Professions that cost more than 10 pts

[stio89]

Hey guys, I love the game but one thing that's pretty annoying for me is when there's a profession you want but it costs more than 8 points and it means you have to then take negative traits, It's not really realistic that a police officer has to also be blind, deaf and dumb etc while a burger flipper can easily be in perfect health, I was kind of bummed when I seen that the new electrician and engineer jobs cost 12 pts which means we have to take negative traits to use them, Would it be possible to change it so no profession costs more than 8 pts. I wouldn't mind if some of the stronger jobs are toned down a little or the weaker ones being buffed for balance. But being forced to take negative traits when you want to use a certain job is not fun and unrealistic in my opinion.

 

 

EDIT: I meant 8 pts not 10

[sharpshot4321]

Well, I think of it as the requirements to get that job. Anyone with a pair of hands can flip burgers, but you need training and education to be a police officer. I don't know all the professions/costs to say if that fits what they use tho.

[ethanwdp]

Well, I think of it as the requirements to get that job. Anyone with a pair of hands can flip burgers, but you need training and education to be a police officer. I don't know all the professions/costs to say if that fits what they use tho.

But why does a police officer need a negative trait to be a police officer?

[LeoIvanov]

 

Well, I think of it as the requirements to get that job. Anyone with a pair of hands can flip burgers, but you need training and education to be a police officer. I don't know all the professions/costs to say if that fits what they use tho.

But why does a police officer need a negative trait to be a police officer?

 

 

Game balance. If the distinction between the professions never existed, people would obviously pick only the best ones, and would never care about the negatives. Before the occupation update, majority of players always went for Construction Worker as their profession, since it had 2 free positive traits, as opposed to 1 for all the others. 

[stio89]

thank you for the replies guys

Well, I think of it as the requirements to get that job. Anyone with a pair of hands can flip burgers, but you need training and education to be a police officer. I don't know all the professions/costs to say if that fits what they use tho.

 

training and education = blind, deaf and dumb = this is not realistic imo

 

 

Well, I think of it as the requirements to get that job. Anyone with a pair of hands can flip burgers, but you need training and education to be a police officer. I don't know all the professions/costs to say if that fits what they use tho.

But why does a police officer need a negative trait to be a police officer?

 

 

Game balance. If the distinction between the professions never existed, people would obviously pick only the best ones, and would never care about the negatives. Before the occupation update, majority of players always went for Construction Worker as their profession, since it had 2 free positive traits, as opposed to 1 for all the others. 

 

 

But the distinction between each job should be what specific role that job has and not how many free points you have left over to spend, A farmer is very good at farming and a doctor very good at healing people this is where the distinction should be, Jobs should be specializations and we should be allowed to pick the job we want without having to handicap ourselves.

 

I think negative traits should only be for when players want to take extra positive traits.

[sharpshot4321]

Picking a job doesn't mean you need to be blind deaf and dumb. Seeing as deaf alone gives you 12 points.

 

The negative balance comes from the overall benefits of the traits and skills given. Being a police officer gives you points into both aiming and reloading. Which I argue are the hardest to raise in the game, seeing as you both are using a limited resource and the very real danger that comes with every fired bullet.

 

Overall the value of each skill and trait very to a person's preference, but some skills are on average better than others. Thus the need to balance them.

[ethanwdp]

Picking a job doesn't mean you need to be blind deaf and dumb. Seeing as deaf alone gives you 12 points.

 

The negative balance comes from the overall benefits of the traits and skills given. Being a police officer gives you points into both aiming and reloading. Which I argue are the hardest to raise in the game, seeing as you both are using a limited resource and the very real danger that comes with every fired bullet.

 

Overall the value of each skill and trait very to a person's preference, but some skills are on average better than others. Thus the need to balance them.

And being a carpenter gives you much stronger fortifications, and being a lumberjack makes melee a lot easier, being a doctor gives you a head start to a few skills, etc.

Like stio89 said, we should only have to pick negative traits when we want to pick extra positive traits.

[sharpshot4321]

And being a carpenter gives you much stronger fortifications, and being a lumberjack makes melee a lot easier, being a doctor gives you a head start to a few skills, etc.

Like stio89 said, we should only have to pick negative traits when we want to pick extra positive traits.

Carpenter does not give you stronger fortifications, that's the "handy" trait, which you need to get seperately.

Lumberjack only works with axes, a rare item.

Doctor's use really only shines in multiplayer.

[Magic Mark]

Are the negative points really that bad? Or do you just want to be able to have a 100% positive character with no negative traits?

 

Having a balanced character is not a problem especially for what Police Officer gives. I'm not sure how much negative points it gives, but if it is enough that one decent negative trait like High Thirst or Appetite can do it then I don't see this being as relevant as a problem than you just wanting it balanced differently.

