Operation Fix Late Game By Killing You Before You Get There

[i6am6stu6]

A cool idea in this regard!  So the zombies do need to rot and wither away, so you'll find the weak ones here and there, and then there is a steady supply of fresh zombies that continue to spawn or whatever.  But what if in late game, like there can be some event, where the military starts to make an appearance.  So like maybe in late game, you'll start hearing machine guns and finding military operations happening.  Which of course will fail, leaving the game world with new more resilient soldier zombies scattered in the hordes!  It would add some much needed variation to the zombie population, also add a cool mid to late game event that lets players know that the sh*t is hitting the fan.  

[Some Clever Username]

Damn it! I already said that late game I'll jump into your game and kill you! Who needs hordes when you have me!

[ReverendNow]

Just jumped back into the game after playing around with the earliest builds a few years ago.  Very glad to see development is still proceeding on this awesome game!

 

A few thoughts on the late game:

 

I feel like the decision of rural vs urban living should be a bit more of a "pick-your-poison" choice than it is at present.  The tedium of supply runs aside, the large farm outside of town is a just total slam dunk for maximizing your survival odds right now.  Once you've cleared the farm and its environs of zombies, you might be safer at night on at the farm than in Camden, New Jersey.

 

Let me be clear–it's not that you want to defeat the completely rational, common sense deduction that the player would probably be safer *most of the time* on a farm outside of town during the zombie apocalypse.  Or that remote houses might have their own water supplies, etc.  However, there should be mechanics in place to keep tension alive.  Here are a few thoughts:

 

- Remote farms, cabins, etc. would logically have lower horde population density in the area, fair enough–however, it also stands to reason that every so often, a gigantic horde from the city would roam through farm country.  Moreover, with little to draw its attention elsewhere, that horde might just decide to stick around for a while.  You better hope you've fattened your larder... and you better really hope the horde doesn't pass through right when you're coming back from a supply run, effectively barricading you out of your own home.  To really enhance the paranoia, perhaps supply runs to town could *increase* the risk of a horde passing through...

 

- Surely you can't be the only one who had the brilliant idea of heading to that "big farm just outside of town," right?  Occasional survivors knocking at your door for sanctuary would be natural, but the least of your worries.  What happens when you wake up to find 3 survivors harvesting your crops?  Worse still, what happens when you get a knock at your door from five well armed survivors who threaten to *burn your place down* unless you bribe them with supplies–or perhaps even clear out and turn over the key to your safe house?

 

- As others have mentioned, hostile wildlife should be an occasional issue in rural areas.  Packs of feral dogs, mountain lions and bears are obvious possibilities.  This could be a great mechanic to jack up tension, because predatory animals, if less far numerous than zombies, should also be far more dangerous.   You can't outrun them or sneak up on them easily, and they can follow scents, suggesting that they would have superior path-finding abilities.  Meleeing a bear, it should go without saying, is also going to leave you a bloody wreck if you survive at all.  This suggests that guns would become far more important in rural areas–but of course ammo is limited and tends to be found in those remote, zombie infested urban areas, necessitating risky supply runs.  What's more, constantly shooting guns would logically have a way of attracting those zombies you moved out of town precisely to to avoid...

 

Broadly, the strategy here is to force the player to trade the visceral fear that comes from ever-present, but more predictable, threat of the undead hordes in urban areas for a creeping sense of paranoia that comes from unpredictable threats of more varied nature in rural areas.

[HumanTarget]

I know I've already said this but I do think that the best ways to shake up a settled survivor will all be through NPCs at a later date.

Yes, for now that might make things a bit dull once you're set up but that's the price of an unfinished game.

Obviously if you are set up in an urban area then Zombies should be a threat but it makes little sense imo to have zombies constantly wondering on your secluded safehouse away from civilisation.

NPC's however...

As mentioned above there are lots of ways humans could complicate things. From bandits to helpless lost travellers to maybe a group carrying a sick member that just won't leave him/her behind turning up at your door.

Bandits you'd imagine could become quite a problem after a few months when it's plainly obvious there's no cure and only the strong survive.

The possibilities are huge.

Army recon units from nearby Fort Knox?

Survivors bringing zombies hot in their trail

Sick survivors

Survivors that you'll regret trusting

Survivors setting up nearby

I'm sure you can think of tons.

Not trying to dictate though.

