DicheBach

I navigated to this page and didn't log in to my Steam account, so it shows up as if I do not own the game: http://store.steampowered.com/app/108600/Project_Zomboid/ I did a search on "planned" got three hits, all of which were inside of the minimized "Early Access Game" text box. In order to see the actual spots where "planned" occurred I had to expand that text box, as shown here: In the interest of self-vindication, that is all I need to point out. Any mentioning of the presence or absence of survivor NPCs is, apparently, at best contained within a minimized text box. Like I said, as shocking as it might seem, I don't make a habit of reading all the "fine print" (a figure of speech) documentation. I would be willing to bet that 95% of consumers do not, which makes me taking my time and energy to provide feedback to you about this matter an act of generosity to give you some opportunity to consider how a typical consumer might react. I'm not seeing any clear and concise message in expanded "Early Access Game" text box that would run approximately equivalent in message to: ADDIT: in any event, it is a good game, I respect the vision and creativity of the developers and I'm pleased to give it a positive Recommendation. http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198071309618/recommended/108600 Godspeed Indie Stone!

The game is fully worth every penny all of us paid for it, and it is a good game already, despite still being in early access. Once I had played it past the point where I started this thread, that became clear to me. But I started this thread because I played it for a while, expected I might encounter some other survivors but didn't (shocking I know, but I don't often read ALL the fine print documentation and the full Internet post history for every title I buy . . .), played it a while longer and still didn't . . . did some searching and pretty soon realized there are no NPC survivors in the game, and it was at that point that I had a reaction: "You gotta be kidding me!?" (grinning [not grimacing] mouth agape in surprise). So I posted, strictly in the interest of providing feedback. I had (and have) no intent of causing anyone any grief, nor engaging in hysterics, merely to convey the reaction of one user upon realizing there were no NPCs. Given I'm an older, fairly low-expectations user with some insights into software development that might be indicative of how a broad range of younger and/or higher-expectations users without much insight into software development might react. In sum, it is a very big "gap" in the game. Game is still worth buying and fun and not in anyway "not worth the sales price."

Right. Better to sugar coat it for the developers. Wouldn't want to hurt their feelings by letting them know that "I am [was] tempted to post a 'Do Not Recommend' review on Steam." It couldn't possibly help them (the developers) to know how one individual (me) responded when the individual (me) realized the game lacks this functionality (NPCs), and since my communication might be possibly confused by them (or others, such as yourself) as being "petulant," I should not have been so honest . . . It is a great game. I'm tempted (at this point) to write a "Recommend" review on Steam. The Devs themselves seem very cool; I can empathize with being a slack ass, gifted at "strategic procrastination" with great skills, excellent vision, but minimal discipline (assuming that MIGHT be part of the problem, which I'm sure it couldn't possibly be!). Sadly, That "Mostly Positive/Mixed/ . . ." bit on Steam's sales page is probably the single most unfair mechanism in the consumers tool bag. Unfair because, small revolutionary movements occur from time to time where sanctimonious users "band together" to "raid" a games reviews pages and drive its status down (at least temporarily). Some of the reasons this happens are not properly linked to the actual merits of the product and sometimes there is little that the game's developer or publisher could do about it. But not always; there are a lot of stinkers on Steam and that aggregate rating mechanism also insures that stinkers don't manage to fleece too many unwitting consumers. You'll notice, I haven't written any review for Project Zomboid yet, and I made a point of alerting the games forums (and whomever might read those forums) that at one point my reaction to the lack of ONE feature made me consider writing a bad review. If you cannot see how generous and helpful that was for me to do that I don't know what else to tell you.

And hopefully, only the beginning! It is a marvelous game. Inspiring even! Here I thought isometric, gritty-management (I'd almost say "realism" as much of the game mechanics are pretty hardcore realism, but then that whole zombie apocalypse thing. . .) games with basic visuals were "out of style." Very encouraged to see that is false.

Ah! well that explains a lot, and probably accounts for why I "expected" for the mods to install to: %UserProfile%\Zomboid\mods I was probably reading something from pre-Workshop days. I wish I could recall what I had read that led me to expect them there; I'd try to annotate or edit it so future users don't get confused.

