Jump to content

Rathlord

Support Team & Moderator
  • Posts

    7448
  • Joined

Everything posted by Rathlord

  1. Rathlord

    Die in Style

    I can't speak for the dev team, but I'd be surprised if this stuff wasn't revisited in some form soon.
  2. 503 errors from 9:26 PM CST for about the next 45 minutes off and on, and extremely slow performance when it was up. Confirmed multiple sources.
  3. As far as mods making "adverse claims" that may be aimed at me; if so, my claim was that your admin accused TIS of hacking your forum- something that he did do (even though he deleted it afterwords), which was backed up by a screenshot and shortly after his own admission. I don't harbor any ill-will towards him for the hasty mistake, but I also don't appreciate you saying we came on and made unsubstantiated claims. Furthermore, in regards to your server being "blacklisted," I had a long, calm, and friendly chat with the admin of the server you're calling yours. We had things mostly worked out, and I told him that if everyone stayed friendly for a week or two we'd see about removing that. I would have been happy to talk to you at any time regarding it, and given that it's been quiet (as far as I know), I probably would have spoken up on your behalf and had that blacklist removed. All you had to do was talk to me. You have me on Discord (or had, I see you just kicked me as I was typing this) and on the forums. I'm available almost any time. Given the circumstances, even if we didn't handle the situation perfectly, I find your accusations to be duplicitous at best. You had an avenue of communication (several, really) and rather than taking advantage of those you chose of your own volition to abandon that good will and paint this false picture of us. Needless to see, we're all disappointed and a fair bit confused. We appreciate everything you did for us, but given the amount of issues we've had in the past and this final straw, I think this is the end. Cheers.
  4. Heya, Please don't bump suggestions threads. I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish, but people either have something to say about it or don't, and they can find it via searching. If everyone bumped their threads it would be anarchy. Just giving you a heads up this time so you know; next time thread gets locked. Cheers.
  5. I think this could be interesting to be wrapped into the stances (sneaking, walking, aiming) with some modification. Not in this exact sense, but I think having this and that would be a bit overly complex. There's some neat ideas that could be worked into this.
  6. On the other hand, from a balance perspective: There's been a distinct push to differentiate characters in multiplayer, or, to put it another way, to force people to specialize. Why? Because it makes the game scale up better than having everyone be generalists. It gives value to playing as a team, and for people to take skills that they otherwise might not. Sharing a little skill might be okay (still requires a person of higher level in the craft), but giving an xp boost kind of works directly against this goal of specialization/differentiation. I think I'd rather see more stuff that encourages cooperation (like, instead of giving a skill boost there's crafts you simply can't do with a single person).
  7. Some interesting points there, but a few counterpoints: Fitness and resting metabolic rate aren't specifically tied- that is to say, being in shape (fit) does not mean you have a fast metabolism. I was in great shape as a young man, but ate like a monster. Other people my age would have been hopelessly overweight with the same intake. Thus, actual activity and other factors should determine metabolic rate, not simply whether the player is in shape or not. Additionally, the daily/weekly calculation is really a moot point. Assuming relatively accurate changes, it doesn't much matter whether you calculate by the hour or day or week- it will all average out identically over time. And if the changes are individually small enough (part of what my personal suggestion aimed for) the frequency of the calculations won't matter to the player, just the long term consequences.
  8. Someone call for a usual reply? We don't do ETA's. Oh yah, and they are finished when they are finished. I helped.
  9. 503 Error at approx 9:58 PM CST 6/21/16
  10. Rathlord

