Viceroy

TL;DR - Adding in a few varieties of shoes and socks, each with their advantages and disadvantages, would give the player a realistic (and essential) piece of equipment to scavenge, repair, or craft during the zombie apocalypse. If the medical overhaul allows foot trauma such as blisters, fungal infections and trenchfoot, acquiring good footwear becomes essential, but could be ignored for the most part by beginning players.
 
==========
 
Had a thought today, inspired by the idea of a character wearing high-heels in another suggestion post.
 
Footwear. We all need it, but not everything you put on your feet would be suitable to wear on a hike, let alone a life-and-death survival situation. Heels could snap under the duress of sprinting over broken ground, steel-capped boots might be too heavy to let you vault over fences easily, and even the best pair of shoes wear out over time. Socks are important too. You could be wearing the best pair of hiking boots in the world, but if you're wearing some thin business socks, you can forget about walking around for too long.
 
Where am I going with this? Allow the player to scavenge and wear different types of shoes, boots and socks. Each with differing characteristics, each with different benefits and disadvantages. Suddenly, finding or crafting the right equipment to wear on ones feet could mean the difference between life and death. Wear shoes that are the wrong size, wrong type, or don't wear socks, and suddenly you could face painful blisters, ingrown toenails, or even trenchfoot. All conditions that make it painful, if not impossible, to walk, let alone jog away from the horde rumbling up the street.
 
Suddenly, crafting or repairing socks/shoes/boots could become a hobby, profession, or skill the player could select at character creation.
 
Here's some examples of footwear ideas, and some effects. Keep in mind these are examples only. I wouldn't expect (or want) dozens of types of shoes/socks to wear, but breaking them up into classes could simplify things immensely.
 
Bare feet - Sometimes, necessity makes a fool of us all. Possible buff to sneaking around (less noise), offset by the high chance of foot trauma if walking/sprinting long distances, blisters are no fun. Stepping on something sharp would certainly ruin your day. Perhaps a small happiness buff when you first remove your shoes indoors. After all, everyone likes to kick off their boots at the end of the day. Sandals/Thongs - A wild and varied bunch. Better than wearing nothing on your foot, light weight, and reasonably easy to make/repair using scavenged materials. You could luck out and find some hiking sandals, or be stuck with a $2 flip-flop from the local supermarket. Either way, lower durability on average compared to other types of footwear, but most types don't require socks, and could provide a bit more comfort in warm weather Business/Formal footwear - Quite poor for running and sprinting around in, let alone walking long distances. Low durability, high chance of getting blisters from wearing thick socks. Possible buff to interpersonal relations (Everyone likes a man with good shoes), or relations with the opposite sex (high heels?). But is that little buff worth the risk of being unable to escape when the horde comes a calling? Might good as a source of raw material for shoe repair Casual/Common shoes - Sneakers, sandshoes, runners, and all that. The average shoe the average Joe wears when out and about. No real downsides, unless you have to wear the wrong size or have poor socks. Decent durability, but better for moving around in urban areas instead of the wilderness or farm country. Boots - Steelcaps, hiking boots, combat boots, things like that. The holy grail in terms of footwear for a survivor. Fantastic durability and comfort, at the expense of a bit of sneaking ability and rarity. Might have a 'breaking in period', Stupid durable, but tricky to fix if they break or wear out.  
And let's not forget socks. The best pair of boots in the world mean nothing if you're wearing a crappy pair of socks.
 
