RorekSR

Because the devs programming lots of meaningless "fuck you" bits into the game solely to tease people who want to do them is an excellent use of development time and will probably not result in complaints from said people or those who would rather see bug fixes or useful and/or fun features. Like soaking ropes in gasoline then lighting them ablaze so you can pretend to be Simon Belmont.

6/10 because I think your tie is ugly but man that cane sure helps you move fast with those flames on it.

I didn't open a topic, nor did I ask. Though mine is so obvious and simple that I'd be hard-pressed to not understand it. And of course it's their own choice, I was simply offering my own opinion and view on the psychology behind nicknames and member titles. I enjoy having a nickname or title all my own; it gives a sense of community acceptance or individuality in said community, as opposed to being just another blank face in an ever growing crowd. But I wouldn't go out of my way to see that my behavior "abides by" the nature of my title or vice versa. I feel anyone who measures themselves by their nickname or alters their behavior otherwise to suit said nickname was never really all that genuine to begin with, as they would be acting as the person they thought they SHOULD be acting as or the person they believe they were desired to act as. It's like wearing makeup; the real you is in there and sometimes people will get a look at it but more often than not you're putting on a facade that in your own mind looks better than the real you does. I think it's silly, that's all. Especially with the wonderful anonymity of the interwebs.

I think that everyone needing to know the exact origin and reasoning behind their mod-given titles almost ruins the magic and fun of it nearly as much as making them yourself. It's like having a nickname. If you come up with your own nickname and just convince people to start calling you that, it's pointless and egotistical. If someone else gives you a nickname and you ask them to break down why that nickname was given to you, then it still feels like you're going from "your nickname defining you" to "you defining your nickname" as the next step is typically an individual assessing and approving or disapproving the accuracy of said nickname and/or judging themselves or their behavior by said nickname. Are your achievements in life really so trivial that you must be validated via an internet title?

So there's one glaring issue among many with this idea that I'm surprised nobody has brought up yet... Even if you could breathe from within the plastic bag (which would cause the bag to move and make zombies interested) and even if the zombies completely ignored it because of reasons, how exactly would the survivor have any idea that the horde has moved on? Or isn't coming for him while he turns himself into a sausage in a plastic casing? Your post seems to make a lot of assumptions, like a living breathing human being completely undetectable in a garbage bag fashioned with a zipper if they just "lie really still" and that the survivor will be able to somehow know that the horde has moved on despite having zero vision. Literally any course of action you could take would be better than this one. An entire horde spotting you and chasing you down would havefer better survival odds. What if a zombie bumps into the bag or trips over it? What if you ran out of air in the bag? Not to mention, the sheer humidity and heat that would be caused by breathing and being alive in a sealed bag would make a survivor very uncomfortable. Good luck remaining perfectly still when your ass-crack starts sweating and you start to feel light-headed as your brain receives less oxygen.

Knee+arrow jokes inbound! Fun Fact: An arrow to the knee is Nordic slang for getting married. "I used to be an adventurer like you... Then I took an arrow to the knee."

From what I understand, in PZ zombification takes an increasingly large toll on your health the longer it goes on. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) And in nearly all zombie lore in which infection is present, people never turn while they are alive (Rage Virus notwithstanding) they merely get increasingly ill until their body gives out (generally due to a serious fever, a very real thing to die from) at which point they rise as a walker. In otherwords, while PZs zombification process might not cripple and bring the survivor down as quickly as movies show it happening, it seems pretty accurate to the source material. Someone who is well-fed and healthy is going to fight off the encroaching fever and nausea better than someone who is more seriously wounded, less hydrated, or more hungry. While it may be in need of some balancing, I think it makes perfect sense that being healthy can prolong the time it takes you to turn. I also see this as a much more plausible and realistic approach to fighting off the infection temporarily than Joe Smith knowing that Valtrex medication or whichever random drug or antibiotic will help him prolong his slow, suffering death. And now that I'm in the vein of thought, since it's generally the symptoms of the infection that kill people and not the infection itself, wouldn't it make more sense for things like fever reducers or medications that target the symptoms help prolong the life? That sort of falls right back in to staying healthy in general. In most depictions of zombification occurring postmortem, I'd compare the infection in a living person to AIDs. AIDs in itself does not actually kill people; it kneecaps and cripples them into being easy prey for nearly any fever, illness, or infection to get the job done. I feel as though PZ follows this sort of idea, whether it was intended or not. So with that logic, managing the symptoms via medication sounds like it would be a plausible idea to prolong one's infected life just like being well-rested and well-fed would. I also believe that this is a much more "realistic" solution than Joe Smith preemptively knowing that he needs to stock up on this mysterious medication that he's never seen or heard of before because he already knows it helps fend off the mysterious infection of unknown origin that he's never had before.

Well, you already have the ability to continue to struggle by staying healthy so that the rate you heal at remains above the rate zombification causes you to take damage. But the OP says he just blows his brains out because it's pointless, even if he can prolong his life by thriving and staying fed. So I'm wondering what exactly would the difference be if there was an entirely separate option (Zomb-away pills for example) that did the exact same thing? It's still over. It's still an ended life that lives on borrowed time. But what does this second alternative offer that simply staying healthy and fed doesn't?

You're about to make sweet sexy time with a lovely lady when she reaches inside her nightstand for a condom and instead pulls out a shiv. And shivs you. 47 times in the face, 16 in the torso, and twice in the family jewels.

