Jump to content

Permadeath and Probabilities


Bossdrive

Recommended Posts

 Being scratched, lacerated or bitten by zombies is primarily due to one (or a combination) of these two factors

 

1. Poor decision making/ carelessness

2. Key pad blunder (e.g. fumbling the run, push, or attack key)

 

In an unforgiving permadeath game such as PZ, the mechanics should be heavily geared towards punishing you for the former while offering a great deal of leeway for the latter. As it stands now, the game punishes you for both factors equally.

 

Now this wouldn't be a significant problem if  the death or salvation of your character didn't rest fully on probabilities.

 

There is nothing more frustrating than surviving over four months only to be bitten due to a key blunder. And to add insult to injury, it was the very first successful zombie attack.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I guess the game kinda strives to meet that similar realism, where even a simple mistake in a zombie infested world could cost you your life.

 

The great thing about this game is that even if one disliked the high risk permadeath mechanics of the game, they can simply change the gamemode sandbox settings to disable zombie transmission etc 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Mr_Sunshine said:

I guess the game kinda strives to meet that similar realism, where even a simple mistake in a zombie infested world could cost you your life.

 

The great thing about this game is that even if one disliked the high risk permadeath mechanics of the game, they can simply change the gamemode sandbox settings to disable zombie transmission etc 

Disabling  zombification defeats the appeal of playing a zombie apocalypse game.

 

Permadeath is what makes the game thrilling and suspenseful, however my point is that it should not be entirely based on probabilities. Despite the great deal of freedom you have in the game, ultimately you have very little control over your fate. 

 

Surviving a zombie scratch may elicit a sigh of relief, but there is no satisfaction to be gained as you did nothing to earn it. It's just purely chance. Conversely, there is no sense of bittersweet defeat when dying from an infectious scratch, only frustration at your bad luck.

 

No matter how cautious you play, you will inevitably run into zombies. And dying from a scratch due to a stumbling key stroke makes it all the more frustrating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, EnigmaGrey said:

If you’re that close to the undead, you’re solidly in number 1 territory even if you fumble a key.

I don't think so.

 

No matter how smart you play, you will inevitably encounter zombies. The meta events will ensure it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Mumbler said:

I've actually found this game to be unforgivingly fair.  Every time I remember dying it's been my own fault (so far).

I'd agree wholeheartedly in the past- more recently though, I've had a few frustrating melee encounters. Not sure if it's a range thing or an accuracy thing, but twice I've been bitten while in an ineffective swing animation. Twice may not seem significant, but that's twice more than happened before I started playing more frequently with the new animations.

 

There was a thread about this elsewhere, going to add my two cents after a little more experience with the new animations. Generally speaking I agree with the stay out of zombie threat zones advice- however, after being bit in an armed one on one scenario, something seems off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, trombonaught said:

I'd agree wholeheartedly in the past- more recently though, I've had a few frustrating melee encounters. Not sure if it's a range thing or an accuracy thing, but twice I've been bitten while in an ineffective swing animation. Twice may not seem significant, but that's twice more than happened before I started playing more frequently with the new animations.

 

There was a thread about this elsewhere, going to add my two cents after a little more experience with the new animations. Generally speaking I agree with the stay out of zombie threat zones advice- however, after being bit in an armed one on one scenario, something seems off.

Note that that ineffective swing anim means you didn’t and couldn’t connect effect when you swung. I find it really hard to tell the difference between the normal hit animations w/ 2handed and the miss anim, to the point where I forgot to mention it in the other thread.

 

TLDR: there’s a miss anim that’s a bit punishing if you swing too early at something out of range, for anyone that hasn’t noticed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Bossdrive said:

Disabling  zombification defeats the appeal of playing a zombie apocalypse game.

 

Permadeath is what makes the game thrilling and suspenseful, however my point is that it should not be entirely based on probabilities. Despite the great deal of freedom you have in the game, ultimately you have very little control over your fate. 

 

The game really isn't built on probabilities. When your soldier misses a shot based on X% or Y% in XCOM, that is entirely built on probability. I get your point that the injury you get is random in that sense, but it is so avoidable in the first place.

 

Like Enigma said, "if you’re that close to the undead, you’re solidly in number 1 territory even if you fumble a key". 