No socks - Welp, you dun goofed. Depending on the size and quality of your footwear, blisters and chaffing are a forgone conclusion. Unless you're wearing sandals or thongs. But what if it's cold. or wet? Freezing feet are as painful to walk on as overheating, blistered feet. And lets not forget the possibility of infection or frostbite... Business/formal/cheap socks - Something's better than nothing. Thin, unpadded, and made of flimsy material. Provides little warmth to your feet, and likely to have holes worn through them after a few days of constant use. Bound to be plentiful in supermarkets, but there's always something better. Being made of poor material, darning or repairing may be impossible. Casual/Everyday socks - Much the same as everyday shoes. Average, nothing to write home about. Good durability, common, and you can darn them a couple of times. But, eventually, you'll have to toss them when you wear too many holes in them. Hiking/Thick/Military socks - Rare, but comfortable as hell. Extremely durable, so patching the inevitable holes would be an extremely worthwhile way to extend their usable life. Only downsides are their rarity, incompatibility with certain shoes (especially tight ones), and their sensitivity to moisture. After wading through knee-high water you'd want to change into dry socks quickly, to avoid chaffing, blisters, and some of the nastier mosit-foot ailments such as trenchfoot over the long term. Footwraps/Portyanki - Nothing more than a square of good cotton or flannel wrapped tightly around the foot, ankle and shin. Extremely easy to make, only slightly harder to repair. A survivalist's dream, and a staple of the Russian Army since the 17th century. Great durability, but most likely impossible to find in Kentucky, so you'll have to make your own from bandages, sheets, any good fabric you can appropriate and tear up. Takes time to wrap and unwrap your feet, and you have to know what you're doing. Fail to wrap your feet good and tight and it's blisters ahoy.  
Toss in the medical overhaul in the future, and the treatment of foot ailments can be a major deal, as it is in real life. Fail to look after your feet, wear the wrong size shoes, thick socks, keep them moist... Suddenly, every step is agony. Tracking down antifungal creams, antibiotics, applying bandages to blisters... There's plenty of things there to play with.
 
Is it realistic? Yes. Proper footcare and footwear are major issues in a survival situation, and have been important in military conflicts since time immemorial. Just look at trenchfoot in World War One, or the differences between German and Soviet footwear in World War Two.
 
Does it fit in the spirit of Project Zomboid? I'd say yes. Zomboid's aiming for a realistic survival scenario. Cutting up car tires to make crude sandals, or prying the boots of a corpse would certainly fit in with the atmosphere of the game. Besides, it'd give us a use for all the shoes we find in containers or on bodies.
 
Would it make the game too easy (or difficult)? A bit of a tough one here. Foot trauma, blisters and the like, would certainly fit into the upcoming medical overhaul. Even if it's a case of the shoes and socks in game taking durability damage over time, and the odds of a blister rising as a result. Having a handful of 'classes' for shoes and socks (i.e: Poor, Average, Great, Homemade), like the examples I've given above, wouldn't complicate the game immensely, and would just add another class of loot for players to search for. We already have several classes of torso and leg coverings (i.e: Sweaters, vests), why not expand this to include shoes and socks? The beginner player could bounce from house to house, using and discarding the typical shoes over time, but an advanced player would keep an eye out for better footwear, and keep said footwear in peak condition by repairing it.
And remember, the durability on even the poorest pair of shoes is still quite high. Sure, you might need to replace the inner lining of the shoe and the laces a bit frequently, but the shoe itself isn't going to wear out for a least a month. A player wouldn't need to replace their shoes that frequently, but darning a sock could soon become a favourite way to pass time in the safehouse.
 
Would it add enough to the gameplay? I think it would. The key would be limiting the amount of shoes/socks to a few 'families', similar to the examples I've given. Then it's simply a matter of placing any new shoes, etc. into these families as they're added to the game. This would allow for a huge variety in the appearance of the footwear (and admittedly, we do need more and varied clothing, even if it's cosmetic), but avoid an excess of coding. As for adding something to the gameplay... During the apocalypse, what would be more valuable to you? A thick paperback book or a good pair of thick woollen socks? An extra handful of bullets, or a pair of boots without a hole in them?
 
Okay, that's it, post over. Apologies for rambling on for so long

And this doesnt even touch on protozoa and parasites that also overwhelmingly die under the duress of boiling. And the fact that the temperatures reached on the surface used to collect the steam will by definition not exceed boiling point, resulting in whatever steam condensating on it to potentially be contaminated. Which is ESPECIALLY true if it were something like a shirt, which would (in a survival situation) most likely have a colourful library of filth.