I don't quite follow. I'm not saying that there is a malfunction. All my mods function. I'm simply pointing out that: apparently the mod-installer places the files into an obscure directory: X:\Steam\steamapps\workshop\content\108600\498441420\mods I see at least one other game that uses this directory, Empyrion Galactic Survival uses it for users to share space ship and base designs. So, maybe I'm just being finicky by thinking this is an "obscure" directory. But it does seem that the intent was for mods to PZ to install in the X:\Users\<User>\Zomboid\mods\ directory? At this point, with several years of modding on the table, it might be more disruptive to change the directory than to just leave it the way it is; but if so, it might be that some of the documentation needs to be corrected.

Dude, this mod is epic.

We love you and your best and brightest Canada! Keep sending them to Houston, Atlanta and Orlando!

I fired up a sandbox with the Nighttime darkness value set to "Pitch Black." DAMN! Even with Night Owl, with all lights off and curtains drawn inside my house utterly black. Couldn't even manage to fumble around and find the light switch (electricity still on). Now I'm wondering if the values for darkness setting in the sandbox configuration can be adjusted somewhere? Re: OPs suggestions: Yes! all sounds good. There is Hydrocraft, which has an incredible assortment of additional items, though not sure how much more illumination technology it covers.

Holy crap dude; talk about everything and the kitchen sink! Great job!

Do you have Justin Bieber playing in the background or something? Seems compatible already isn't it? I mean, it loads. Not sure if it experiences some sort of glitch?

Strange . . . I have this: X:\Users\DicheBach\Zomboid\mods\loaded.txt Which says But no sign of the actual files that comprise those mods. A quick launch shows that they are active (or at least "Survivors" is). ADDIT: lolwut! http://steamcommunity.com/app/108600/discussions/0/405692758707261989/ Le Sigh X:\Steam\steamapps\workshop\content\108600\498441420\mods\Hydrocraft If that is something you guys can reconfigure, it might be a good idea.

Yes. TIS, unless you already understood the point: PLEASE DO NOT take any assets or code or content of any sort from ANY other IP . . . Probably preaching to the choir but better safe than sorry . . . Listen to GTA's sounds, either in your copy of their game(s) or on YT, and then see if you can figure out how they recorded them and follow suit if it seems pragmatic.

Yes please! So it raises a question for me: what are the legal/contractual ramifiations of an IP owner implementing features which were mimicked--if not wholesale copy-pasted--from code created by mod makers? I know there are myriad ways around it for the developer. For one thing, most mods will never be baked into the source code, and likewise, most users will not have access to the source code (or at least its most recent iteration). But if TIS implemented a "Environmental Signs & Symbols" package, it might seem obvious to some that they had "copied" certain mods, and I know that certain users tend to cop attitudes when it comes to that sort of thing. Me personally, based on my understanding of IP law, the owner of the IP takes precedence almost across the board. We users do not "own" really anything except a license to use the software, and that may be subject to certain restrictions that are not anticipated. That is, IMHO, as it should be. Creators of intellectual property need to be confident that their creations are secure and as such IP law needs to show favoritism to IP owners . . . With that said, it is also wonderful when IP owners can be gracious (and pragmatic) enough to allow users to distribute creations that articulate with the licensed software, i.e., "mods." The stance that various publishers/studios take on the matter of "who owns mods" seems to be diverse. Some seem to state categorically that mod makers own the mods, but only in a limited sense, and that the IP owner can exert considerable control over the created content as it occurs in the public realm. Others seem to think that all user create content is "officially" owned by the IP owner, or even to suggest that the IP owner has no ownership or oversight at all. If it were me, I'd have a policy that: you can make mods and distribute them as long as they do not breach any secure or encrypted features of the software, but you cannot sell them. I'd lean toward a policy that any mod content can be used as a basis to implement updates/revisions to the actual software, and even a policy that users may be asked if their content can be included virtually verbatim in the software, with credits, but no remuneration.

MSI MS-7821 mobo, Intel i5-4690K 3.5GHz, 8GB RAM, Win7 / NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 3.9GB Played for about 10 minutes. Not seeing any issues (other than, yeah, as warned, not compatible with older saves). Do you guys need more specific feedback than that? I saw there was a list of points to consider when providing beta feedback in the other thread that preceding this one, but that was like 3 months and ~100 thread pages ago. Yes, that looks accurate. More variety of colors these days, but as far as I know white remains the most common.