 

If I die in any other game similarly to this game I will blame my own actions that led to that moment rather than "Ah the enemy bit me rather than lacerated me". There are many strategies in place to prevent getting into that situation in the first place. I've done ALOT of killing of solo and group zombies in this build so far and any scratches or bites I've received were because of my own lack of perception on the swing or attack time of my character, not because of the probability relating to the 'zombie bite'. 

 

9 hours ago, Bossdrive said:

Disabling  zombification defeats the appeal of playing a zombie apocalypse game.

 

Permadeath is what makes the game thrilling and suspenseful....

 

I agree it does, but if you get frustrated by your own preconception of having 'little control over your fate' why not disable it? You're only going to get more frustrated 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Mr_Sunshine said:

Like Enigma said, "if you’re that close to the undead, you’re solidly in number 1 territory even if you fumble a key". 

I don't understand this line of reasoning.

 

Certainly, playing smart increases your longevity, and that entails avoiding contact with zombies as much as possible. This is how I survived for over four months!

 

However, there will be zombie encounters where skirmish is unavoidable. There are multiple scenarios in which this can occur even while playing extremely cautious. I don't see how these kinds of encounters qualify as "poor decision making" or "playing reckless".

 

You yourself said that you did "ALOT of killing of solo and group zombies", does this mean that you play "solidly in number 1 territory"?  

 

You followed by saying that any scratches or bites you received were due to your own mistakes while skirmishing, not because of probabilities.

 

I think you're missing the point here. Playing reckless as a manner of strategy is vastly different than making a mistake in tactical combat. The salient point of my thread is not the mistake you make in a zombie altercation (whether combat misjudgment or key stroke fumble) , but the consequence of such a mistake. 

 

The consequence is predicated on pure chance. Flip a coin, heads you survive, tails you're dead.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'm a little confused too. So is your point that it's inevitable from fighting zombies that you'll get scratched/bitten eventually and will die and that the hit you will receive is based on probability? 

 

6 minutes ago, Bossdrive said:

 

You yourself said that you did "ALOT of killing of solo and group zombies", does this mean that you play "solidly in number 1 territory"? 

 

 

When I stated this I didn't mean it like that at all. Killing zombies in this game is obviously a central core part of the game, I avoid the number 1 territory by ensuring I'm fighting against solo or groups of zombies in such a situation that I have the upper hand advantage. For example:

 

-If I were to fight against a group of zombies inside an enclosed building or narrow roads or passages outside, I would consider this poor decision making on my part and put this into number 1 territory. Risk is much much higher.

-If I were to fight against the same group in an open field where I am fully aware of my surroundings etc, I would consider this more superior decision making and not put this into number 1 territory.

 

What kinds of zombie encounters do you think are unavoidable and will inevitably end up in your demise? For me personally, I think almost every situation is avoidable. (I'm not having a go at you, I'm genuinely curious) 

 

12 minutes ago, Bossdrive said:

I think you're missing the point here. Playing reckless as a manner of strategy is vastly different than making a mistake in tactical combat. The salient point of my thread is not the mistake you make in a zombie altercation (whether combat misjudgment or key stroke fumble) , but the consequence of such a mistake. 

 

The consequence is predicated on pure chance. Flip a coin, heads you survive, tails you're dead.

So you're implying that if you make a mistake in combat then the game should be more lenient because it's permadeath? Tbh, I disagree with this point since I think the consequence really does change depending on your actions prior to that moment. For example:

 

-If I was in combat with a group of zombies and I managed to separate them into even smaller groups (say 1 zed, 2 zeds and 3 more, just one behind the other and behind the other etc) and I made a key fumble or some mistake, then only the 1 zombie closest to me would get a quick hit at me and potentially give me a laceration or a bite (is this also the probability aspect you mean?) and I'm able to break free or push the zombie and run away/fight

 

-Whereas, if I was in combat against the entire group clustered of about 6 zombies, if I make the same mistake then the entire crowd will get a hit at me and I'm suddenly being dragged to the ground and instant death.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr_Sunshine said:

When I stated this I didn't mean it like that at all. Killing zombies in this game is obviously a central core part of the game, I avoid the number 1 territory by ensuring I'm fighting against solo or groups of zombies in such a situation that I have the upper hand advantage. For example:

 

-If I were to fight against a group of zombies inside an enclosed building or narrow roads or passages outside, I would consider this poor decision making on my part and put this into number 1 territory. Risk is much much higher.