[LeoIvanov]

 

 

But the distinction between each job should be what specific role that job has and not how many free points you have left over to spend, A farmer is very good at farming and a doctor very good at healing people this is where the distinction should be, Jobs should be specializations and we should be allowed to pick the job we want without having to handicap ourselves.

 

I think negative traits should only be for when players want to take extra positive traits.

 

The distinction is already there, and the only thing that you'd really face if you pick a few negative points is slightly restrict your -specific- style of playing.

 

Some professions in this game are, to put it bluntly, very very rarely necessary or important for survival. You can easily never touch professions like Angler, Park Ranger, etc, because there are other ways to gather food aside from those. However, some professions, if they were to exist without restriction, would be more important to choose. Police officer offers aiming boost, which lets you deal with zombies easier, or carpenter gives you an advanced knowledge of fortifications, which can be used to block zombies away. These professions have to have some kind of worth assigned to them, since otherwise every third player will be picking them, rendering other professions useless.

 

However, when you have relatively cheap professions, you have an actual reason to pick them. Maybe you wouldn't be a pro gun user that can 1 shot zombies with pistol, but you'll still be able to pick a profession PLUS a few positive traits to aid you in that specific playstyle. Playing as Unemployed, actually, becomes relevant, since you get to spend 8 more free points on some trait. Imagine unemployed being at all relevant if all the other professions became just as free?

[Magic Mark]

 

 

 

But the distinction between each job should be what specific role that job has and not how many free points you have left over to spend, A farmer is very good at farming and a doctor very good at healing people this is where the distinction should be, Jobs should be specializations and we should be allowed to pick the job we want without having to handicap ourselves.

 

I think negative traits should only be for when players want to take extra positive traits.

 

The distinction is already there, and the only thing that you'd really face if you pick a few negative points is slightly restrict your -specific- style of playing.

 

Some professions in this game are, to put it bluntly, very very rarely necessary or important for survival. You can easily never touch professions like Angler, Park Ranger, etc, because there are other ways to gather food aside from those. However, some professions, if they were to exist without restriction, would be more important to choose. Police officer offers aiming boost, which lets you deal with zombies easier, or carpenter gives you an advanced knowledge of fortifications, which can be used to block zombies away. These professions have to have some kind of worth assigned to them, since otherwise every third player will be picking them, rendering other professions useless.

 

However, when you have relatively cheap professions, you have an actual reason to pick them. Maybe you wouldn't be a pro gun user that can 1 shot zombies with pistol, but you'll still be able to pick a profession PLUS a few positive traits to aid you in that specific playstyle. Playing as Unemployed, actually, becomes relevant, since you get to spend 8 more free points on some trait. Imagine unemployed being at all relevant if all the other professions became just as free?

 

 

I agree. I choose Fireman because keeping my character fit and ripped is important to my playstyle, it also didn't cost as much as a Veteran job would so I still got to choose Stout, Brave and First Aid at the expense of less negative traits I would have had to choose otherwise.

[stio89]

 

Are the negative points really that bad? Or do you just want to be able to have a 100% positive character with no negative traits?

 

Having a balanced character is not a problem especially for what Police Officer gives. I'm not sure how much negative points it gives, but if it is enough that one decent negative trait like High Thirst or Appetite can do it then I don't see this being as relevant as a problem than you just wanting it balanced differently.

 

I don't like being forced to take negative traits if I want a certain job, I get that it may be done for balance but it's unrealistic.

 

If you want to be a: 

 

- Police Officer (-4)

- Park Ranger (-4)

- Construction Worker (-2)

- Security Guard (-2)

- Burglar (-6)

- Chef (-4)

- Repair Man (-4)

- Fisherman (-2)

- Veteran (-8)

- Fitness Instructor (-6)

- Electrician (-4)

- Engineer (-4) 

 

you have to take negative traits and handicap yourself (no choice)

 

But if you want to be:

 

Unemployed (+8)

Fire Officer (0)

Carpenter (+2)

Farmer (+2)

Doctor (+2)

Nurse (+2)

Lumberjack (0)

Burger Flipper (+2)

 

You don't have to take any negative traits, Most of the time you can even take a positive.

 

Why does being a police officer or electrician etc also mean I have to be handicapped? Its not realistic or fun

 

Is Chef so overwhelmingly overpowered compared to the other jobs that you are forced to handicap yourself to be one?

 

Like I said previously I think taking negative traits should only be forced on you if you want to take extra positive traits, Not just a job by itself. Yes if they did this some jobs may be a lot more popular than others at the start, It's always gonna be like that no matter what unless you have perfect balance between the jobs, I would suggest making it so no job costs more than 8 points (0 pts leftover) and then buffing some of the weaker jobs and maybe nerfing some of the stronger jobs over time, then when all the jobs are roughly on the same level balance wise make them all cost 8 points, if you want anything extra on top of your job you have to pay for it with negatives.

