Permadeath and Probabilities

[EnigmaGrey]

So, you want PZ to be devoid of any chance.

 

Good luck with that.

[ZAMNPlayerD]

On 4/21/2020 at 11:55 PM, Bossdrive said:

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

 

Um, literally every other zombie game that has come out in the last 30+ years just called and burst into laughter over the line.

 

I mean, not to be "that guy" but I disable zombification because I like fighting, and don't want the first attack I'll inevitably suffer to be my character's last. I feel like Project Zomboid of all the games I've played can and does bridge the gap between "Horror" and "Action" better than any other game, compared to most games being some form of action games with zombies as the main threat. And that's even without zombification enabled.

 

But that's the biggest strength to PZ over any other Survival Sandbox, you can swap options around and experiment and so many ways thanks to Sandbox.

[Bossdrive]

2 hours ago, EnigmaGrey said:

So, you want PZ to be devoid of any chance.

 

No, I never said that.

 

Listen, I'm not knocking you for liking the game the way it is. But you really don't have to straw man my argument.

 

 

[Bossdrive]

13 minutes ago, ZAMNPlayerD said:

I mean, not to be "that guy" but I disable zombification because I like fighting, and don't want the first attack I'll inevitably suffer to be my character's last.

 

You're literally making my argument.

[ZAMNPlayerD]

2 minutes ago, Bossdrive said:

 

You're literally making my argument.

And you're literally quote-mining me. When I said "inevitably" I meant because I made a mistake, like I thought three zombies vs one machete wouldn't be a big issue, until it was and three zombies nearly killed me.

[EnigmaGrey]

16 minutes ago, Bossdrive said:

 

No, I never said that.

 

Listen, I'm not knocking you for liking the game the way it is. But you really don't have to straw man my argument.

 

 

You won’t even accept some degree of randomness in loot spawn.

 

What else am I supposed to take away from that in context of this thread?

[Bossdrive]

19 minutes ago, ZAMNPlayerD said:

When I said "inevitably" I meant because I made a mistake, like I thought three zombies vs one machete wouldn't be a big issue, until it was and three zombies nearly killed me.

 

You're still making my point, and I'm quoting you in full.

 

Let me ask you this, 

 

Would you still disable zombification if you were given the option to control whether or not the the first attack you suffer will be your last?

 

 

[Bossdrive]

35 minutes ago, EnigmaGrey said:

You won’t even accept some degree of randomness in loot spawn.

 

What else am I supposed to take away from that in context of this thread?

 

I think you have me confused with someone else.

[sprkng]

11 hours ago, Bossdrive said:

 

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.

 

 

 

But you don't get scratches, lacerations and bites randomly. Those only happen after you made a mistake. If you don't screw up and get bitten/scratched by a zombie there is 0% probability you will die to zombification.

 

I like the game as it is now because I think fighting zombies should always be a bit dangerous. Knowing that a mistake might cost you your life keeps it interesting. If I could get 100% protection against attacks, what's the point of having zombies in the game at all? Even if it's just protection against the first attack you just back off and put on new clothes to become immortal again. No need to play carefully and plan encounters if the game doesn't punish you for being careless.

 

Personally I think this sounds like a very boring change, but I know people like to play the game differently and if you want to have it like this it could probably be done with mods. If you aren't  a programmer yourself maybe you could try finding a modder who thinks it sounds like a fun idea and wants to implement it.

[ZAMNPlayerD]

3 hours ago, Bossdrive said:

 

You're still making my point, and I'm quoting you in full.

 

Let me ask you this, 

 

Would you still disable zombification if you were given the option to control whether or not the the first attack you suffer will be your last?

 

 

I mean, I would because I'm perfectly capable of making mistakes and overestimating shit. But whether or not I would has little point in the matter. Sure there is RNG in whether or not a zombie's attack would be registered as a "punch" (damage, but no broken skin) "scratch" or "bite," BUT, if you're smart and are good and separating yourself from zed, you can pretty much ensure indefinite survival by simply taking out the stairs of a two or three story building and building a farm and rain collecters on it. And zed can't do shit about that.

[ZAMNPlayerD]

24 minutes ago, sprkng said:

 

But you don't get scratches, lacerations and bites randomly. Those only happen after you made a mistake. If you don't screw up and get bitten/scratched by a zombie there is 0% probability you will die to zombification.

 

I like the game as it is now because I think fighting zombies should always be a bit dangerous. Knowing that a mistake might cost you your life keeps it interesting. If I could get 100% protection against attacks, what's the point of having zombies in the game at all? Even if it's just protection against the first attack you just back off and put on new clothes to become immortal again. No need to play carefully and plan encounters if the game doesn't punish you for being careless.