-If I were to fight against the same group in an open field where I am fully aware of my surroundings etc, I would consider this more superior decision making and not put this into number 1 territory.

 

 I wasn't suggesting that you're solidly in number 1 territory, I was merely pointing out that the quote you agree with explicitly characterizes you as solidly in number 1 territory.

 

1 hour ago, Bossdrive said:

Like Enigma said, "if you’re that close to the undead, you’re solidly in number 1 territory even if you fumble a key". 

 

A strategy that ensures that  you have the advantage in a fight against zombies still places you "close to the undead". Which means that, according to the quote, you’re solidly in number 1 territory.

 

That was my only point, really. It seems to me that you actually disagree with the quote.

 

1 hour ago, Mr_Sunshine said:

So you're implying that if you make a mistake in combat then the game should be more lenient because it's permadeath? Tbh, I disagree with this point since I think the consequence really does change depending on your actions prior to that moment

 

No, I think that zombie infection should not be entirely predicated on probabilites. 

 

A good solution to this, I think, is a robust protective clothing/ gear mechanic. 

 

The one in place now simply reduces the odds of getting scratched or bitten. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Bossdrive said:

 

That was my only point, really. It seems to me that you actually disagree with the quote.

 

 

Yeah I guess so, I just interpreted Enigma's quote more as 'change tactics or you're more at risk' rather than 'don't stay close to them at all' , didn't take it that literal but eh idk

 

19 minutes ago, Bossdrive said:

No, I think that zombie infection should not be entirely predicated on probabilites. 

A good solution to this, I think, is a robust protective clothing/ gear mechanic. 

The one in place now simply reduces the odds of getting scratched or bitten. 

 

Yeah, cool if that's your opinion then fair. An issue the PZ developers are having is trying to reduce the longevity of players surviving within the game because it's easier to live in this game for a long period of time than they intended to. 

 

Your protection concept is fine and dandy but to me it just seems a little too easy to survive if it were implemented and would probably get boring in a gameplay pov. It's far too easy to live for a long time and having abit of probability in this regard makes it spontaneous and helps to spice it up and increase the chance of death. But hey that's my opinion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the point. This game is realistic.

 

Most mofo's will mess up a physical altercation and die from a zombie eventually. 

 

Law of averages. 

 

EDIT: And the beauty of PZ is you can play with any aspect of the settings you want to make the game easier. 

 

Less zombies means less chance of a screw up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may interject,  the issue doesn't seem to lie with death being based on probabilities, but on our ability (or lack thereof) to influence that chance.   I can't quite think of any other way it could function: when a bite animation plays,  the die rolls and you either get munched or you don't.   I assume the small stuff (which way I twist my arm, how much of my clothing gets stuffed in the zombies mouth, things you could control in real life) are considered part of whatever algorithm decides if we get bit or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mumbler said:

If I may interject,  the issue doesn't seem to lie with death being based on probabilities, but on our ability (or lack thereof) to influence that chance.   I can't quite think of any other way it could function: when a bite animation plays,  the die rolls and you either get munched or you don't.   I assume the small stuff (which way I twist my arm, how much of my clothing gets stuffed in the zombies mouth, things you could control in real life) are considered part of whatever algorithm decides if we get bit or not.

 

But you do have the ability to influence the probabilities. The "thick skin" trait or protective clothing both reduce the odds of scratches and bites. 

 

The issue does lie with death being entirely based on probabilities. This is not a good concept when permadeath is central to the game. The player needs some degree of control over his fate. The game seems to be designed for you to spend a lot of time and effort developing your character while at the same time its designed to snuff you out by a simple roll of the dice. 

 

This game needs to decide what it wants to be. 

 

1. A character development survival story, in which case you have more control over your fate. (Your death is less chance-based, more choice-based)

 

or

 

2. Fast-paced, hardcore RNG survival game, in which case you don't need a robust character-building mechanic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, of all things to label PZ as, it's not "fast-paced."