Neat! I did a few courses in Java but I got sucked in by C++ and that is what I spend my free time learning; still just a beginner but I should cross the threshold to "Journeyman" any time between 6 months from now and the day I die! Apart from a VERY tiny bit of tinkering with the computer mod (the one's which add "turtle" robots and which I forget the name of) in Tekkit Lite Minecraft, I have no real knowledge of lua.

Have to say, given the app seems to be written in Lua, what they have pulled off already is quite impressive! The visual experience is PERFECTLY FINE just how it is, to the tune of 875,000 users who bought in in fact. Why they would feel any need to implement "3D" animations I cannot fathom . . . Clearly, the folks who have created this are gamers, with a deep love of the full gamut of psychological and analytical experiences that games can evoke far more than any other entertainment media. I salute them for their cunning understanding of what it takes to make a "GOOD!" game and their success at it already. But with all that said: the lack of ANY survivor non-player characters at all, is the biggest, most immediately obvious, and arguably glaring deficiency in the game. If by some stroke of magic I owned this IP and they were working for me, I would put full stop on every other aspect of development and devote 100% of all resources to planning and implementing a baseline NPC system, with a focus on (a) an extensible system which can be iteratively elaborated in future updates; but also (b) allows for some meaningful, enjoyable, not-annoying and balanced presence of other survivors in singleplayer mode as soon as possible and last (and most importantly) (c) a toggle button in the game setup panes "Play with NPC survivors?" ON/OFF (or perhaps toggles to determine the abundance, etc.

Having got past my initial reaction of "WHAT!? No allied NPCs!?" . . . I agree. They could call the game "done" just how it is right now and I think it is worth the price tag. It plays well, is engrossing and well done. The only problem with multiplayer mode in most games is that (a) human beings live in different places, with different stages in Earth's circadian cycle and with different work/play/sleep schedules; (b) sometimes, one's fellow players are a down-right drag; (c) even when one's fellow players are not a drag, the "relationships" one develops around games are delicate, fragile and inherently troubled. In sum, I prefer to avoid multiplayer and this is after spending many years engaging in many different forms of it. The best games have sufficient computer-opponents/challenges that humans (who admittedly are the most challenging of opponents) are unnecessary either as opponents or allies. Putting a multiplayer mode on top of THAT is golden in my opinion as it allows all users to get what they want.

I've been enjoying the game immensely! Definitely have already "got my money's worth" and having played through 30 or 40 days or survivors living in Muldraugh I can see the beauty in their design. Tried the Steam "survivors" mod and found the NPCs to be more of a burden than a benefit. I am amazed that the game is as entertaining as it is with a solo survivor, which explains a lot. But I am still of the opinion that rudimentary ally NPC algorithms, on which slightly less rudimentary upgraded algorithms could be built, on which again sligthly less rudimentary upgraded algorithsm could be built . . . and so on, should have been priority number one at the very moment the decision was made to remove the original algorithms from compilation. Obviously, 5+ years later, I'm a bit "late" to convince the developers of this view, and perhaps they are putting the finishing touches on the Zombie Apocalypse equivalent of Hal 9000 as we speak and will unveil a suite of allied NPC algorithms that truly harken in earnest to be hailed as "A.!." . . . As far as I can tell, there is no such thing and never has been. Most of the "neural network" and "machine learning" blah, de, blahs we hear about come from sources with ample ulterior motivation to lie about the little man in the control room pulling the strings. When Elon Musk's fabled Dota "A.I." is included in the .exe for the actual product and can be played without network connectivity in singleplayer mode I will be impressed. As far as I'm aware, all so-called game "A.I." in existence "cheat," it is what the programmers/designers have to do to make them convincing. There is nothing wrong with that is there? When you are looking at your screen and your brain is registering a little friend sneaking around a trailer park in their underwear in the sweltering Kentucky summer heat, nail-spiked baseball bat raised high and ready, and you feel the tension . . . you have already been hoodwinked by the slide show of pixels choreographed to respond precisely to your user inputs.

