Jump to content

Bossdrive

Member
  • Content Count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bossdrive

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I'm specifically referring to the mechanics: When a zombie attack succeeds its probability check, it scores a hit. You're appealing to physics: When a zombie knocks of your helmet, your head becomes exposed to NEXT hit. I agree with this! But the same reasoning can apply to clothing that provides protection. The helmet and clothing provide x% protection. A zombie hit only succeeds in compromising the protection. The next hit scores a wound. For example, a denim shirt provides x% protection to upper body parts. A successful zombie hit compromises (damages) the clothing protection on a specific body part leaving it exposed to the next attack.
  2. Helmets worked exactly as intended. They provided 100% protection that could NOT be bypassed. Zombies, however, have an X% chance to knock off the helmet which resulted in a hit. The zombie scores a hit the moment it succeeds in its percentage roll. This mechanic is the same for both helmet and clothing. With the recent update, the helmet mechanic changed. Even if the zombie succeeds in its percentage roll, it won't hit. "But the next one will". If the helmet required this fix, then I don't see why clothing should be excluded from the fix.
  3. Introduced in the recent update: "Helmet attacks change: before zombie attacks could potentially make helmets fall and also you get a hit. Now if the helmet falls, the current attack won’t connect but the next one will." I'm surprised this change is not getting any push back as it is PRECISELY the idea I proposed in my previous thread in which everyone adamantly opposed. Now they just have to translate something similar this helmet protection mechanic to clothing.
  4. This thread is an extension of a previous conversation with sprkng regarding game design. sprkng took the time and effort to provide a thoughtful response to my argument, and I think it deserves to be explored. Besides, it's rude to turn your head and walk away while someone is talking to you. That being said, I think both of us enjoy having these kinds of discussions. So it seems that you do make a distinction between the two kinds of mistakes that I delineated in my original post. Mistake type 1 - bad decision-making/playing reckless. and Mistake type 2 - keyboard/mouse mismanagement (mechanical). The question then is, should the game punish you equally for both types of mistakes? It seems to me that the answer lies with the game design. Is the game designed to challenge both your overall strategy and your keyboard/mouse skills? This is certainly the case with the RTS genre. RTS games are designed for competition in which you match your strategy and mechanical kills against an opponent. But PZ is not an RTS, it is fundamentally a survival simulation game. And simulation games are designed to simulate the real world. Does it make sense for a simulation game to challenge your mechanical skills? Someone mentioned in the other thread that 'mistake type 2' is not a problem for him and that I'm "over-blowing" the issue. Well, that may be the case for many people who possess good mechanical skills, but does that kind of criticism resolve the problem? From my experience, all of my deaths had been the result of 'mistake type 2'. I play extremely cautious. My friend describes my play style as tediously boring. He, on the other hand, plays like Rambo, yet he always manages to last longer than I. I think the disagreement between you and I rests on 'mistake type 2' and whether or not it should be a natural component of the game. PZ does many things right, and this is one of them. It provides you with a vast array of tools to tailor the game in any way you desire. But again, any changes I were to make in the settings is just a way for me to circumvent the problem I delineated above. I'm just attempting to manipulate the settings to mitigate the flaw that is inherent in the game design. Sure, I agree with this. Anything I've said about RNG is always in context to my original post. It's very possible that I might have expressed things poorly.
  5. But I don't think probability is the entire cause of death. Consider my very first post, "Being scratched, lacerated or bitten by zombies is primarily due to one (or a combination) of these two factors 1. Poor decision making/ carelessness 2. Key pad blunder (e.g. fumbling the run, push, or attack key)" That's a good idea. However, it just seems like cheating.
  6. Ugh, such a long post. While I appreciate your response, I don't see any point in addressing it in full. Because even if I were to adequately address all of your objections, you still would disagree. That's because we disagree at a fundamental level. And I think it begins with this premise, You made it clear that you disagree with this premise. Both keyboard fumbles and combat misjudgment are inextricably tied to poor decision making or reckless play style. This means that every time anyone dies by zombie, it is the direct result of poor decision-making and recklessness. Would you agree with this?
