Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About sprkng

  • Rank
    Freshly Bitten

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I'm pretty sure that article was talking about baked potatoes when they said that. Raw potatoes are around 70kcal/100g And if you search that database and find cooked potatoes that has magically gotten a significantly higher energy density (i.e. more calories per 100g) it's probably because they think "boiled potatoes" has butter in it. For reference a 25 year old male who's 180cm tall and weighs 75kg needs 2700kcal/day to maintain weight if they exercise daily (which I think is an appropriate exercise level for a PZ character who runs around, fights zombies and chops lumber regularly). He would need to eat 3.9 kg potatoes every day to get that energy. That's a lot of potatoes. The USDA database has a slice of apple pie as 363kcal, but this does of course depend on the size of the slice and exact ingredients. Your number of 67kcal for a slice is extremely low, I think you need to check your sources.
  2. In addition, the zombies don't fill any particular purpose in those games, they're just generic enemies that need to be defeated. And I think a game about defeating enemies would easily get very repetitive with only one type of enemy, especially if they're always mindlessly charging towards the player. You could replace the zombies in most other games with aliens or demons and they would fundamentally be the same, except the slightly different visual style.
  3. That's a good idea! But since the suggestion is so short and non-controversial (I mean it likely won't start a heated debate ) you could have posted it as a comment in this thread: https://theindiestone.com/forums/index.php?/topic/20738-build-38-and-beyond-small-but-important-suggestions-thread/
  4. Do we know for sure that a zombie virus even exists in the PZ world? I get that the virus thing is very popular in modern zombie stories, probably because it offers a more realistic explanation than the existence of magic, but I don't think it is something we should take for granted. There's a pinned post claiming that the devs have stated they have Romero and Brooks as lore inspiration, and AFAIK there is no zombie virus in any of Romero's works. Or to clarify, I think the cause for zombification is unspecified in Romero movies, and a virus is one of many equally probable (within the movie universe) possible explanations. The zombie wiki has the following to say about Romero zombies: (though this was changed in the remakes)
  5. 1100. Different types of makeup allowing different patterns: Theater face paint (for clown, warrior, etc. Found in toy stores), camo face paint (found in army base and hunting stores) and makeup (smoky eyes, rosy cheeks etc.) 1101. New equipment: clown wig and clown clothes. Found in toy stores. And a rare clown zombie of course.
  6. Maybe you're referring to me, because it's kind of similar something I wrote and I like talking about game design and zombies. Basically the core of my argument was "as long as any encounter with a zombie is potentially fatal if I make a mistake, the game will stay interesting at all times". If any mechanic allows you to kill zombies with no risk (assuming you don't do anything really stupid of course) the game becomes very dull IMO. But let's not go into that discussion again, and we just assume that with the mechanics you mentioned, fighting a single zombie is appropriately dangerous even without zombification. I agree with you that zombification is a boring mechanic right now in PZ. I think infection rate is 97% from bites, but still, once you see the anxious moodlet you know that you're dead and there is no point in continuing playing. However, someone getting bit, slowly getting worse despite all first aid attempts and finally turning into a zombie to attack their friends is a *very* important theme in most modern zombie stories. One important difference between zombie movies and PZ is that in the movie nobody know that their friend is doomed, so it always comes as a surprise when the person turns. Another things is that in PZ you can just start a new character, while in a movie/real life you have all the motivation to never give up hope (and you might even try to conceal the bite if you're afraid the group might abandon you). I want zombification to stay, not only for the difficulty but also for the zombie theme of the game. But with that said, I think it could be made more fun in one of two different ways: First alternative is to make it so that you never know for sure that you'e going to die. One option here is to add a "miraculous recovery", by introducing for example 20% chance to survive despite getting to the anxious stage, and something like 10% chance after you reach the queasy state. The numbers would have to be large enough for the player to think it's worth continuing but small enough to keep bites/zombification feeling like a real threat. Another option could be to reduce the risk of initial infection and add more sources of anxiety and queasiness, so that the player doesn't know if the moodlet means that they're going to die or if it's caused by something else. The recent change that you get queasy from hanging around corpses is good in this regard, but we also need something to obfuscate the anxious moodlet. I think it would be fairly realistic if all wounds inflicted by zombies generate some level of anxiety for example. I mean wouldn't you feel a bit uneasy if a walking corpse bit you, regardless of infection stage? The second alternative is to give players a reason to continue playing even though they know they're not going to survive. I think this would be easier if it was some sort of objective based game, so you would give your friends a better chance of success by staying around, but might be difficult to get into PZ. Even in multiplayer there's no real advantage to keep playing instead of instantly rolling a new character at the moment, but maybe something could be worked into the game when we get NPCs. The first alternative would be much easier to implement, but I think it chooses gameplay over zombie lore which some might not like
