Jatta Pake

This is kind of a wacky idea but let me know what you think as a potential option. MP sleep works the exact same as SP sleep without the time sped up. While sleeping, the character is prone and vulnerable to attack. But instead of the screen going black for the player, it goes into a black and white dream mode. The player can check inventory, check health and skill screens, and chat but otherwise not interact with anything. But they can "see" within their hearing radius. A big red button in the right corner of the screen says, "Wake Up!". The player can hit that button at any time to immediately awaken from the dream state. This provides "something to do" for the player while the character is sleeping. Maybe reduce the amount of in game time a character needs to sleep before being fully rested if using a bed (or provide customization as a server admin option). In my current SP game I have Slow Reader. Reading skill books takes forever so I use the time to go to the bathroom or grab a beer. Or check the PZ forum! But I agree with the posters above. I believe Sleep needs to be in MP and it makes a huge difference in the game. I also think Sleep can be integrated with player log off. For example, if your character has a sleep deficit when you log off, the character will remain in game and sleep for the required amount of time before disappearing from the game. So players should either be well rested before logging off or somewhere safe where they can sleep.

I'd boil my argument down to this: Players currently have a superpower that zombies don't have - the ability to go up where zombies can't. Going down isn't an issue because both players and zombies can fall. To reduce or eliminate this "up" superpower, you have a number of choices (all of which I am in agreement with as a potential solution): 1. Reduce or eliminate the player's ability to go up where zombies can't - nerf players going up sheet ropes OR buff zombies to be able to climb them. 2. Give the zombies a superpower that let's them bring players back "down". This would be something like knocking out building supports. 3. Make going "up" a trade-off for the player. For example, reduce/eliminate rooftop gardens and rain collectors. Or add in some other danger of farming and getting water on the roof like bad weather. You could also require that rooftop gardens and rain collectors require a lot more materials and skill to make. Think about it, one leak in your rain barrel and your entire roof could collapse from water damage. There is a reason hot water heaters are generally not placed on upper levels of structures. 4. Make going "up" risky for the player. This would be the original post idea of risking a fall when climbing a sheet rope. I think Number 1 is the simplest to implement. Number 2 may not be possible with the game engine. Number 3 requires a lot more work to implement and balance. Number 4 adds a level of randomness that could seriously annoy many players. There is a Number 5 option that I do not endorse but is fun to consider anyway. I call it the Dalek option: 5. Give zombies an alternative but equivalent means of going up. In Dr. Who, story writers quickly figured out that the fearsome Daleks had a silly weakness. Because they moved on rolling wheels, they couldn't maintain their iconic size and shape while also climbing stairs. So the writer's solution was to give Daleks the ability to levitate or hover. This way they could float up stairs and pursue Dr. Who. I don't think you need to give zombies the power to fly, but you could allow certain zombies the ability to scale structures. For example, a zombie missing it's lower torso may be able to pull itself up a wall covered in overgrowth or one that has been unevenly constructed. Lastly, there is the Number 6 option that tends to be fall back answer for most players give that will solve this issue. This may be the final solution to the problem, but I have reservations about it. 6. NPCs. The NPCs will have the same superpower to go "up" that players have, so they will to pose a threat that zombies cannot. The problem I have with the NPCs answer is that I see them as being less of a pure threat and more of a random element. Some NPCs will be good. Some will be bad. But at the end of the day, this is a zombie game. Zombies are the threat. A player going up one z-level shouldn't be able to eliminate this threat. Players should never feel 100% safe from zombies. They can achieve temporary respite, but never be truly safe.

I'm fairly certain we will see a Scavenge or Salvage skill in an upcoming build, or the ability rolled into other specific skills. For example, if you have Carpentry you could take apart existing wood objects like tables for resources. Mechanical maybe lets you take apart appliances. The Foraging skill was originally named "Scavenging". Read into the re-naming what you will.