I don't think this would add anything to the game; it creates a single, static situation in regards to roleplay and general gameplay; if you don't commit suicide once infected, you take the pills. Argue about tension all you want, but it's literally a single binary scenario; red or blue pill. binary choices, especially tiny ones like this for instance, have never greatly enhanced a roleplaying experience. And to the OP, I can't comprehend what you'd get out of this or why you'd even want it. According to you, when you're infected, you just kill yourself and move on from there. You don't try to fight in vain against the odds, you don't try to do anything crazy or interesting for your last days alive; you just kill yourself, because like you say, you already know that the game is over and there's zero point in continuing when you know you have already lost. (Despite the fact that the entire point of this game is fighting in vain against impossible odds.) So surviving a weeks or however long once your infected is a complete and utter waste of time to you, and yet you claim you would be willing to continue an "already lost" life that you know you've already gotten a game over in if you could extend that week or however long you'd make it while infected by a just a few hours? It sounds to me like maybe the first time you'd try to stave off the infection, then you'd realize the X hours you spent in real life searching for the medicine in-game wasn't worth the effort to make that "doomed" life last another 30 real minutes or whatever since the end result is exactly the same, the only difference being your entire gameplay strategy has now been turned into scavenging nonstop for the medicine and spending a lot of extra time on a fruitless journey. And then you'd go right back to killing yourself every time you got infected because "what's the point of even trying when I know my game is over." Since you already consider the game over once you're infected, obviously you'd STILL consider the game over once you were infected even if you could prolong the time you spent alive by a few minutes of gameplay by spending hours of gameplay doing it.

Yahtzee and Gabe chat about the Class Action Lawsuit that EA is facing about BF4's online component not working on launch.

There was an older build with a "Story" section which was essentially a selection screen for K&B and Story or Quest based mods and it was implemented as a framework for the community modders as well as TIS to expand upon later with stories where they'd control a specific survivor and usually play through a pre-scripted storyline or series of quests or something like that. I wouldn't be surprised if a similar option is added to the newer versions when TIS gets back to K&B. And I believe what the OP is asking for is that the game basically begins on the day of the outbreak when NPCs are just going about their daily lives; houses and stores would be full of all of the normal supplies and amenities they would normally have. Then, without the player taking part, a week goes by where the NPCs basically form groups, build safehouses, fight off the zombies, and raid everywhere for supplies. After that simulated week, the player character's avatar is plopped in. That's the gist of what I get from it.

Ideas similar to this one have been discussed at great length, and the way you describe it in particular makes it sound more like a story mod than an addition to the actual game with the scene in the diner, which I do not want to be a part of my own PZ story canon. Near the end of your post in particular where you start talking about everything fully stocked and groups leaving behind large hordes of pilfered goodies when they mysteriously get wiped out I get the impression that you'd want this put in so you could run around and easily find large caches of supplies and go from there. Either way, I'm against this idea. It'd take time and effort to script these linear events, not to mention the devs would have to completely gussy-up Muldragh by hand to make everything "pre-apocalypse" and I'd like to see their energy put into other areas of the game rather than a specific scripted-event that dictates a portion of the game for you.

I'm with this idea. Everyone seems to be trying to picture Herschel or even older, frailer men when considering these ideas. If you were that old and survived the outbreak this long, I'd be willing to believe that you weren't some shuffling fuddy-duddy with a walker and club foot. Firstly OP, you can't claim something has perfect balance if it's purely a hypothetical idea, so I'm not sure where you pulled 30-35 from. Secondly Footmuffin, Incontinent wouldn't be a trait because hygiene isn't a factor. Prejudiced would be hell to put into a game where skin tone is purely an aesthetic selection of a number as they'd have to write entirely new scripts around races and their applicable traits. Not to mention, the player can do what they want... How would "discrimination" flow into gameplay without being overly gamey? That addition strikes me as more of a roleplay element. And that's entirely beside the fact that anyone at nearly any age can be prejudiced for any number of reasons, so it being exclusively open to old people (presumably do to them being more prone to that archaic way of thinking in America due to being raised in a segregated society) doesn't really all that much sense; it's a stereotype at best. Same with disabled; anyone at any age can be disabled. Smoker too. There's literally no reason I can think of, if these were to be implemented, that they should be reserved exclusively for old people. The idea that old people learn faster "because they are wiser" is a misnomer. Old people learn more slowly than young people because they are set in their ways, generally due to living the routine of their lives for so long that it gets difficult to break that mold. On the flip side, there's a lot of older people who work very hard to maintain their healthy bodies and physical fitness; I've known more than a few old codgers who'd be able to outrun, outfight, and more than likely outgun me. Any windbags that made it this far in the apocalypse probably isn't one of the senile retirement home granddads. I feel like age should be kept to roleplaying, otherwise it'd needs its own overhaul for what seems to me at least to be some very minor additions to character creations and interactions. While I'm not sure exactly how they've implemented it into the game, I'm sure that age is nothing more than a variable integer that's been written to increase by 1 every time a certain date ticks by. It's possible it's not even programmed that far in; it could just stay 27 as a placeholder for now since age is currently completely irrelevant to gameplay. TL;DR: I don't agree with this idea at all. -1

And for the people that no read wwz? They would probably never see it, and if they did they wouldn't recognize it. This would be a pointless waste of time. Even if someone got bit by a quisling and didn't get infected, they'd never know it was a quisling. They'd probably just assume "Oh the 2% chance I wouldn't get infected by a bite happened cool." especially if it was made to be a rare occurrence, since being bit by zombies is a relatively rare event in itself. That's if the zombies didn't murder them before you got close enough to even see what's going on. Or if you didn't bludgeon their head in instantly.