  7. You can pile on, I don't mind. Anyway, I don't see why I need to provide video where probability is entirely the cause when probability IS the built-in mechanics. There is no case where probability is not the cause. Now if you're referring to keyboard fumbles, misclicks, and angle misjudgments, yes I made many of them! Again, I'm not opposed to RNG. I referenced X-COM as an example of a streamlined character development system.
  8. Not everyone is great with the keyboard. Sure, but then what is the point of enabling infection?
  9. You continue to misconstrue my argument. I didn't say that disabling infection is an indictment of RNG. In fact, I'm not even opposed to RNG in principle. This should have been clear given my previous posts. I was pointing out the inconsistency of ZAMN's reasoning. Let me break this down for you. ZAMN argued that, 1. He disables infection because he's "perfectly capable of making mistakes and overestimating shit." 2. "Putting yourself into a situation where you make a fatal mistake is the opposite of playing smart." Therefore, what? What is the inescapable conclusion given those two premises? Once again, no. It has nothing to due with my personal preferences. Granting you the RNG, my question is about the game design regarding character development. Time-intensive character development system/RNG permadeath vrs Streamline character development system/RNG permadeath. It doesn't make sense to invest time in building your character when you're always one dice roll away from permadeath.
  10. Yet, you disable zombification. Why? Is it because you don't play smart? that is the inescapable conclusion of your logic here.
  11. Again, the problem is not the armor. The problem is the armor mechanics. Ok, clearly you're not going to budge on this. You're satisfied with pure RNG. Can you please explain the logic for a robust time-intensive character development system? Given the pure RNG nature of the game, investing a great deal of time developing your character doesn't seem to make sense. Would it not make more sense to streamline character development? Take, for example, Darkest Dungeon. Although a brutal RNG game, the character development system works. You invest very little time developing your characters. If your group gets wiped, it's no great loss. Someone mentioned X-Com. The character development is perfectly streamlined for that kind of game.
  12. Yes, you did misinterpret it. Saying that good armor is limited by spawn position and probability doesn't mean I'm opposed to randomness in loot spawn. Context matters. I was replying to your post about armor stacking. My point is that you're still open to the probability mechanics up until the point you collect the optimal armor set. And even then it doesn't resolve the problem I delineated in my original post.
  13. Hold on. Your very first sentence seems to contradicts the passage that immediately follows. You argue that "if you're smart and are good and separating yourself from zed, you can pretty much ensure indefinite survival" Yet in your very first sentence you say that you would still disable zombification because you're "perfectly capable of making mistakes and overestimating shit." Bro, EVERYONE is perfectly capable of making mistakes and overestimating shit." That does not mean you're not playing smart. Playing smart does not ensure a damn thing. That's the point.
  14. You're conflating the chances of survival given your actions with the in-game probability mechanics. I addressed this in my very first post. Again, my contention is that the game should punish you for poor decision making and playing reckless while allowing some degree of leniency for keyboard fumbles and even combat misjudgment. Combat is not precise and requires a lot of eye-balling with respect to distance and angles. A single zombie could end a long run of a game simply because your angle estimation was just a little off. Both keyboard fumbles and combat misjudgment have absolutely nothing to do with poor decision making or reckless play style. This is the thrust of my argument. Keep in mind that the sole purpose of my protective clothing idea is to lend some degree of leniency for keyboard fumbles and combat misjudgment. 1. You contend that the armor mechanics that I suggested will make you immortal. This is simply not the case. Once the durability rating is compromised you're open to probabilities on the next attack. 2. You argue that you can just back off and change clothing. - IF you decide to back off. This is the balance between good decision vrs bad decision. - Changing clothe takes time and leave you open to attack. Furthermore, carrying a bundle of clothe weighs you down making you susceptible to high exhaustion. There are trade offs between armor and mobility.
  15. I think you have me confused with someone else.
×
×
  • Create New...