And this doesnt even touch on protozoa and parasites that also overwhelmingly die under the duress of boiling. And the fact that the temperatures reached on the surface used to collect the steam will by definition not exceed boiling point, resulting in whatever steam condensating on it to potentially be contaminated. Which is ESPECIALLY true if it were something like a shirt, which would (in a survival situation) most likely have a colourful library of filth.

This won't do I'm afraid. The lore changing is out of the question when it comes to difficulty. It should be possible to cater to people who prefer the default lore but want enhanced difficulty. Changing the lore to make it harder is unreasonable if you ask me, it would be akin to saying that if the game is too easy you should stop barricading. It is a rudimentary workaround in my opinion.

I agree with Rathlord and I'd like to see it take longer or even realistic periods of time. Preservation should indeed be possible realistically (Salting, smoking, drying etc. etc.) but the time it takes is the key factor you see, because let's take for example Banished, I'm sure lots of you are familiar. It has a simple premise to not die from starvation, and preservation is not a factor (as food does not rot like in PZ) so essentially you have an easier set of circumstances than PZ. However and this is vital, the time it takes for food to be produced is large enough that it starts becoming harder and harder to anticipate just when you do have food and when not. Resulting in a very difficult game in terms of things going south. Now apply this to pz...
 
Then what will happen is looting and whatever means of preservation and hunting etc. etc. will make up for your food when you have nothing to harvest or eat, possibly for weeks or months. This is where the gameplay gets boosted, for the simple reason that you MUST find food whilst your plants grow. You must loot, you must hunt, you must rob or steal or do something. And this forces the player to move away from safe territory and into unexplored territory. This is what we need to combat the ease of building a castle-like keep. This will (IMO) make the game more entertaining because it breaks monotony, it combats turtling, it exposes the player to hazards.
 
It is a change I very firmly agree with. Simply changing plant growth time to a realistic timeframe (or even just sufficiently extended.)
One change and I am willing to bet on it making most if not all of my predictions above true to some degree.
 
Now this does not yet touch on zombie difficulty and that is a good thing, because this level of difficulty in *management* and *thinking* is the same kind of problem a group would face, player or npc. Because take just one moment to imagine the game with the crops growing at the speed they now do... Except you have a castle AND a NPC tending to the crops... Seeing what I am worried about? Unending food and essentially your own ingenuity and success have rendered the game mundane and boring.
 
I sincerely hope that at the very least it is considered or if there is some variable to adjust the global food crop growth rate, that it is exposed at the very least in sandbox settings.

I agree with Rathlord and I'd like to see it take longer or even realistic periods of time. Preservation should indeed be possible realistically (Salting, smoking, drying etc. etc.) but the time it takes is the key factor you see, because let's take for example Banished, I'm sure lots of you are familiar. It has a simple premise to not die from starvation, and preservation is not a factor (as food does not rot like in PZ) so essentially you have an easier set of circumstances than PZ. However and this is vital, the time it takes for food to be produced is large enough that it starts becoming harder and harder to anticipate just when you do have food and when not. Resulting in a very difficult game in terms of things going south. Now apply this to pz...
 
Then what will happen is looting and whatever means of preservation and hunting etc. etc. will make up for your food when you have nothing to harvest or eat, possibly for weeks or months. This is where the gameplay gets boosted, for the simple reason that you MUST find food whilst your plants grow. You must loot, you must hunt, you must rob or steal or do something. And this forces the player to move away from safe territory and into unexplored territory. This is what we need to combat the ease of building a castle-like keep. This will (IMO) make the game more entertaining because it breaks monotony, it combats turtling, it exposes the player to hazards.
 
It is a change I very firmly agree with. Simply changing plant growth time to a realistic timeframe (or even just sufficiently extended.)
One change and I am willing to bet on it making most if not all of my predictions above true to some degree.
 
Now this does not yet touch on zombie difficulty and that is a good thing, because this level of difficulty in *management* and *thinking* is the same kind of problem a group would face, player or npc. Because take just one moment to imagine the game with the crops growing at the speed they now do... Except you have a castle AND a NPC tending to the crops... Seeing what I am worried about? Unending food and essentially your own ingenuity and success have rendered the game mundane and boring.
 
