CliffExcellent

Can't imagine a wheelie bin being particularly water tight, but still sounds like a neat idea.

That sounds incredibly dull. While a horde randomly breaking through my safehouse might be annoying it's certainly more interesting than just sitting there waiting for time to pass so you can get a new high score.

I'm fine with all this as long as they don't try to put in multiplayer. It just won't work.

Good thing Project Zomboid isn't well known branding then. Most of the people who will recognise the name are the people who already own it. Changing the name to something that isn't rubbish would probably only help sales. If you say the name "Project Zomboid" to someone who's never heard of it they'll probably just think it's another dumb, uninspired zombie game.

It would work great on NPCs though. Honestly I doubt a multiplayer mode will work for this game in general.

No, I don't think it is. The game isn't going to be completed for a few years now, that's plenty of time.

The devs have said they'll be doing. There will be a map but no minimap.

I have played The Sims and quite enjoyed it. The difference being that you don't manually control one Sim, you indirectly control a whole bunch of them. It's hardly time consuming and you can always do something else while you wait.

Locking up other players is not a good idea though. Forcing the other player to just sit there and do nothing for ages is not fun.

Was wondering about this myself. "Project Zomboid" makes it sound like it's just a prototype or an experiment rather than a proper game. "This is how you died" just sounds pretentious though.

Or just move a sofa in front of it I guess.

Well that's a little sinister. ...do you need help?

Day Z is a mod of Arma. It uses the same engine as far as I'm aware. If Arma is realistic then so is Day Z. And no, if you think GTA V is realistic, you are bonkers. A believable plot is not the same as realism.

The hell? I don't know what bizarro world you live in where GTA is realistic. You'll have to tell me what it's like living in a world where you can heal from bullet wounds by hiding behind a wall for a few seconds. Also, you just claimed that Day Z isn't realistic but now you're saying that ARMA is. Well done mate.

I can't see how Zomboid would work with public servers anyway.

...I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Sounds good. Also sounds like it'll be a long time until this game is finished which is a shame really.

Well Minecraft is the kind of game where you can just add in new stuff without worrying about balance and all that. With Project Zomboid this would mean they have to keep going back and redoing everything. I'd rather they just draw a line under it at some point before it becomes a mess.

You could probably pop over to the Day Z forums right now and find people saying exactly the same thing.

I'm sure this has been well trounced over, but a large part of why you haven't seen a lot of content released for a while was due to the unfortunate circumstances that lead to them losing a large part of their work (and equipment). As far as balance goes, the game is intentionally not being balanced. Lemmy has said several times (and it's a pretty well-held tenet of alpha programming) that there's no point in balancing a game when everything you balance will likely be changed in the future anyways. I'm sure you're not interested (and don't need) to hear the lecture on alpha games, but the plan is to get all of the basic features functional and then in beta you worry about balancing. Just for example, there's about another dozen professions partially in the game code unused right now. That's because they're more worried about the profession system working than the professions themselves; that comes in beta. Lemmy has even specifically addressed construction worker being best; they're well aware, it would just be silly to balance the 5 professions we have and then have it all be made worthless when the others get added in beta phase. It's not a matter of them not being able to handle the work load; that's exactly how an alpha is meant to work. I'm not saying the game shouldn't be criticized; it should, and all of the devs are great at accepting criticism and folding it into their design. But the point is that some of your criticism isn't helpful or accurate, such as that about balance. Feature creep can devastate games, that's absolutely true. But the PZ devs have a clear plan that they consistently work towards. The suggestion forum is a place for people to throw out ideas, of which a minuscule, microscopic amount might someday be included in the game. I can assure you they don't just pile on every idea they see; most of what is in the "Commonly Suggested Suggestions" list as 'yes's' are things that the devs were planning on implementing from day one that people just happen to make threads about a lot, not because they just say yes to everything in this subforum. The very condensed version is that I'm not sure you understand what alpha means in programming. I'm not trying to use that as a shield for criticism or unhappiness with the game; that's all valid criticism. What I am saying is that features aren't and shouldn't be balanced until the beta phase of the game. That's just how game design is. Yeah I suppose most of that is pretty fair. I'd still argue that they shouldn't get too carried away with adding new features, most of which are kind of unnecessary. And I'd still much rather have a more focused game than just cramming in as many features as they can think of. A game can either have lots of varied features and multiple aspects to gameplay, or it can focus on the most important parts and make them really good. Name any game that tries to juggle lots of different gameplay types and you will not be able to find a single part of that game that hasn't been done better before. Compare Arkham Asylum to Assassin's Creed. Arkham focuses almost entirely on combat and stealth, and has some of the best combat and stealth gameplay I've ever seen. Assassin's Creed has both of those things along with a massive sandbox and plenty of other stuff, and as a result the combat and stealth are just mediocre. I'd argue that Arkham Asylum is the better game overall. I think Zomboid can have either really good, well made survival mechanics, or it can add all of these suggestions. Not both. I mean, it could very well have a load of different perfectly balanced, bug-free features, but it doesn't seem very like and I imagine it would be very difficult to pull off.