By "floating base" I mean a player built structure that floats in the air magically without a ground level or a possibility of being collapsed. Players will construct these with sheet ropes to climb up and down for access. When players are inside, they are completely immune to the dangers of zombies. I think our disagreement boils down to this: should players have a safe technique for avoiding dangers of the zombie apocalypse? You believe, yes, if the technique is based in reality. You argue that a technique being overpowered is moot if the technique is available in reality (like climbing ropes). The problem with your argument is 1) it assumes zombies are on a level playing field with players and 2) reality is accurately modeled in game. It isn't. For example, in reality, a horde of zombies could knock out the support structures of a building that a player is using to hide inside. The building would collapse and the player would die. This isn't currently an option in PZ. I do not believe players should have a safe technique for avoiding zombie dangers. Zombies are the principle danger of the game. Whatever back story or lore used to explain the zombies should maintain the crushing threat of being eaten by zombies. If a zombie can walk, crawl, climb fences, climb through windows, beat down doors and walls with their bare hands - why is it unrealistic that they could climb a rope? If the average person can do it, why can't zombies? Animals aren't clever enough to open a door, but plenty of animals can climb and some can climb ropes. And if all a zombie can do is think about eating, how do you explain zombies walking, staggering, fast walking, climbing fences, climbing through windows, crawling and going up stairs? Why would a rotting body not fall apart doing all of these things but fall apart when climbing? Zombie bodies seem durable, you can even shoot them with a gun many times without them just completely falling apart. I agree with you on many aspects. But the zombie danger shouldn't be eliminated by something as simple as climbing a makeshift rope.

Awhile back I had suggested zombies having different behaviors. Some "clump" into hordes while others ignore the horde and stay solitary. This would leave more randoms around to increase the danger for players.

I'd argue that it should give a happiness boost to the builder/digger.

My only game so far on Build 31 and I picked Fast Learner with my Unemployed points. Seemed critical for a single player game (I also took Slow Reader and Brave). I'm not sure how OP it would be in multiplayer though. The specialization in MP might limit it enough to only be of value to jack-of-all-trades types.

I respectfuly disagree. You would be lucky to find 1 out of 10 average Americans who could climb a rope to a second story floor, much less a makeshift sheet rope. Climbing down without falling would be hard enough for most people. I also disagree that zombies would be less capable of climbing. Toddlers learn to hoist themselves up before walking. If the zombie brain was the reduction of a human brain to a more base and animalistic nature, the zombie would lose the ability to walk before losing climbing. Lastly, floating bases are immune to zombies. There are no accessible walls the zombies can reach to smash. In my own Jatta-verse, I don't build floating bases because I consider them an exploit. I also don't use sheet ropes to go up. And I believe all fans should feel welcome to opine on the nature of items needing buffs and nerfs. As well as debate the merits. If you can make a good argument for non-climbing zombies and floating bases, I will consider it. I may even change my mind!

Sheet ropes always struck me as something done in haste to escape a burning building or zombie horde on an upper level. Not something to be used as a regular means of egress/ingress. I'd prefer sheet ropes be only available for descent. For regular vertical movement a ladder should be available. But zombies should be able to climb ladders. Floating bases are far too secure right now. They need to be nerfed. If a player can climb something, so should a zombie.

I favor the acquisition of permanent negative traits when reaching the most extreme moodles for extended periods of time. Instead of the game killing the character, let the player decide if they want to trudge on with mental illness. More role playing opportunity this way.

Might be a cool option for Server Admins. Give them the power to permanently turn a player into an NPC. Use Cases: 1. Turn griefer/cheater into NPC after perma ban. Allows players to get revenge on character. 2. Allows Admin to play a character for quests then "jump out" for other Admin duties. 3. Players that need to leave game can let their character live on to help the group.

The drunk guy drives up to a stop sign and runs it, because he doesn't see it. The guy high on crack comes up to a stop sign and guns it, because he knows he can beat the cross traffic. The guy high on weed comes up to a stop sign and stops, waiting for the sign to turn green.

I wonder if this could be modded? Recipe would be "corpse" + "shovel" = "grave" on tile. Make it take a lot of time and cause exhaustion.

What is the difference between drug abuse and recreational drug use? Is addiction a disease or a lack of self control/utter selfishness? Is altering your mood with chemicals immoral? Is breaking the law (even bad laws) immoral? I think the original question prompts more questions. My views tend to be paradoxical on this issue. It's not that I am seeing both sides of the issue, I believe logic breaking contradictions in this regard. I've either done too many drugs or not enough.

Great suggestions. I also think memory should be upped a bit too for random zombies. I'm not saying make them bloodhounds, but a provoked zombie should have most of it's senses heightened for pursuit of prey.

Should work for build 31 but let me know if you encounter any issues.

Or you could put key making as a recipe for a Tinkering skill. I think Tinkering would be awesome for all jury rigged crafting: Keys Makeshift Blades and Blunt Weapons Molotov Cocktail Pipe Bomb Lock picking tools Makeshift protective gear Broken item repair Makeshift Bags Dollies/Hand Trucks Zombie Traps Upgrades to existing weapons and items Water Filters

These updates are awesome! And our safe houses will finally be clean!