 

This would be realistic, balanced and much more fun imo, I know some of you probably think well if you do that then everyone will end up using the same job, You'd be surprised, Most players actually play what they think is fun not what everyone else is playing, I could easily see myself playing as a fisherman or chef if I didn't have to handicap myself first.

[stio89]

 

 

 

But the distinction between each job should be what specific role that job has and not how many free points you have left over to spend, A farmer is very good at farming and a doctor very good at healing people this is where the distinction should be, Jobs should be specializations and we should be allowed to pick the job we want without having to handicap ourselves.

 

I think negative traits should only be for when players want to take extra positive traits.

 

The distinction is already there, and the only thing that you'd really face if you pick a few negative points is slightly restrict your -specific- style of playing.

 

Some professions in this game are, to put it bluntly, very very rarely necessary or important for survival. You can easily never touch professions like Angler, Park Ranger, etc, because there are other ways to gather food aside from those. However, some professions, if they were to exist without restriction, would be more important to choose. Police officer offers aiming boost, which lets you deal with zombies easier, or carpenter gives you an advanced knowledge of fortifications, which can be used to block zombies away. These professions have to have some kind of worth assigned to them, since otherwise every third player will be picking them, rendering other professions useless.

 

However, when you have relatively cheap professions, you have an actual reason to pick them. Maybe you wouldn't be a pro gun user that can 1 shot zombies with pistol, but you'll still be able to pick a profession PLUS a few positive traits to aid you in that specific playstyle. Playing as Unemployed, actually, becomes relevant, since you get to spend 8 more free points on some trait. Imagine unemployed being at all relevant if all the other professions became just as free?

 

 

My suggestion was never to make jobs free so you have 8 points leftover to spend on positives, It was to make the most expensive job cost 8 points, so you have 0 points left over. If you want positive traits you pay for them with negative traits.

 

Picking a job just because of how much points it has left over to spend on other things is lame in my opinion, I think PZ is way better than that. You should pick a job because its the thing you like to do the most eg. Someone who likes farming picks farmer, Fishing - fisher, crafting - carpenter, cooking - chef etc You can still do more or less everything else but you will level up the thing you enjoy the most faster.

[Magic Mark]

I think you are undervaluing how many people would skip Unemployed entirely if jobs like Veteran or Policeman were 'free'. I'm sorry but every way of looking at it from the balance point of view would state that jobs that make the game especially easier (like Veteran and Electrician) would still have to have some kind of drawback for picking them. That's also considering that the less valuable jobs (like Burger Flipper or Farmer) have abilities that get used intensely less than that of the latter. 

[EnigmaGrey]

Balancing pros and cons is a staple of the RPG genre. Though I understand your position, TIS would be doing a disservice to its fans by adding high value professions that require no negative traits as ballist.

You are free to mod this in if you so choose.

[stio89]

My view is that all professions should be high value and balanced equally, Imagine how many players who want to play as a certain profession but don't because they don't want to be penalized for it. I feel you should be able to pick any profession without having to also be handicapped in someway. Its like wanting to be a police officer in real life and the instructor saying ok first i need to break your legs and blind you in one eye then you can become a police officer, Its not very realistic. Also about the rpg thing, Would it not be better leave the rpg side of balance to picking positive traits with negative traits, Also not everyone who plays PZ wants to roleplay and imagine they are a cowardly policeman, a deaf engineer or a blind chef etc, I get that some people are really into the roleplay element of that, Nothing should stop them from doing that, But I personally play this game for the realistic survival aspect not the roleplaying/daydreaming aspect, I thought project zomboid was supposed to be a realistic zombie apocalypse survivor with a touch of rpg, that's what it said in the trailer. not a high fantasy roleplaying game with a touch of zombie survival.

 

I think it would be awesome if all professions were as strong as each other and instead of the balance coming from having to choose negative traits, It came from being very good at a certain thing and but not as good at everything else

 

Farmer

Pros - Very good at farming, renewable food source.

Cons - Crops take time to grow, Not as good at everything else

 

Police officer

Pros - Very good with firearms/aiming, firearms kill faster.

Cons - Firearms are loud, Not as good at everything else

 

Chef

Pros - Very good at cooking, Make good food with less, more filling.

Cons - Ingredients can be scarce, Not as good as everything else.

 

Veteran

Pros - Doesn't panic, Ok with firearms

Cons - Panic can sometimes save your life and keep you alert, Not as good as everything else.

 

Etc Etc

 

Now if you want to be a farmer but also a light eater then you have to balance that with a negative trait.