 

Personally I think this sounds like a very boring change, but I know people like to play the game differently and if you want to have it like this it could probably be done with mods. If you aren't  a programmer yourself maybe you could try finding a modder who thinks it sounds like a fun idea and wants to implement it.

 

 

That's kind of why I like The Combat revamp, because while I like playing Superman Games, I appreciate that taking on hordes should be a terrible idea, and as of Build 41, not all the zombie immunity in the world is going to help me if I act stupid and get cornered by a horde.

[Mumbler]

To be fair, the RNG works both ways.  I just blundered searching a house and got cornered by three Zs.  I pushed my way out, but not before one of them got a piece of me.  Thought it was the end of a really solid play through start (sledge, hammer, saw, axe, handaxe, screwdriver, trowel, day one.)  Nope, just a laceration.   Thank you,  RNG, for forgiving my fumble.

 

Edit: Second close encounter, RNG was not so kind.  Jonathan Adams now walks with the dead. 

[EnigmaGrey]

10 hours ago, Bossdrive said:

 

I think you have me confused with someone else.

Nope, one page back you’re saying good armour is limited by spawn position and thus still probabilistic.

 

Did I misinterpret it?

[Bossdrive]

On 4/25/2020 at 2:46 AM, sprkng said:

But you don't get scratches, lacerations and bites randomly. Those only happen after you made a mistake. If you don't screw up and get bitten/scratched by a zombie there is 0% probability you will die to zombification.

 

You're conflating the chances of survival given your actions with the in-game probability mechanics. I addressed this in my very first post.

 

Again, my contention is that the game should punish you for poor decision making and playing reckless while allowing some degree of leniency for keyboard fumbles and even combat misjudgment. Combat is not precise and requires a lot of eye-balling with respect to distance and angles. A single zombie could end a long run of a game simply because your angle estimation was just a little off. 

Both keyboard fumbles and combat misjudgment have absolutely nothing to do with poor decision making or reckless play style.

 

This is the thrust of my argument. 

 

On 4/25/2020 at 2:46 AM, sprkng said:

I like the game as it is now because I think fighting zombies should always be a bit dangerous. Knowing that a mistake might cost you your life keeps it interesting. If I could get 100% protection against attacks, what's the point of having zombies in the game at all? Even if it's just protection against the first attack you just back off and put on new clothes to become immortal again. No need to play carefully and plan encounters if the game doesn't punish you for being careless.

 

 

Keep in mind that the sole purpose of my protective clothing idea is to lend some degree of leniency for keyboard fumbles and combat misjudgment. 

 

1. You contend that the armor mechanics that I suggested will make you immortal.

 

This is simply not the case. Once the durability rating is compromised you're open to probabilities on the next attack. 

 

2. You argue that you can just back off and change clothing.

 

- IF you decide to back off. This is the balance between good decision vrs bad decision.

 

- Changing clothe takes time and leave you open to attack. Furthermore, carrying a bundle of clothe weighs you down making you susceptible to high exhaustion. 

 

There are trade offs between armor and mobility.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bossdrive]

On 4/25/2020 at 3:08 AM, ZAMNPlayerD said:

I mean, I would because I'm perfectly capable of making mistakes and overestimating shit.. But whether or not I would has little point in the matter. Sure there is RNG in whether or not a zombie's attack would be registered as a "punch" (damage, but no broken skin) "scratch" or "bite," BUT, if you're smart and are good and separating yourself from zed, you can pretty much ensure indefinite survival by simply taking out the stairs of a two or three story building and building a farm and rain collecters on it. And zed can't do shit about that.

 

Hold on.

 

Your very first sentence seems to contradicts the passage that immediately follows.

 

You argue that "if you're smart and are good and separating yourself from zed, you can pretty much ensure indefinite survival"

 

Yet in your very first sentence you say that you would still disable zombification because you're "perfectly capable of making mistakes and overestimating shit."

 

Bro, EVERYONE is perfectly capable of making mistakes and overestimating shit." That does not mean you're not playing smart.

 

Playing smart does not ensure a damn thing.

 

That's the point.

 

 

 

[Bossdrive]

On 4/25/2020 at 10:04 AM, EnigmaGrey said:

Nope, one page back you’re saying good armour is limited by spawn position and thus still probabilistic.

 

Did I misinterpret it?

 

Yes, you did misinterpret it.

