganoth said:

But what if 3 can be explained after some scientist makes it the center of its research? "Haha", he says triumphantly, "I know now how it works. It is because of, oh wait, where does this bite mark come from. Oh, my right eye hurts, I have to lie down a little........."

 

Why does only this scientist know the solution? Why don't we get an article in the journal tab that explains all this? Well, an author can do this. He can leave events a total mystery and simply not explain how this or that machinery works.

 

  Dr. Emmett Brown never told us how the flux compensator really worked in detail, Bram Stoker never explained how Dracula became the first vampire. Is there an explanation that would be internally consistent? We'll never know. And I'll bet there never will be an explanation inserted into 7D2D either.

 

What has this to do with bleeding? Nothing. But what has this to do with Zombies? A lot. Because zombies are never really explained anywhere, so you can't really put up theories about the way they bleed. Can their arms be connected to the body even when it is amputated? In an occult or magic world sure. Are zombies occult beings? The authors didn't say.

 

-----------------

 

An alternate answer to the "internal consistency" argument is that 7D2D has so many big holes in it's internal consistency already, that ship has sailed a long time ago. ūüėČ

 

 

 

While you can, and IMO should, leave the world unexplained, it should still work. The flux CAPACITOR (darn you, blasphemer!), wasn't explained, but it didn't do much else than "power" the time travel so it didn't annoy anyone. You needed the 88 to travel and getting there was a problem quite often, a problem everyone understood, but had no idea why, and it worked. Because the world worked, while it wasn't explained.

 

"Can't really put up theories about how they bleed" ... If it bleeds, it leaks bodily fluids.. the damage is done by the familiar cutting instruments; without redefining more words than the average marxist professor, you can't argue that we don't know how This Form of Bleeding works, it's bleeding. And it doesn't "work properly" in the mechanics of the game. And if it's not bleeding, why call it bleeding... I mean, calling "Murky water" just murky when you're pulling it from the toilet is clearly just to calm the squeamish, but other than that, what else isn't what we call it... My Sniper rifle happens to be a banana? Jen isn't a Trader?

 

And, yes, I might be quite bored ... but hey, at least this is fun :)

Edited by theFlu (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, theFlu said:

While you can, and IMO should, leave the world unexplained, it should still work. The flux CAPACITOR (darn you, blasphemer!), wasn't explained, but it didn't do much else than "power" the time travel so it didn't annoy anyone. You needed the 88 to travel and getting there was a problem quite often, a problem everyone understood, but had no idea why, and it worked. Because the world worked, while it wasn't explained.

 

"Can't really put up theories about how they bleed" ... If it bleeds, it leaks bodily fluids.. the damage is done by the familiar cutting instruments; without redefining more words than the average marxist professor, you can't argue that we don't know how This Form of Bleeding works, it's bleeding. And it doesn't "work properly" in the mechanics of the game. And if it's not bleeding, why call it bleeding... I mean, calling "Murky water" just murky when you're pulling it from the toilet is clearly just to calm the squeamish, but other than that, what else isn't what we call it... My Sniper rifle happens to be a banana? Jen isn't a Trader?

 

And, yes, I might be quite bored ... but hey, at least this is fun :)

Where do you get that they bleed even bodily fluids? I have seen a few movies where monsters bleeded some glowy stuff that was called live essence. If the world operates on the principle that you have a soul and your soul stuff can leak from any part of your body, it might even bleed from a freshly amputated leg.

 

But even if we assume it is blood, the general case of your "item 2" was well explained (for a game) by Boidster and Roland. And it is safe to say that item 3 works that way because the developers did not waste their time simulating bleeding and amputation in this fine detail. And given the size of their development team this detail probably will never be corrected.

 

In mathematics when you start with two assumptions that directly contradict each other you can prove anything. For example if you assume 1+1=2 and 1+1=1 you can literally prove any conclusion you want. In zombie lore there is something similar: "Zombies are dead" and "Zombies are alive". The first might not be meant literaly, but then is summarizing that they don't need air, food, blood circulation, in effect violating a few physical laws, for example that of energy conservation. The latter is evident by them moving, having a form of intelligence and that they still can be killed.

 

Now starting from this you can prove anything. Simply by eliminating all alternatives as contradictory.

Do they have blood? Sure, they need it to generate the energy for the muscles, after showing that alternatives don't work. Do they have blood? No, the blood would have leaked out of all the open flesh wounds or dried up. Oops.

 

Edited by meganoth (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm, progression.xml. 61 hits for "bleed". Couple in the translations, I'm sure. If you substitute the meaning of the word bleed to "well, some kind of goo is coming out" then I'm bleeding from my nose quite often.. and from my urethra. And if we venture into the happy blissful world or word redefinitions to argue points, then how could you know that I actually hold any point of the matter as my words can't have a meaning? (If the previous sentence is a garbled mess, that may be intentional ;) )

 

Sure, Roland's solution can be implemented in the game. It can be implemented many ways;  by leaving everything as is, adding some kind of lore note somewhere, showing the mechanic in action in animations, re-using the idea in other places to create apparent inconsistencies to surprise the viewer, all of the above or likely other options. At the moment, I wouldn't count it "implemented", as in, it's not intentional. I wouldn't be that much happier with it, unless properly fleshed out, as just giving it as an explanation on a "Lab Note #27" isn't much better than saying, "yeah, it's a bug, but we'll live with it".

 

They could also simply add a bleed effect to the dismemberment effect; wouldn't be perfect as the mechanics wouldn't really line up, but it'd be closer to good. Quite a trivial addition as well, I'd assume.