I sincerely hope that at the very least it is considered or if there is some variable to adjust the global food crop growth rate, that it is exposed at the very least in sandbox settings.

I agree with Rathlord and I'd like to see it take longer or even realistic periods of time. Preservation should indeed be possible realistically (Salting, smoking, drying etc. etc.) but the time it takes is the key factor you see, because let's take for example Banished, I'm sure lots of you are familiar. It has a simple premise to not die from starvation, and preservation is not a factor (as food does not rot like in PZ) so essentially you have an easier set of circumstances than PZ. However and this is vital, the time it takes for food to be produced is large enough that it starts becoming harder and harder to anticipate just when you do have food and when not. Resulting in a very difficult game in terms of things going south. Now apply this to pz...
 
Then what will happen is looting and whatever means of preservation and hunting etc. etc. will make up for your food when you have nothing to harvest or eat, possibly for weeks or months. This is where the gameplay gets boosted, for the simple reason that you MUST find food whilst your plants grow. You must loot, you must hunt, you must rob or steal or do something. And this forces the player to move away from safe territory and into unexplored territory. This is what we need to combat the ease of building a castle-like keep. This will (IMO) make the game more entertaining because it breaks monotony, it combats turtling, it exposes the player to hazards.
 
It is a change I very firmly agree with. Simply changing plant growth time to a realistic timeframe (or even just sufficiently extended.)
One change and I am willing to bet on it making most if not all of my predictions above true to some degree.
 
Now this does not yet touch on zombie difficulty and that is a good thing, because this level of difficulty in *management* and *thinking* is the same kind of problem a group would face, player or npc. Because take just one moment to imagine the game with the crops growing at the speed they now do... Except you have a castle AND a NPC tending to the crops... Seeing what I am worried about? Unending food and essentially your own ingenuity and success have rendered the game mundane and boring.
 
I sincerely hope that at the very least it is considered or if there is some variable to adjust the global food crop growth rate, that it is exposed at the very least in sandbox settings.

I agree with Rathlord and I'd like to see it take longer or even realistic periods of time. Preservation should indeed be possible realistically (Salting, smoking, drying etc. etc.) but the time it takes is the key factor you see, because let's take for example Banished, I'm sure lots of you are familiar. It has a simple premise to not die from starvation, and preservation is not a factor (as food does not rot like in PZ) so essentially you have an easier set of circumstances than PZ. However and this is vital, the time it takes for food to be produced is large enough that it starts becoming harder and harder to anticipate just when you do have food and when not. Resulting in a very difficult game in terms of things going south. Now apply this to pz...
 
Then what will happen is looting and whatever means of preservation and hunting etc. etc. will make up for your food when you have nothing to harvest or eat, possibly for weeks or months. This is where the gameplay gets boosted, for the simple reason that you MUST find food whilst your plants grow. You must loot, you must hunt, you must rob or steal or do something. And this forces the player to move away from safe territory and into unexplored territory. This is what we need to combat the ease of building a castle-like keep. This will (IMO) make the game more entertaining because it breaks monotony, it combats turtling, it exposes the player to hazards.
 
It is a change I very firmly agree with. Simply changing plant growth time to a realistic timeframe (or even just sufficiently extended.)
One change and I am willing to bet on it making most if not all of my predictions above true to some degree.
 
Now this does not yet touch on zombie difficulty and that is a good thing, because this level of difficulty in *management* and *thinking* is the same kind of problem a group would face, player or npc. Because take just one moment to imagine the game with the crops growing at the speed they now do... Except you have a castle AND a NPC tending to the crops... Seeing what I am worried about? Unending food and essentially your own ingenuity and success have rendered the game mundane and boring.
 
I sincerely hope that at the very least it is considered or if there is some variable to adjust the global food crop growth rate, that it is exposed at the very least in sandbox settings.