[hawk_za]

love the idea of a beginner mode and love that you going to bring us our hardcore zeds back

[Ornafulsamee]

I was making a damn long thread that I forgot to and closed the tab (yes, I was really tired ).

 

I've bought the game 3 years ago, and yes, it was damn hard, plentiful of zombies, maybe too much, also many bugs that mostly ended up in crashes and made me quit for 3 years until I saw that it was on steam and I could receive a free steam key (YEEPEE !).

 

So I've played some hours, didnt made it over 12 days, I've died from stupid move, thats the point of the game IMO, since the game tries to be as realistic as possible, and thinking about zombies end up to some points i'd like to share :

 

-zombies are stupid by definition, therefore, they shouldnt be a threat if they're not in outstanding number, and if the player keeps playing carefully (mistakes lead to death)

 

-the game is set in small cities, not NYC, there's just small towns with thousands of habitants, why should we have 100k zombies in the street ? That is a nonsense.

 

Think about the "definition" of zombies, we like them stupid, in this game, they're slow, sometimes faster, but overall they're not dangerous alone, they wont outsmart you, they wont plan massive attack on your fortress, they wont ambush you, thats the way we like them. If i wanted a survivalist game against smart foes, I wouldnt have bought this game from the start.

 

Since it's a game, you can't just balance things in a way to get a boring game, forcing the player to stay in a house, doing frustrating and repetitive stuff because you have to sleep 75% of the day, because you are so tired you can barely hold your clothes, etc...

 

IMHO, the endgame will be about dealing with the worst threat in any zombies post-apocalyptic stories : the other survivors.

 

Zombies should just be a step, it would be really frustrating to not be able to deal with them in a long term for the reasons mentioned above, I doubt they would drop some kind of project x in your house, calling zombies all around the world just to get you.

 

In the endgame, NPCs should be the threat, army killing everyone on sight, making zombies way more dangerous because they wouldnt be the sole thing to think about, and in multiplayer, other players should be the threat, along with NPCs.

 

Thats why when I see some developers saying they dont want helicopters, assault rifle, stuff like that, I get surprised, this kind of stuff would be of course very rare, and limited (like ammo), that would lead to some interesting gameplay with a good RP side.

 

I may have forgotten some points of the original post so I may edit this one later.

 

TLDR : wait NPCs

[deprav]

[snipd]

I have to strongly disagree. How would the world reach the point of a zombie apocalypse if zombies weren't a serious threat ?

They're dead meat, they're not feeling any pain, they're still strong, they will never back down from eating fresh flesh, they don't sleep, they don't fear, if they get a grab on you they won't let go unless you kill it or cut its arms... and their only goal is to eat your guts.

If you were to meet a zombie face to face, you'd better be ready to fight for your life, to hit hard & precisely, and to be in good shape.

So yeah, thank god they're stupid, but they still are -and should stay- a serious threat.

If zombies were no threat, the world wouldn't become a hellish place, there would be no need for other survivors to be a threat for each other, everyone could just grow veggies and raise cattle, and we'd all live in peace with pet zombies ;o

__________________________________________________________________________

On another note, I made a suggestion concerning combat and the general idea of the devs to make the game harder from now on :

Combat re-think

I had some ideas about zombies' behaviours to spice things up a bit more as well, I'll make another thread later.

 

[Ornafulsamee]

While I'm agree they are a threat (even in late game, just get grabbed while over encumbered and you might be dead seconds later), they shouldnt be as deadly as some people might think.

 

Basically you want zombies to be overpowered, it can't be, because they're still stupid, slow, and easily dodging, many players, like me, expect them to be nearby inoffensive if alone, and deadly in number.

 

But we might have a problem regarding the whole zombies concept, I rely more on the popular concept based on many games, books, movies, since the 80's with Zombie from Romero. It end up survivors killing zombies with weapons, but we don't know what happens next. And it's not like they're going to make a carebears community.

 

Have you seen "The Road" movie ? It's pretty much how I think the endgame should be, just add zombies and we're done. People becoming cannibalistic, enslaving their food, and fearing everyone on sight because they don't know if they are foes or friends.

 

I'm not saying your concept is bad, but if the game is getting really frustrating, boring to play and not rewarding smart gameplay, welp, there is no point to play anymore. Zombies should be a step (yes, again), once you mastered them you shouldnt fear them like it was your first game. Using bad mechanics to increase the difficulty isnt a solution, barely an illusion.