I feel guilty that I've only purchased three copies of the game so far. I need more friends.

I know a couple people have been playing mascou's save, but I'll jump in it later this week unless someone else wants to drop an updated save in this thread. I plan to update the save game to Build 31 unless someone else does first.

I'm so glad to hear about the new tile definitions for water. This will be very interesting. I have mixed theories about whether water quality would become more or less dangerous in a zombie apocalypse. As civilization collapsed the immediate pollutants in water sources would decrease. No more factories or construction churning out pollution so I think rivers could actually become cleaner. On the other hand, all of the disease ridden human corpses would go somewhere. If they are the zombie kind, quite a few will wander into rivers and water sources. If they are the non-moving kind, they are going to be washed into water sources. Additionally, without human intervention many water management programs will cease to function. Levees will break, stuff will collapse, etc. This could seriously increase the amount of pollution in water sources.

I like these ideas. My personal preference for some of these: 1. Condition - New, Worn, Tattered 2. Protective Bonus - Water, Sun, Cold, Blunt, Blade, Bullet (any single item gets a buff in one of the above, bite = blade, scratch = blunt for zombies) 3. Limitation - Slow, Loud, Reduce Vision, Reduce Sight, Cold, Hot, Heavy, Clumsy, Smelly

More brilliance! I love the community here. Count me (and my meager mods) in!

Good points, Connall. I summarized and grouped your points for response/rebuttal: Awareness - I don't think this would be an issue. First, players would be required to join a consortium before they could even play on consortium servers. So knowing about it is a prerequisite. It would be up to the consortium on how they choose to communicate. Consortiums with bad communication would wither and die, while well run and well marketed consortiums would grow. Second, players cannot access private servers by default right now, only public servers. And you can already be unfairly banned from any private server without knowing why. Whether consortiums exist or not, I think PZ would benefit from a mechanism for communicating bans to players. Operations (Or how do you handle X, Y, and Z): I think the 7 Days example linked above provides a great possible model for a consortium. In that example, players need to be dinged by three different servers before they are blacklisted. As it stands now in the status quo, single private server admins can unfairly ban people. Really, the only difference between a single private server and a consortium is one of scope. You touch on this point so I'll single it out for response. Scope - This giant whitelist concept differs from private servers in scope. Instead of going through an entire vetting process to be whitelisted to a single private server, a consortium would allow one vetting process to open up many servers. But I think you are saying that not only are the potential benefits increased, but so are potential risks. Instead of being banned from one server for unfair reasons, a player could be banned from many. Yes, this is an associated risk. But a few counter-points: The Consortium idea crowd sources optimal player management. Server Admins would be under pressure from each other to provide a fair system of justice. You don't have this with single Private servers where Admins can rule like dictators.The Consortium idea off-loads some player management for Admins. Granting access, banning, un-banning, appeals, Internet drama - all of this can be offloaded to the faceless Consortium rulers. Now Admins can spend more time having fun on their own server rather than playing Big Brother.Offloading player management has another benefit: It could actually increase the number of PZ servers available for PZ players. Player management is not fun, and it is no doubt one reason why potential servers are not set up. People don't want to deal with the headaches that come with dealing with Internet strangers. Letting someone else do this is attractive.Feasibility (Community too small, interest will plummet) - I can't argue with this point. My idea is merely theoretical, and I have no ability or interest to actually test. Honestly, I think the viability with any server - public, private, consortium - relies on the dedicated passion of the operator. Would this idea fail tomorrow but work a year from now? Maybe. But I think it is an idea worth exploring if I was a Server Admin. Right now, servers are competing to attract lovely players while dissuading trolls/cheaters. It strikes me as almost biological that the next evolutionary step is for servers to start grouping together, cooperating, and pooling resources. It's happening with MP mods and I see no reason why it can't happen with player management too. I doubt I've changed your opinion, but the discussion is interesting to me. Perhaps a few MP server admins will read my post, and decide to give it a go? I'd be curious to see how it worked out...

I agree that this is a weak point. However, there would pressure to resolve these issues by the consortium admins. If Admin C is banning good people haphazardly, that Admin risks having their server kicked out of the consortium (as one of many possible outcomes). Yes, I think you could see the rise of jerk consortiums. The good news this is the Internet and the community of players would spread the word quickly. Yes, members of a consortium would have to flesh out their own rules. But consortiums would be competing to attract lovely players, so some consensus would arise. Just to be clear, I'm not advocating all servers be part of a consortium. This would be just another option in addition to public and private.