 

^ this is were the balance should be at imo

 

Then you can easily have groups with players with multiple jobs, farmer grows food, fisherman catches it, chef cooks it, carpenter builds a base for everyone to live in, doctor keeps everyone healthy, policeman protects.

 

Reward will come from knowing you helped the survival of the group in your own way that you are better than others at. 

 

Right now more than half of the professions are probably never used and its a shame because some of them sound like they would be cool and important in a real apocalypse if it wasn't for the forced handicap aspect of them.

[EnigmaGrey]

I have no sympathy for those that feel penalized for having to choose a negative trait to balance out their "future sniper of a cop that makes every bullet count."

I'll just leave it at that.

[stio89]

I've never played police officer but if it is OP, What instead of giving it these stats:

• Aiming +3
  
• Reloading +2
  
• Nimble +1
  

With -4 points left

 

It gave:

• Aiming +2
  
• Reloading +1
  

With 0 points left

[Magic Mark]

 

I've never played police officer but if it is OP, What instead of giving it these stats:

• Aiming +3
• Reloading +2
• Nimble +1

With -4 points left

 

It gave:

• Aiming +2
• Reloading +1

With 0 points left

 

 

Then you might as well choose Unemployed and use one of the traits that gives similar benefits.

 

Again, it's all about balance, realism takes a back-seat (not that it's neglected to begin with).

 

Game balance. 

[XxZeraphinexX]

I guess in this way to have equal stuff to choose from, it would be the best to start without any professions and just pick traits.

And there a traits to pick which doesn´t make the big diffrence, just pick eater or thirsty and you good.

[Marinus]

You can always try Svarog's "Cheaterman" mod. It gives you the possibility to create whatever character you like,

 

http://pz-mods.net/professions/Cheaterman/

[ColonelSandersLite]

Police officer

Pros - Very good with firearms/aiming, firearms kill faster.

Cons - Firearms are loud, Not as good at everything else

Veteran

Pros - Doesn't panic, Ok with firearms

Cons - Panic can sometimes save your life and keep you alert, Not as good as everything else.

 

This is something that's bugging me atm.  In my experience, soldiers tend to be very good with firearms and cops just sorta ho hum.  Not that it really matters all that much with the general uselessness of firearms in the game.  At least with the settings I have been playing.

[sharpshot4321]

I would imagine that a soldier would have a more rounded experience or even slanted experience with rifles. A police officer (a regular one, not a swat or anything special) would be almost entirely proficient with just side arms.

[lucy the axe]

Why does being a police officer or electrician etc also mean I have to be handicapped? Its not realistic or fun

 

To be fair, in real life, a normal person can't get such level of expertise without some drawbacks too.

 

For example, a police officer or soldier who spends a lot of time in the field probably have no patience for unprofessional/insubordinate allies, so you choose that trait with bad temper. Or they could have no patience to sit long hours with books because they're used to physical learning, and therefore can have slow learner trait.

 

A Park Ranger could get antsy when cooped up inside the house, so you choose claustrophobic.

 

An electrical engineer who does a lot of tinkering with circuits probably isn't very strong physically, so you choose the not graceful trait or prone to sickness. And so on...

 

And before I got bombarded with "Well, you're wrong, I'm an engineer AND I'm fit AND patient AND I feed 100 puppies in my free time AND can cook gourmet meals from dead rats AND can bandage someone's arm back into place, etc etc" take note I'm just saying "normal" people who specialize in their professions.

 

Well, you're probably right that some values and points need to be tweaked. But I also think that there's slight realism in the fact that no one not everyone is perfect.

[Mikhail Reign]

Weeeell.... if you actually look into it, most police officers rarely, if ever use their gun in the line of duty, and they only average about 15 hours a year of gun training. The every day gun enthusiast would have a higher proficiency with weapons. People seem to think that cops are everyday training with SWAT, when in reality, most of their work is paper work, and most of their training is on inter-people skills.


More on topic tho, I agree that choosing a profession should be a more even spread so that you wouldn't have to pick an overweight cop just to balance out the points. I feel that all professions should be somewhat equal, so that the benefits that you get from picking a chef would be somewhat the same as the ones from picking a construction worker, just in a different area. This would require the occupations to be balanced so that the occupations weren't OP just on their own to encourage people to take additional pros and cons. I would be OK the general rule to simply be: occupation gives a single 'bonus' (can see in the dark, doesn't get scared etc etc) a point in the skill and a increased XP gain for just that skill.

 

To make unemployed a still relevant occupation, just give them + how many points the occupation bonus and point is worth as a starting point.

 

This would mean you could just be 'a cop' instead of always requiring to be 'a near sighted cop' or 'a clumsy unlucky cop'.