 

For example, lets see how Skyrim and fallout (1/2) work, one maintain the foes at a balanced level, the other not, in skyrim, you can defeat endgame boss with a low level character, not matter if you're a lvl 5 or lvl 30 character, you're dealing the same percent of damage to him. Nothing rewarding in playing, finding better loots or getting levels.

 

In fallout, if you try to go in endgame zones in the beginning, you're gonna get one shot in no time, but after all, it will be the opposite, and thats rewarding, to overcome a problem you wasnt able to deal with earlier.

 

Thats pretty much the same with zombies, just replace the xp stuff by a better game style and you're done, thats implies they are still deadly, but only if you let them hurt you first.

 

Just try to remember your beginning, how it was awesome to fear them, and finally how it was cool to know how to deal with them.

If there is no reward, then there is no fun to play a realistic-ish game.

[deprav]

We don't want zombies to be overpowered, we want zombies to be a constant threat, to be fun to deal with even for experienced players !

In their actual state, the zombie-apocalypse is not believable, they're too harmless to have caused the end of the civilization. If they were to provoke the end of the world, they should be dangerous at melee distance even alone, and practically impossible to deal with in big groups if you don't have the adequat fire power. I agree that they should be stupid and slow (even if I think the fast shamblers should shamble slightly faster than your normal lvl 0 walking speed), but they still don't feel pain and they weigh a human weight : you can hit as hard as you want they won't react and keep going forward, a knockback would only be generated by the actual physical power of your hit, not a reaction from their part.

That's how smart-gameplay will be rewarded, you've way more chances to live if you avoid them and sneak your way around, or take them with an organized group. In opposition with the actual zombie slaughter going on, where you can just go head on with 2 friends and take dozens of them.

They need to be a constant threat ! I'll keep your exemple The Road to explain why :

In The Road, people become cannibalistic, scared of each other and regress to primitive wild violence because (thx wikipedia) "an unspecified apocalypse has destroyed civilization and most life on Earth. The land is filled with ash and devoid of living animals and vegetation." They're survival is timed and death is inevitable, their only ressources are the remaining products of a dead civilization, and human flesh, once it's gone they're all dead. All sources of life and food disappeared, they can't grow food, ashes have "contaminated" water sources etc...
In the current zombie-apocalypse scenario, humanity is on the verge of extinction but Life is still going, we can still grow stuff, there still are animals to eat, probably even more after a few months since they can reproduce freely, we can still get drinkable water etc... There would be no need for people to turn against each other in the way The Road describes it, unless the zombies become a threat serious enough to make farming / hunting / fishing / travelling to water sources... surviving, a dangerous and difficult thing.

If you want people to be a real threat just like in The Road, you need to make the zombies as much as a threat as the extinction of all form of life on earth, and THAT is a big deal.
 

 

 

In fallout, if you try to go in endgame zones in the beginning, you're gonna get one shot in no time, but after all, it will be the opposite, and thats rewarding, to overcome a problem you wasnt able to deal with earlier.

 

If there is no reward, then there is no fun to play a realistic-ish game.

 

 

Yep, I do agree with that, but that's not in contradiction with what I said at all, that's actually pointing the same way ;o

We know the world will become harsher and harsher over time, with zombies, wildlife regaining its rights, and the lack of human society, it will become harder to survive. You WILL die, and you'll learn from your death and eventually "beat" what killed you last time. Since PZ is a game about death, like other rogue-like game, you need to learn from it.

The reward is surviving a bit longer than you did the time before !

 

[hawk_za]

if i may weigh in i think once that the large city's are added back into the game in the likes of west point we will have an option to have areas with lots of loot but also lots of zombies like the demo build or move out the the burbs were loot can be made more scarce.

[EnigmaGrey]

First, I don't think anyone has to worry about NPCs becoming less of a focus than zombies, over all.


Second, If zombies were near-impossible to deal with alone (effectively what they'd have to be to rule the real world), the game wouldn't be played. It'd effectively be playing the enemy in a tower defense game, where the towers moved and could one-shot you.

That doesn't sound very fun (human-like in abilities) compared to having them react properly to stimuli and exist in more cohesive groups.

[SpaceJunk]

Zombies should have gradual levels of perception. They wouldn't go in hunt mode if they hear far noises or sniff a faint smell, but they would tend to wander towards that direction. Almost everything should be noisy and smelly at some level -- closing a door, dropping an item, taking stuff from containers, leaving clothes behind, "entering and exiting" a bathroom.