And this doesnt even touch on protozoa and parasites that also overwhelmingly die under the duress of boiling. And the fact that the temperatures reached on the surface used to collect the steam will by definition not exceed boiling point, resulting in whatever steam condensating on it to potentially be contaminated. Which is ESPECIALLY true if it were something like a shirt, which would (in a survival situation) most likely have a colourful library of filth.

Boiling water is effective against a very high percent of pathogens, however environmental toxins are not pathogens and in many cases aren't effected by heat. Boiling water won't solve heavy metal poisoning which is found in some polluted lakes, however this is very, very uncommon and takes a long time to build up- you're actually far more likely to get poisoned by a fish or predatory animal living near a lake than from the actual water, due to a long and boring process that I won't go into unless people are specifically interested.
 
Tl;dr in an overwhelming majority of cases boiling water is all that's necessary.

I agree with Rathlord and I'd like to see it take longer or even realistic periods of time. Preservation should indeed be possible realistically (Salting, smoking, drying etc. etc.) but the time it takes is the key factor you see, because let's take for example Banished, I'm sure lots of you are familiar. It has a simple premise to not die from starvation, and preservation is not a factor (as food does not rot like in PZ) so essentially you have an easier set of circumstances than PZ. However and this is vital, the time it takes for food to be produced is large enough that it starts becoming harder and harder to anticipate just when you do have food and when not. Resulting in a very difficult game in terms of things going south. Now apply this to pz...
 
Then what will happen is looting and whatever means of preservation and hunting etc. etc. will make up for your food when you have nothing to harvest or eat, possibly for weeks or months. This is where the gameplay gets boosted, for the simple reason that you MUST find food whilst your plants grow. You must loot, you must hunt, you must rob or steal or do something. And this forces the player to move away from safe territory and into unexplored territory. This is what we need to combat the ease of building a castle-like keep. This will (IMO) make the game more entertaining because it breaks monotony, it combats turtling, it exposes the player to hazards.
 
It is a change I very firmly agree with. Simply changing plant growth time to a realistic timeframe (or even just sufficiently extended.)
One change and I am willing to bet on it making most if not all of my predictions above true to some degree.
 
Now this does not yet touch on zombie difficulty and that is a good thing, because this level of difficulty in *management* and *thinking* is the same kind of problem a group would face, player or npc. Because take just one moment to imagine the game with the crops growing at the speed they now do... Except you have a castle AND a NPC tending to the crops... Seeing what I am worried about? Unending food and essentially your own ingenuity and success have rendered the game mundane and boring.
 
I sincerely hope that at the very least it is considered or if there is some variable to adjust the global food crop growth rate, that it is exposed at the very least in sandbox settings.

I agree with Rathlord and I'd like to see it take longer or even realistic periods of time. Preservation should indeed be possible realistically (Salting, smoking, drying etc. etc.) but the time it takes is the key factor you see, because let's take for example Banished, I'm sure lots of you are familiar. It has a simple premise to not die from starvation, and preservation is not a factor (as food does not rot like in PZ) so essentially you have an easier set of circumstances than PZ. However and this is vital, the time it takes for food to be produced is large enough that it starts becoming harder and harder to anticipate just when you do have food and when not. Resulting in a very difficult game in terms of things going south. Now apply this to pz...
 
Then what will happen is looting and whatever means of preservation and hunting etc. etc. will make up for your food when you have nothing to harvest or eat, possibly for weeks or months. This is where the gameplay gets boosted, for the simple reason that you MUST find food whilst your plants grow. You must loot, you must hunt, you must rob or steal or do something. And this forces the player to move away from safe territory and into unexplored territory. This is what we need to combat the ease of building a castle-like keep. This will (IMO) make the game more entertaining because it breaks monotony, it combats turtling, it exposes the player to hazards.
 
It is a change I very firmly agree with. Simply changing plant growth time to a realistic timeframe (or even just sufficiently extended.)
One change and I am willing to bet on it making most if not all of my predictions above true to some degree.
 