 

So, 3: A slow-based hardcore RPG-lite true to Brooks/Romero zombie lore regarding zombie-induced wounds. While I don't personally think it makes good "gameplay," that's the lore: bites and/or zombie-based infection kills.

 

So, you don't want to get bitten or scratched? Don't engage zombies. Or at least arbor up and be extremely selective in the zombies you do engage. That's your choice.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, EnigmaGrey said:

So, 3: A slow-based hardcore RPG-lite true to Brooks/Romero zombie lore regarding zombie-induced wounds. While I don't personally think it makes good "gameplay," that's the lore: bites and/or zombie-based infection kills.

 

The lore is fine. I don't see how it's an obstacle to my previous point.

 

Probability-based infection rate? ok.

 

Probability-based hit rate? ok.

 

I'm not asking to do away with probabilities. What I'm suggesting is some kind of feature that mitigates the hit rate probability mechanic.

 

Protective clothing reduces the odds of getting hit, however it does nothing to mitigate the probability mechanic. 

 

Consider a feature where  protective clothing does not reduce the odds, but rather carries a durability rating. All successful hits are absorbed by the clothing up to its durability rating. Once the durability rating is compromised, all hits are resolved normally.

 

For example, a flannel shirt might carry a durability rating of 1. This means the first successful hit is absorbed and any hit afterward is resolved normally, i.e. probability-based.

 

This gives some degree of control to the player. That combat angle misjudgment or keyboard fumble is no longer catastrophic.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bossdrive said:

The issue does lie with death being entirely based on probabilities

But it isn't, you said so yourself. The probabilities only decide your fate after you make a mistake as a player, either by poor decision or by fumbling the keyboard. Your character is dying because you made a mistake not because of bad luck with random numbers. Perhaps you made all the right decisions, but if you press the wrong button at a critical moment you have failed with the implementation of your plan. And the game might punish you for that failure.

 

You say that you want more control of your characters life and death, but to me it sounds like you're asking for the game to be forgiving towards the type of mistakes you make while playing. In a way it already is forgiving, because even if you fumble the keyboard or aim the mouse at the wrong place at the wrong time the game will roll the dice and maybe let you survive despite your mistake :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, EnigmaGrey said:

... that’s why clothing tears: it’s taking the damage for you.

 

I think he means a protection system that doesn't have probability based chances, e.g

 

- Zombie goes in for a bite and the clothing is guaranteed to protect you but is ruined instantly

If not, idk then

 

sprkng's point is exactly my point

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mr_Sunshine said:

 

I think he means a protection system that doesn't have probability based chances, e.g

 

- Zombie goes in for a bite and the clothing is guaranteed to protect you but is ruined instantly

If not, idk then

 

sprkng's point is exactly my point

 

 

You get that by wearing (stacking) items that provide high amounts of coverage to the area. You can get to at least 95% for most areas; more with patching.

 

it wouldn’t make sense that a short sleeve shirt, for example, took the hit to your upper arm and is destroyed if it’s material is thin or doesn’t cover them fully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, sprkng said:

But it isn't, you said so yourself. The probabilities only decide your fate after you make a mistake as a player, either by poor decision or by fumbling the keyboard.

 

Whether you play careless or cautious, probabilities ultimately decides your fate as a result of ANY circumstance.

 

Scratch, laceration and bite, all probability-based.

 

Infection, probability-based.

 

So yes, the issue does lie with death being entirely based on probabilities.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mr_Sunshine said:

I think he means a protection system that doesn't have probability based chances, e.g

 

- Zombie goes in for a bite and the clothing is guaranteed to protect you but is ruined instantly

If not, idk then

 

Precisely.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, EnigmaGrey said:

You get that by wearing (stacking) items that provide high amounts of coverage to the area. You can get to at least 95% for most areas; more with patching.

 

it wouldn’t make sense that a short sleeve shirt, for example, took the hit to your upper arm and is destroyed if it’s material is thin or doesn’t cover them fully.

 

With the exception of a helmet, I never seen any gear that stacked up to 95%. But I've never traveled outside of Muldraugh.

 

If you can optimize your gear to 95%, it would seem to me that every game you start begins with a mad scramble to locate this high-end gear, and you are compelled to start the game in the city where this gear is found.

 

Ultimately, your survival is still subject to probabilities

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...