 

So wherever you are, you know the clock is ticking, the more active you are the faster. It wouldn't be many weeks before your whole safehouse smells so much of life (and you ran out of bleach to clean areas) that it would become basically a zombie magnet. And rather than having zombie reactions be on/off, you'd be able to see them progresivelly react to you.

[Suffokate]

So it looks like hordes are first on the priority list.

 

Good, the lack of this is the only thing that has kept me from playing the game. 

[Slendy]

Very.. very nice.

[Ornafulsamee]

Alright, I now understand what is the point of this thread, I've made it for a month, and since some days (IRL), its getting boring, zombies aint a treat at all and they are not moving enough to justify a fortress, since I've cleared the area around my house in the beginning, they didnt even tried to come at me once.

 

I just get bitten because I was smoking so I was unable to kill the bitch bitting me from behind, I guess it's over, and I wont go for another game because there is no point of playing anymore, the power off event was annoying, but still managed to make it (i found lights and candles pretty useless), the water event was really easy to overcome, since all water devices (including baths, toilets, etc...) were still able to give like 3 buckets each of water, welp...

 

But please, don't fix the problem by forcing the player to do boring stuff, thats what I'm fearing the most, I've seen many talking about prolonged tiredness, if that means we won't be able to do a single shit for days, there is no point in afk in house reading books...

[Viceroy]

Think about the "definition" of zombies, we like them stupid, in this game, they're slow, sometimes faster, but overall they're not dangerous alone, they wont outsmart you, they wont plan massive attack on your fortress, they wont ambush you, thats the way we like them. If i wanted a survivalist game against smart foes, I wouldnt have bought this game from the start.

 

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.

[EnigmaGrey]

Hidden and unexpected zombies would be a plus (I quite liked finding the quiet one in a bathroom or behind a door . . . or a crawler hidden by the bed sprite; it's been quite a while since I encountered that in game).
 

[Breaker]

So at over 1000 hours in PZ, I like many of you have met the greatest threat to the game, success. I have fast forwarded a SP character to 10 years, stopping time to eat and harvest etc. I have had multiplayer toons with a dozen skills at level 5. Sprinters, cold weather, short/long days, insane numbers, extremely rare loot, and rain, can all be overcome. Considering PZ is an "IRPG" this level of success should be impossible.

Of course I understand why the game has shifted in this direction, and I'm not bitter about it at all. My major concern was how experienced players can succeed in eliminating success, and I've found it... NO HOPE

It's a somewhat dated concept, that in light of this discussion, is worth a revisit.

http://theindiestone.com/forums/index.php/topic/4804-project-zomboid-no-hope-challenge/

For those of you, like me, that crave the fear and uncertainty you once felt this is where to find it. For even more challenge try it in a private MP setting and pump up the zombies.

I know the devs are working hard to bring back the terror and I have complete faith that they will, but until then you have to make your own fear.

P.S. My personal best in SP No Hope is 8 months 14 days.

[Impetiso]

If zombies were no threat, the world wouldn't become a hellish place, there would be no need for other survivors to be a threat for each other, everyone could just grow veggies and raise cattle, and we'd all live in peace with pet zombies ;o

That's the usual mistake when people talk about a zombie apocalipse. Do you think survivors fight each other just because there are zombies or because the resources are scarce? Well, let's take a look to the real world and find the reason of the war at Gaza or Ukranie. They have plenty of resources and there aren't external threats, they are just a bunch of humans being stupid and dicks, and that's why the world went to hell.

You might think the humanity may join together to fight the zombie threat, but why would they ally in the beginning of the apocalipse if they don't ally during the apocalipse? why fighting against other survivors and the zombies when you can ally with the survivors and be more safe against zombies? why kill on sight when cooperation is the best way to survive the apocalipse? the ultimate reason is human stupidity.

[migulao]

 

If zombies were no threat, the world wouldn't become a hellish place, there would be no need for other survivors to be a threat for each other, everyone could just grow veggies and raise cattle, and we'd all live in peace with pet zombies ;o

That's the usual mistake when people talk about a zombie apocalipse. Do you think survivors fight each other just because there are zombies or because the resources are scarce? Well, let's take a look to the real world and find the reason of the war at Gaza or Ukranie. They have plenty of resources and there aren't external threats, they are just a bunch of humans being stupid and dicks, and that's why the world went to hell.