    Tooltips

    Unfortunately, it really does belong in the mod section. You won't get any more help in the support section than you would there. If someone knows, I'm sure they'll share. In the mean time, maybe give the PZ IRC a chance if you haven't already. It's not always a quick response, but a lot of modders hang out there. Good luck dude.
  11. "Mean no rudeness" meanwhile calling people rude and condescending repeatedly- that doesn't quite fly. I'm sorry you don't feel welcome, but if you were to wander into someone's office in real life, start telling people how to do their jobs, and then call them names- you probably wouldn't feel very welcome there, either. You're more than welcome here, but we do require members of our community to treat each other with respect, whether it's your first post or your thousandth. Edit: Here you go, I went and found the relevant bit for you:
  12. No, that wouldn't be hard to code. And if you had enough respect for the people you were addressing, you would have read his DIRECT RESPONSE TO THIS EXACT IDEA. You're more than welcome to post your opinions here, but I'd recommend not being so rude as to ignore the dev who took time out of his day to address you. When you fail to actually read what he wrote, you're wasting his time and all of ours. Edit: In fact, survivors like that were already in the game at one point, but were removed to be reworked. What you're suggesting would be actually going backwards.
  13. Aye, optimization has trended positively, not negatively, as the game has progressed. There may be some setbacks with more advanced features, but the overall trend isn't likely to change.
  14. Complex is fine. Overcomplex is bad. My issue is right now you're not free to ignore the calories and do zombie-stuff, because you'll end up in either a weight-gain or weight-loss unescapable spiral that doesn't mirror reality. That's the problem, not having a robust system. I'm all for a robust system. EnigmaGrey has mentioned to me that instead of having a basic 1750 calorie target, it could be a sliding scale based on player condition. I'm fine with that as well. In reality, the system I'm proposing is no less robust than the one currently implemented (or the one you suggest in another thread). Easier to understand doesn't mean oversimplified or boring. This still keeps hunger an important part of gameplay without it eating a disproportionate amount of your game time. And I'm not sure how you think it will be boring, as the consequences to mishandling the system I'm proposing are actually much more severe than ignoring the one in game. If anything, it's more challenging. It's just not as hard to understand and confusingly not-reality matching.
  15. I mentioned at the end hunger values need to be tweaked some. But to a certain extent, this should still exist- just not as badly as it does now. You can't take a person who's starving to death and shove 10,000 calories down their throats and have them be better. There's a very real cap to how many calories you can transfer to fat in a day, so this makes sense. Also a limited amount of room in your stomach. Again, hunger values need to be tweaked and more of the above- but this actually means you get a slight buffer when nearing the upper limit of how much you can eat in a day, which means less food going to waste. Since you can't eat at 60 but can take nourishment up to 70, this means even eating a large meal near the cap won't be terribly wasted. None of that actually matters to this system. The hunger values don't reset at midnight. The game just calculates necessary weight changes then. No calories can possibly go to waste. I think you might have misunderstood what I meant here- the time of day you chose to play and when you eat are utterly irrelevant. It's just making a calculation once each 24-hour cycle to determine what impact your choices have had. When playing there will be no noticeable difference between this and calculating every second. I'm stupid about metric system. I probably should have said about half a kg. And yes, it would simply calculate once per day like the above. Similarly, this has no impact on gameplay. It's purely a behind-the-scenes change. The point is to hard cap the amount of weight gain and loss in a day to avoid shenanigans. Like I mentioned above, there are mechanical hard caps to how much fat can be burned or produced in a day.
  16. That sounds about right Snorrsenkel, but I think it's fairly reasonably symbolized with a system like I suggested in the other thread- essentially, fall below a calorie minimum for the 24 hours period and you lose a set amount of body weight, hit in the sweet spot and stay the same, or shoot too high and gain a set amount of body weight. It's slightly more simplified but fairly easily digestible (get it, because we're talking about food stuff?) for the average user.
  17. I told the devs I'd wait a bit before posting my feedback since they've already seen it. I'm re-posting it now just to see if other people agree with my synopsis/feelings. I have several qualms with the current system, the most important being that I feel the time spent on worrying about this system far outweighs the time spent worrying about anything else in the game, which I feel is overbearing. I also feel like it doesn't mirror reality particularly well and is a bit overcomplex. So, I wanted to (obviously) give some positive feedback in the form of some balance/system changes for a better experience.
  18. We've got another thread going regarding nutrition: Since this thread's gotten a bit muddled I think they're looking for just basic feelings on the overall system there more than just the open discussion we've had here. It would be really useful if the people who posted here would also post their thoughts there.
  19. To put it in my own words, I'm sure TIS are aware the store page is updated and they/we will get to it when it's a priority. We appreciate the thought, but we know the issues so it's not really helpful to belabor the point on the forums. One of those things where you'll just have to trust they'll get to it when they do. If we need content for it I'm sure we'll ask. In the mean time, I don't really think going round in circles about it is going to help anyone- so, again, thanks for the feedback but I'm gonna go ahead and lock the thread. If you feel it shouldn't be for some reason, or want clarification please feel free to PM me. Cheers.
  20. Keep in mind the game also takes place in early 1990's... And a lot of statistics sound very impressive, until you actually put them in perspective.
  21. Its already been explained in detail why this wouldn't be possible in this thread. There's not much else we can say about it.
  22. Also, moved the thread to suggestions since it's clearly a suggestions thread, even in the OP. Forgive me for not double checking a suggestion thread was in the right subforum.
  23. Regardless, this is a thread suggesting things relevant to the game. What you're talking about isn't relevant to the thread at all. Stop the off topic posting, or it will be stopped for you. You have an interesting use of quotation marks, there, too, to set up a completely fictional strawman. Congrats on disagreeing with a statement no one made. Edit: And no, I debunked three uninformed points that you made. Nothing to do with hollywood, even though I mentioned the word.
  24. The limiting factor here is how much of the map is "active" or, in game terms, streamed, at a time. Even inside a dense city or somewhere with hills everywhere, the actual area a gunshot is heard (in real life) is MUCH farther than the amount of map that's active (in the game) at the time. If anything, the current system is easier than reality, not harder.
  25. Hence you're just wasting our time. This is a discussion about game features. If you want to take this cop-out, take it elsewhere. And you're still objectively wrong, suppressors do "suck" for most applications. They can't even get the sound into the safe hearing zone generally speaking. And they don't do much, as objectively proven by freaking science. If you're just going to jam your fingers in your ears and yell "nuh-uh" to actual facts, stop posting. Their best application (for civvies, of course)? For hunters to lower noise pollution with "sharp" sounds. It's still loud but less sharp sounds are less likely to waken or disturb people. Yes, they have a use. No, it's not relevant to this freaking conversation, which is now apparently about suppressors in PZ. If you're not talking about that, stop posting in the suggestions forum about it. Have some sources: http://www.silencerresearch.com/subsonic_22_ammunition.htm http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/11/gun-silencers-dont-make-them-anywhere-near-silent/ http://guns.connect.fi/rs/suppress.html
×
×
  • Create New...