 

With an illogical system you can then derive illogical consequences.. this is exactly what we have here, sure. But the less holes in the logic, the easier it is to swallow for general audiences. At least having watched a few Critical Drinker videos, one might end up with such a conclusion.

 

And yeah, I added a silly little OCD point of interest in a discussion about zombie blood, and now we're writing novels off it ... le sigh :)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2020 at 6:49 AM, RipClaw said:

Do not try to apply real world logic to game mechanics. It does not work.

The zombies look like the designers imagine zombies and the game mechanics are as the developers define them. Both are not necessarily in sync.
 

This is pretty much /thread. They bleed cuz the devs want em to bleed, even if it makes no sense.

 

Edited by Scyris (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2020 at 10:48 AM, Tourist said:

In the early game i did a lot of melee with the bone knife and hunting knife.  I could watch the zombies bleed out and die after a few jabs.  How can a zombie with missing bits, holes in their head, etc, bleed to death?

Just because they're dead doesn't mean the blood suddenly vaporized out of their body. Just because you see their blood squirt out of their body when you stab them doesn't mean the blood loss is what ultimately sends them to hell. Haven't you watched the Walking Dead series? It's the brain you have to hit to really make sure they will stay dead. Ultimately though, zombies are fictional characters and in each universe where zombies are possible, their weaknesses may be different. In 7 Days to Die they just happen to be smart, but at the same time they are easier to kill than just having to hit the right spot at their head with a great force that would break their skull and puncture their brain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2020 at 9:05 AM, Boidster said:

This hunger is as-yet unexplained as the metabolism of an infected "makes no f***ing sense" according to the scientists

Provides alternative source of nutrients for continued production of "Rot" virus without requiring the host be consumed by the virus to do so.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, theFlu said:

Umm, progression.xml. 61 hits for "bleed". Couple in the translations, I'm sure. If you substitute the meaning of the word bleed to "well, some kind of goo is coming out" then I'm bleeding from my nose quite often.. and from my urethra. And if we venture into the happy blissful world or word redefinitions to argue points, then how could you know that I actually hold any point of the matter as my words can't have a meaning? (If the previous sentence is a garbled mess, that may be intentional ;) )

 

Sure, Roland's solution can be implemented in the game. It can be implemented many ways;  by leaving everything as is, adding some kind of lore note somewhere, showing the mechanic in action in animations, re-using the idea in other places to create apparent inconsistencies to surprise the viewer, all of the above or likely other options. At the moment, I wouldn't count it "implemented", as in, it's not intentional. I wouldn't be that much happier with it, unless properly fleshed out, as just giving it as an explanation on a "Lab Note #27" isn't much better than saying, "yeah, it's a bug, but we'll live with it".

 

They could also simply add a bleed effect to the dismemberment effect; wouldn't be perfect as the mechanics wouldn't really line up, but it'd be closer to good. Quite a trivial addition as well, I'd assume.

 

With an illogical system you can then derive illogical consequences.. this is exactly what we have here, sure. But the less holes in the logic, the easier it is to swallow for general audiences. At least having watched a few Critical Drinker videos, one might end up with such a conclusion.

 

And yeah, I added a silly little OCD point of interest in a discussion about zombie blood, and now we're writing novels off it ... le sigh :)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bleed . I'd like your eyes to fasten on definitions 4, (maybe 5) and 9. Also https://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/spell.html?spell=29451

Not a common use of the word, still we should not discount the possibility.

 

What about Rolands solution needs to be implemented? Zombies can't be explained, any explanation would just add further questions. How many players will even think about this detail with amputation not leading to bleeding? It never came up before in any discussion I had with other players. Maybe I'm keeping bad company ūüėČ.

 

The idea of adding bleeding to the amputation effect isn't bad by the way. Maybe some developer wants to scratch that itch and actually adds it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by meganoth (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, meganoth said:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bleed. I'd like your eyes to fasten on definitions 4, (maybe 5) and 9. Also https://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/spell.html?spell=29451

Not a common use of the word, still we should not discount the possibility.

 

What about Rolands solution needs to be implemented? Zombies can't be explained, any explanation would just add further questions. How many players will even think about this detail with amputation not leading to bleeding? It never came up before in any discussion I had with other players. Maybe I'm keeping bad company ūüėČ.

 

The idea of adding bleeding to the amputation effect isn't bad by the way. Maybe some developer wants to scratch that itch and actually adds it.

Hah - partly as a non-native speaker, mostly for being a little insane - I appreciate the pedantry. From that list, I actually didn't know that trees can be bled as well. Plus, there's nothing better than being technically correct, so, in that sense, you win ;) Although, if we get to pick random definitions from that list, I'd go with 11; just because, well, the example given is "Labialization bleeds palatalization." ... sounds quite, enticing. An implementation of 8 would be interesting in game, especially if Deep Cuts had verbiage close to "applies bleeding" (can't remember) - taken far enough, you might apply temporary allyship to the poor zed at the tip of your blade.

 

What needs implemented? I listed some options in my previous rant, including "by leaving everything as is", so, I recognize nothing Needs to be implemented to say it is in effect. It is the poorest implementation of such an intricate plot device though, it might deserve getting used visibly somewhere, that could only improve things. And no, your company isn't bad, just sane... :D

 

And indeed, the bleed would fit, but then it would take away from the already slightly weak blade specialization. Of course the blades saw major rework with the stealth buffs, it might not be all that significant in the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
√ó
√ó
  • Create New...