  7. There are definitely some interesting ideas in there, like different sets of starting points based on profession, but then it sounds a lot like you're playing in a certain way and you want to remake the game to fit your play style. So correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you want to pick the "best" profession when you create a character, and you don't think there's any point in picking a profession with less useful traits? Well, there are also people that don't play like you, and even if you haven't seen someone pick fireman they still exist. Why would this be better? This isn't a competitive multiplayer game so professions/classes don't need to be perfectly balanced against each other. It's not bad for an open world sandbox game if there exists a profession that only get picked 1 out of 1000 games. If you wanted to force all professions to have equal utility you'd sacrifice realism, because in an actual zombie apocalypse all professions wouldn't be equally useful. And for what purpose, to make it more like a generic computer game? What movies have you seen where someone survives a zombie bite by treating it? I can't remember having seen any. Where do you get this information form? How many different people have you observed playing PZ in order to claim that you know how everybody plays the game? Again, why do they have to do this? I think this would definitely lead to people only picking the best perks because it would be impossible to make them all equally useful. I agree, the weight related perks give a lot of points and don't hinder they player much. But there's an easy solution to that, either reduce the amount of points you get for picking them, or make the under/over weight have more impact on the game. No need to rewrite the entire character creation system.
  8. What in-game effects did you want from the trait? Did you mean in should graphically blur the area around you, or more practical effects like preventing reading (without glasses) and making electronics crafting more difficult?
  9. I feel honored, but I have a feeling that this thread is probably getting locked as soon as enigmagrey sees it It sounds like you're continuing a thread he just locked, and even though I don't fully agree with his decision to do so, this might come across as a bit disrespectful to the moderators. Would probably have been wiser to give it a more neutral title, like "some thoughts about difficulty in zombie survival simulators", and try to minimize references to the locked thread But lets have a constructive discussion about game design and see what happens. Weeeell I would rather call it a survival horror game which aims for a fairly high level of detail and realism. I don't think PZ has the level of realism that I would expect from a simulation, and I don't think the devs are aiming for that either. I even replied to another suggestion today saying that game play is more important than 100% realism in PZ, referring to the suggestion guidelines as why I believe this is the opinion of the devs and not just me. I would say in general it makes sense if the thing being simulated is mechanically challenging. A helicopter simulator should be hard to fly because a real helicopter is. Fighting a zombie IRL is probably more difficult than it is in PZ Also combat in PZ is not mechanically challenging for me, though I understand it is for you and some other people. If I get bitten or scratched it's because I did something really bad, and I think I deserve it despite hoping I will survive. The high stakes and the fact that death is always a possibility if you screw up adds a lot to the survival horror feeling for me. Judging from the other thread there are many others like me who think the game has a good balance right now, but ideally there should be an option that makes the game perfectly balanced for you too. I think the reason some people seemed to get a little upset was because it sounded like you want to change the game for everybody to make it more accommodating for your play style. I could probably have thought of more things to write but I need to go to bed, got work (from home) tomorrow.
  10. What things in game make noise that zombies can hear but aren't represented with sfx? OP also asked for a visibility indicator, which would be super unrealistic IMO. I think a noise indicator should be available as an accessibility option though, to make the game easier to play for hearing impaired people.
  11. How do you know what is "realistic" for a zombie, since they aren't real? Different movies/books portrays zombies differently, and according to some zombie lore they are much stronger than humans. Project Zomboid is said to be heavily inspired by Romero's and Brooks' works and those aren't entirely realistic to start with. I assume you're talking about front doors btw, because interior doors are usually very flimsy and could be broken by even an unarmed human. Even side doors can be quite weak in modern houses so it's not that much of a stretch imagining a single zombie would eventually be able to break one. And looking at houses in Kentucky 1993 1 2 3 it seems like at least some had front doors that could realistically be broken without super human power. I'm not saying it's a bad suggestion though, I just don't think the only motivation should be realism. If you look at the how to write a good suggestion guidelines you'll see there are more important things than realism (or fitting the appropriate zombie lore). You'll also have to consider if it makes the game more fun to play, and that your proposed change doesn't make the game too easy. If you just make some exterior doors more durable I don't think it would have that much impact, since there are so many windows everywhere. But if you meant to make all doors more durable I think the game would be too easy unless you completely rebalance many other things. As for introducing different types of doors I actually made the same suggestion a few days ago.