I appreciate your detailed and edifying post EnigmaGrey. Nonetheless, I don't feel compelled to step back any of the points I made in my opening post. I feel sympathy for Indie Stone, I know they've faced a lot of difficulties. From my standpoint, the message I have to convey is for THEIR benefit. Let me put it a different way: You've already sold nearly a million copies for a game that has no NPC allies in singleplayer mode. Consider two things: 1. How many sales are being forestalled indefinitely because of the lack of NPC allies in singleplayer mode. 2. What is the rate of "permanent loss" of those sales as time goes on. 3. What is the rate of "lost faith" or to be more technically accurate "lost brand loyalty" among those ~875,000 users who already sponsored your alpha project? I have no desire to tear down an indie developer who (a) clearly has a love of their craft; (b) has already accomplished an amazing game; (c) shows promise of getting this gem into full-fledged Gold status, and quite possibly breaking Minecraft's records for total sales and overall impact on the gaming and digital consumer market worlds. It is a neat game, and I'm 87.975% happy that I purchased it. That remaining 10.025% of "regret" is mainly a sense of disappointment/vicarious embarrassment which is apparently captured by the German word fremdschämen. I'm not angry, I'm not vengeful, I'm not even delighting in their misfortune. They clearly are accomplished game developers. And yet, how could they spend EIGHT YEARS without even bothering to implement some rudimentary NPC algorithms? People often go from "just graduated with their Bachelors degree" to "finished their Ph.D." in that span of time. If it is taking that long to create the algorithms necessary to implement functioning computer-controlled ally characters in-game, then perhaps the standards are too high? . . . ADDIT: Anyway, I sense that this is a very sensitive topic and that fans/supporters have perhaps slipped into a "enabler" role perhaps a bit too easily. I know that there are a lot of jerks on the Internet and I sense that Indie Stone and this deficiency in the game in particular have been the target of a lot of jerk attacks, as suggested by the fact that my own sincere attempts to offer what I see as "criticially important feedback for the benefit of the developer and the community" is regarded with some unease. A strong and meaningful relationship between a product creator (such as a game development studio) and its consumers (e.g., the gamers who frequent their forums) is, in all honesty, a beautiful thing. It is a rare thing in the modern marketplace, and social relations with such dimensions probably have been rare since at least the industrial revolution. But when the relationship of the sponsor becomes one of "enabling" inertia, that is where the close supportiveness has begun to work at cross-purposes. Outsiders can see it, but many who might step in to say something will lack the basic tact and social skills to do so diplomatically and constructively. Certainly my goal is not to provoke uproar or reverse the prevailing affection which so many users obviously feel; perhaps I fall short in the diplomatic and constructive dimensions too. But that is my goal.

My failure to read the fine print as if it was a high-dollar contract is no one's fault, and certainly not that of the developer or Steam. I'm not alleging I was misled, or any other form of malice on the part of Indie Stone or Steam; merely that the state of this game is shockingly out-of-synch with the environment in which it is being marketed. Setting aside completely the issue of "unmet expectations" (which is only the entry point to my message, not the core of my message): these developers have lost their way. Eight years and no testable interim algorithms for computer-controlled non-player character allies, despite having sold VERY WELL compared to the indie marketplace overall. Thus, as I said:

Surely I'm missing something here? I purchased this game with the understandable expectation that the character played by the player in single player mode is not the sole remaining healthy normal human in Knox County, i.e., that it was possible to meet, befriend, recruit and organize other healthy normal human "non player characters (NPC)" entities during gameplay and organize them into "communities." This game has been in development since at least 2011. It has an estimated ~875,000 units sold according to SteamSpy (at an estimated median unit price of say . . . $10, that is $8,750,000 in gross revenue since the game was released on Steam, and that would mean ~$6.125 million pre-tax/pre-customs take for Indie Stone after the distributor [Steam] takes their cut . . .). There are indie dev games which have been out for 1/8th as long, have 1/10th the sales volume, and nonetheless have recruitable non player character entitites in game. Recuitable NPCs have been in games since the early 1990s. I see discussion to the effect that the vision for the computer controlled ally entities is to create something truly groundbreaking, something that might actually justify that widely misused term "A.I.". Were this not a commercial computer game product, I'd say that would be a laudable goal. The game is only partly playable as it is. You are business people, and this game is your product. You have already received far more support and faith from the Steam marketplace than most indie developers ever DREAM in their entire careers. Take your heads out of the clouds, implement something that it is "good enough" put it in the game and move forward toward Gold. You do realize that you can always update the game. Seriously guys. What are you thinking? You cannot possibly go from "no computer controlled ally entities in game" to "one of the best computer controlled ally entities in games" with zero play testing in between. I am tempted to post a "Do Not Recommend" review on Steam.