I know the developers are focused on realism. I'm allowed to not like that. Quick, name one game that was made more fun by adding realism. Thought not. Fans often complain when they don't think a game is realistic enough but more often than not they'd enjoy the game less if it was more realistic. Fans don't necessarily know what they want.

Well the game does already have a health bar of sorts. I kind of assumed they just didn't want the screen to be too cluttered. No point having information on the screen if it's not always useful to you. A hunger bar will only be useful when your hunger is below a certain level, I think the moodlets do a pretty good job of that.

Would be nice to see some better stealth gameplay for sure. Love me a bit of good stealth.

Probably would be pretty reasonable to have a few more powerful guns in Fort Knox. Would need a higher zombie population to balance it out though. Not sure how they're going to explain a military base barely having any ammo in it. Can't have too many guns though, or there's nothing to stop you from going on a shooting rampage and killing every zombie in the city. Don't see the point of having more than one type of any gun either. It's just unnecessary and potentially confusing.

Um, I don't recall saying they ruin the whole game for me. They do at the moment I suppose, but I'll keep checking back to see if they've been fixed. It was just an example. Christ it's like you're trying to find something to complain about. Just because it's in alpha doesn't mean it's immune to criticism. That's the entire point of having an alpha in the first place. If the developers couldn't handle criticism then they wouldn't bother with alpha funding. And no, the definition of a word is not an opinion and applies to all games equally. Why the hell would being an alpha change the meaning of a word? Are you mental? Oh yeah thats why he starts off his list by saying what they mean to him. And No I am not finding reasons to complain, your complaining about a 4 dev team not being able to do what a triple A company is capable of in less time, this is evident you constantly complain about them not polishing bugs and a adding the "right" features, your not critising the game, you've been responding to people to disagree with, why not post in the suggestions a list of SUGGESTIONS, instead of going around trying to decline everyone else. And I don't mean like your other topic, I mean make a list of a features you want changed and to what, and for what reason, thats how you should go about informing the dev on your opinion. Or... you know, both? A suggestion doesn't have to be something you think should be added, it can be something you want to be changed. The entire point of an alpha is to point out what's bad about it so that it can be fixed. The Indie Stone is a big boy now, you don't need to defend them. If they didn't want criticism, they wouldn't have gone to alpha funding. Blindly accepting everything the developers do isn't going to help them anywhere. And by your logic, an alpha can not be unbalanced. This is wrong. Project Zomboid is clearly unbalanced. Also by your logic, an alpha cannot be buggy. This is wrong. Project Zomboid is clearly buggy. By pointing out that it's unbalanced and buggy, the developers can fix these problems. That is what criticism is for, and that is why the developers chose to do an alpha. DO YOU SEE. Suggestions like "Oh my god wouldn't it be totally cool if this game had machine guns bro!" are all very well but they're not really going to help make a better game are they. What I actually should have said is that you're a whingey fanboy who has no idea what he's talking about. But I didn't, because that would be mean. I've said it now though, I get a wee bit narky when people act like they're so smart when they're clearly not talking sense.