You might think the humanity may join together to fight the zombie threat, but why would they ally in the beginning of the apocalipse if they don't ally during the apocalipse? why fighting against other survivors and the zombies when you can ally with the survivors and be more safe against zombies? why kill on sight when cooperation is the best way to survive the apocalipse? the ultimate reason is human stupidity.

 

It makes me sad, but I have to agree.

[deprav]

-zlopd-

I agree on your main point "human stupidity", but the rest is not comparable with a zombie apocalypse. But lets not extend on the subject in that thread, it ain't a thread to talk about politics, religions, propaganda, ideologies and lack of idelogies.

I'll just mention that humans (and life in general) adapt, for instance there is a tribe in South America called Zo'e, they never developped any concept of money nor put values on living things, they evolved so differently than us that they don't have any word to express "thanks" when someone shares something with someone else, and they do not kill each other, when soemeone does something bad or excludes himself from the group, his punition is to be tickled until he laughs.

That's how strong the environment you live in influences your behaviour and conscious. A zombie apocalypse is a pretty radical change of environment ! The whole consumerist/industrial system most people have been used to be a part of to eat and survive is now unexistant.

Also, stupid ones are way less likely to survive in a zombie apocalypse ;o

If someone/a group have the possibility to provide for himself/themselves independantly, if you can fish and grow vegetables and keep yourself far from the danger of the zombie-apocalypse, there's no reason to put your own life/survival at risk to go and kill people for ressouces you don't need.

Fighting other survivors/groups is a decision you take because you have no choice, because you don't have the necessary ressources to provide for yourself/your group, because you don't have the knowledge to provide for yourself and you only know violence, because someone from the group is sick and the time to find medicines is limited, because... There's always a because, the rest is just consequences.

[Viceroy]

 

If zombies were no threat, the world wouldn't become a hellish place, there would be no need for other survivors to be a threat for each other, everyone could just grow veggies and raise cattle, and we'd all live in peace with pet zombies ;o

That's the usual mistake when people talk about a zombie apocalipse. Do you think survivors fight each other just because there are zombies or because the resources are scarce? Well, let's take a look to the real world and find the reason of the war at Gaza or Ukranie. They have plenty of resources and there aren't external threats, they are just a bunch of humans being stupid and dicks, and that's why the world went to hell.

You might think the humanity may join together to fight the zombie threat, but why would they ally in the beginning of the apocalipse if they don't ally during the apocalipse? why fighting against other survivors and the zombies when you can ally with the survivors and be more safe against zombies? why kill on sight when cooperation is the best way to survive the apocalipse? the ultimate reason is human stupidity.

 

 

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.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Viceroy

[deprav]

 Given the fact that even reasonable people would fight for good reasons (see above.) and this is why war is waged.

 

Your post is right, but on that precise point I'd say it's true 50% percent of the time. There are good reasons to fight for, but wars aren't all started by good reasons ;o

Wars are a very efficient source of income for certain people, and a very efficient wave to surf on for politics, politics often financed in good part by those people making profit on wars.

Most soldiers in any modern war are just people who didn't have enough hindsight to realise they're fighting for the benefits of some other people, or brainwashed by propaganda, religious or political.

Because objectively, war never is a good solution to improve a people's situation, it generally ends up taking years, and the consequences taking decades ; a source of hatred on both sides of the conflict, hard to overcome on many generations.

Anyway, all of this to say agree that we can't compare modern wars that are an intricacy of many complicated factors, and a zombie apocalypse.

[Rathlord]

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.

[Chaco]

Just made and account in this forum to reply this post.

 

I think refrigeration doesnt need to be nerfed, usually I found the times it takes X food to perish unreal, like mayonnaise, in real life it takes like a month to root in my fridge for example.

 

I dont support the sacrifice of realism for the sake of difficult. If you want to make end game harder you just need to make farming time longer (About 2 months to 4 months to grow potatoes) and make then last a little longer or keep then fresh when unripped. I think game dificult can be increased with the introduction of hordes (like you said) and people inself, I always tought than zombies arent a big  threat to mankind even if they existed in real life, you can just shoot them and have tons of ways of killing then (unless you make sprinters in insane quantities).

 

We humans when pushed to the limits are a lot harder to manage.

It would be cool with the introduction of npcs to make groups of bandits and stuff, that would be difficult to handle and can make end game harder..