  12. I think you missed some parts of the discussion, I'm pretty sure he proposed to make it possible to reach 100% scratch and bite protection through clothing/gear. When you get hit your clothes absorb the damage and reduce protection, but for the first attack that lands you're completely immune to fatal damage.
  13. No problem, I just like talking about game design. Hmmm, I would rather say "every time anyone dies by zombie, it is the direct result of some kind of player mistake". I think decision making (including recklessness) is more of an indirect cause of death, and it's more about giving yourself the best odds for the actual combat. Poor decisions can get you instantly killed, but the most you can get out of good decisions is a fight where you always win as long as you press the right buttons. You can have flawless decision-making and still die because you make a mistake, which I think is the foundation of your complaint. I think there are basically two things we disagree about: 1. How hard the game should punish you for making mechanical mistakes (pressing the right button, moving the mouse to right position, timing, etc.). We just have different opinions and there is no problem with that. I gave some arguments for why I think this is better for the game but you don't have to agree. Luckily there are a ton of game settings we can play around with so that everyone can play the game in a way they enjoy. My wife, who plays PZ a lot more than me, also makes occasional mistakes when fighting so she just uses slightly different settings when she's playing alone. 2. quick edit: I re-read your first post and it seems like you're on board with player deaths are caused by your own mistakes, but several times after that you said something similar to "you're always a dice roll away from death", which sounds like you think you're dying due to no fault of your own. I think it's more correct to say "you're always a mistake AND a dice roll away from death" because the dice won't come out until after you make that mistake.
  14. I don't think I do though. I'm trying to say that I think there are different layers of game mechanics, of which you have varying amounts of control, in play before your character dies. 1. Decision making. You try to stack the odds in your favor by being careful etc. 2. Implementation. Pressing the right buttons at the right time, judging angles 3. Damage calculations. You can reduce the risk of bites and scratches but entirely based on probabilities and RNG. 4. Death. My point is that it always has go through these "layers" in order before you die. You won't get to 2 before you decide to fight. If you're good at decision making you won't take bad fights (e.g. fighting multiple zombies at once). And if you're only fighting safe (i.e. one-on-one) then you won't proceed to 3 without making a mistake. But yes, damage calculations depend on probabilities and can lead to unavoidable death if you're unlucky. However as I said, there are two layers you have to go through before any randomness comes into play. You must have failed on something skill based before RNG even comes into play. If you don't make mistakes you won't die. What I'm arguing against is that you make it sound like you have no control of your characters fate, that your life and death only depends entirely on probabilities. They definitely do. The number of possibilities to make a fatal mistake is directly proportional to the number of fights you choose to take. If you manage to avoid fighting entirely by playing cleverly you never have to worry about fumbling in combat. In addition, if you pick bad fights the tiniest mistake will likely have much bigger consequences than if you make a small mistake while fighting safely. And I'm disagreeing with that idea because I think it would make the game boring. And as people have said, the game already has "some degree of leniency" for bad plays. It gives you a random chance to survive your mistakes. Your suggestion would provide full immunity to anyone playing decently. I didn't mean literally immortal, as in you could stand in the middle of a horde and just chill, I meant you will never die as long as you make an effort to survive. Why wouldn't you back off? It's the balance between common sense and doing something stupid for no reason. It's not an interesting decision because there's an obvious right answer. There is no greater reward associated with taking greater risks. Instead it would be something boring you would just have to do if you're playing to survive, which is what I think most people do. Just don't do it next to a zombie then, there is nothing preventing you from running a little bit further away before changing. Carrying more clothes wouldn't make you more encumbered, it would just mean that you could fit less loot in your backpack and you need to run back and forth more. And if weight would be an issue you just put the spares in your car, park the car somewhere safe and if you get damage you run back to your car and change safely. It's not in-game decisions, it's something you figure out how it works once and then you'll never die unless you do something really, really stupid.
  15. I agree about the problem but I think a mini game to represent reading would feel incredibly out of place in PZ. Anything time consuming is problematic to implement in multiplayer. I think that you don't need to sleep in MP removes a pretty big part of the survival horror feeling (i.e. looking for a safe place to spend the night). As for reading, what if you could equip a book as "currently reading" and it would automatically progress 50 pages during a day? We pretend the character reads a few pages every now and then when they have time even if you don't see it happening (just like we pretend characters find time to go to the toilet even though we never see it in the game ). Equipping a non-skill book or comic could give a bit of happiness every day instead of the weird speed reading thing that the game currently does.
  • Create New...