Now this does not yet touch on zombie difficulty and that is a good thing, because this level of difficulty in *management* and *thinking* is the same kind of problem a group would face, player or npc. Because take just one moment to imagine the game with the crops growing at the speed they now do... Except you have a castle AND a NPC tending to the crops... Seeing what I am worried about? Unending food and essentially your own ingenuity and success have rendered the game mundane and boring.
 
I sincerely hope that at the very least it is considered or if there is some variable to adjust the global food crop growth rate, that it is exposed at the very least in sandbox settings.

Maybe a more constructive compromise could be reached for farming. As it stands, there is indeed a problem with how easy it is to farm, as it completely negates the food concern. However, that's just not how it works in real life- and I don't see any reason to stray from real life for the game in this situation since it's actively detracting from gameplay quality.
 
Instead of just removing it, why not simply make it take much longer? Even short-gestation corn takes 90 days or some such. Farming should be a great way to supplement your food, but I can't think of any pre-Modern Era civilizations that managed to sustain themselves solely on farming, simply because it isn't practical without mass produced means of preserving it.

This won't do I'm afraid. The lore changing is out of the question when it comes to difficulty. It should be possible to cater to people who prefer the default lore but want enhanced difficulty. Changing the lore to make it harder is unreasonable if you ask me, it would be akin to saying that if the game is too easy you should stop barricading. It is a rudimentary workaround in my opinion.

This won't do I'm afraid. The lore changing is out of the question when it comes to difficulty. It should be possible to cater to people who prefer the default lore but want enhanced difficulty. Changing the lore to make it harder is unreasonable if you ask me, it would be akin to saying that if the game is too easy you should stop barricading. It is a rudimentary workaround in my opinion.

He's George. Clown George.
 
 

Just keep in mind that the rules do allow you to create a background
 
EDIT: Also THIRD!!! WOOHOO!!! SUCK ON THAT!!!

Tookie tookie!

You know.. I'll be professional about this.. Viceroy you are one hell of a guy.
Pretty professional if you ask me.
 
@Kirrus - It wasn't meant as a insult.. mainly a compliment.. odd is good.
There must be hundreds of secrets.

I vehemently disagree I'm afraid. With most of your post but this in particular.
 
Zombies are known for surprising, jump scaring and otherwise "ambushing" you. It is a huge factor of the game and one that should be enhanced further with more hidden and unexpected zombies.
 
A single zombie can scratch and infect you, and I feel that the threat a single zombie plays should not be skimped on. It is a danger to you and will always be. You shouldn't feel comfortable looting a house with a zombie still inside like you can currently.
 
The "plan massive attack" thing makes it sound like they are sitting around a table discussing the campaign against humanity. Where what the hordes were and what is suggested is that hordes wander and attack safehouses when prompted by your own carelessness or some other loud sound nearby.
 
Adding NPC's won't remedy this situation at all, because this situation is not connected to NPC's. The threat a zombie poses won't be lowered or raised with the incorporation of NPC's. The formation of hordes and wandering of them won't happen with the mere introduction of NPC's.

Yay!!!

For the vast majority of human history conflict has been over resources (and still frequently is today). Not an accurate assessment at all, and isn't really applicable to the situation, either. Resources will become rare and people will fight, just like they always do.

I like both but I like pancakes just a little better. easy to make and just as tasty make them just a bit better.

It saddens me to see you place conflicts like this in a category solely blaming human stupidity and oversimplifying socio-political situations far beyond the understanding of most apart from scholars on the subject. People tend to fight for things they really believe in and as is the case in every war, both sides have valid concerns and interests. And these reasons do include the limited resources we all have.
 
What deprav means is that as resources become scarcer, you will have much more reason for inter group conflict. Given the fact that even reasonable people would fight for good reasons (see above.) and this is why war is waged. I'd argue that stupidity is one of the least cited causes of war I have come across. After all, convincing otherwise "law abiding citizens" in whatever sense (let's say people who are well behaved and good companions in your group.) to become fire and brimstone killers, raiders, sackers and looters becomes a lot easier when you had only a mars bar to split between 8.
 
TL DR: I disagree with your oversimplification vehemently and stating that stupidity is the "Ultimate" reason for war.