 

Saying that good armor is limited by spawn position and probability doesn't mean I'm opposed to randomness in loot spawn.

 

Context matters.

 

I was replying to your post about armor stacking.

 

My point is that you're still open to the probability mechanics up until the point you collect the optimal armor set. And even then it doesn't resolve the problem I delineated in my original post.

[EnigmaGrey]

1 hour ago, Bossdrive said:

My point is that you're still open to the probability mechanics up until the point you collect the optimal armor set. And even then it doesn't resolve the problem I delineated in my original post.

You’re going to have to take responsibility for engaging zombies and making a mistake while doing so, rather than asking us to ”fix” it, especially if the protection armor affords is somehow not enough.

[ZAMNPlayerD]

3 hours ago, Bossdrive said:

 

Hold on.

 

Your very first sentence seems to contradicts the passage that immediately follows.

 

You argue that "if you're smart and are good and separating yourself from zed, you can pretty much ensure indefinite survival"

 

Yet in your very first sentence you say that you would still disable zombification because you're "perfectly capable of making mistakes and overestimating shit."

 

Bro, EVERYONE is perfectly capable of making mistakes and overestimating shit." That does not mean you're not playing smart.

 

Playing smart does not ensure a damn thing.

 

That's the point.

 

 

 

Putting yourself into a situation where you make a fatal mistake is the opposite of playing smart. Running past a horde and getting cornered is making a mistake. Playing smart would be kiting around the horde while trying to pick them off one by one.

[Bossdrive]

3 hours ago, EnigmaGrey said:

You’re going to have to take responsibility for engaging zombies and making a mistake while doing so, rather than asking us to ”fix” it, especially if the protection armor affords is somehow not enough.

Again, the problem is not the armor. The problem is the armor mechanics.

 

Ok, clearly you're not going to budge on this. You're satisfied with pure RNG.

 

Can you please explain the logic for a robust time-intensive character development system? Given the pure RNG nature of the game, investing a great deal of time developing your character doesn't seem to make sense. 

 

Would  it not make more sense to streamline character development?

 

Take, for example, Darkest Dungeon. Although a brutal RNG game, the character development system works. You invest very little time developing your characters. If your group gets wiped, it's no great loss.

 

Someone mentioned X-Com. The character development is perfectly streamlined for that kind of game.

 

[Bossdrive]

2 hours ago, ZAMNPlayerD said:

Putting yourself into a situation where you make a fatal mistake is the opposite of playing smart. Running past a horde and getting cornered is making a mistake. Playing smart would be kiting around the horde while trying to pick them off one by one.

Yet, you disable zombification. Why?

 

Is it because you don't play smart? that is the inescapable conclusion of your logic here.

 

 

 

 

[EnigmaGrey]

Yeah, that’s what I thought: this is just another thread about wanting to do something but being scared of the consequences or ashamed of using sandbox to change it, dressed up as some bigger thing. The insistence that someone disabling infection is in fact an  indictment of rng is proof enough.

 

For your streamlining question, no idea - never played Long Dark, but it sounds like you don’t want to put the effort into designing a character, so why don’t you just “not do that” instead of try and argue there should be a fundamental change to the game? Emotional involvement and character development is all voluntary, just like combat.

[EnvyDemon]

So... uhh... is dying due to misclicks that big of an issue or is this guy really overblowing the problem?

 

Honestly, if you want a solution and you feel it was unfair, just download necroforge and click the "reset health" option in the debug menu.

[Mr_Sunshine]

8 hours ago, EnvyDemon said:

So... uhh... is dying due to misclicks that big of an issue or is this guy really overblowing the problem?

Definitely definitely blown out of proportion in terms of probability being the crux of the game. It reaaaaaaally isn't 

 

Not trying to be negative towards Bossdrive or gang up on him or anything, but it honestly feels like he's died a few times in the game out of his own negligence and is now blaming it fully on the game mechanics. Bossdrive, if you can record on video a scenario of where probability is entirely causing your death in the game as proof, I'll believe you. 

 

Like Enigma said, there's 0 shame in using sandbox settings or mods.. it's a singleplayer game, no one is going to judge.

 

12 hours ago, Bossdrive said:

 

Someone mentioned X-Com. The character development is perfectly streamlined for that kind of game.

 

 

Just to quickly point out, you're against the 'death  of your character being rested fully on probabilities' in PZ (which I disagree that the game has in the first place) and yet you're for the instant character deaths in X-COM? Their deaths are also permanent and can be super bullshit, spontaneous and even quicker than PZ and genuinely are probability based, so I'm a little confused at this point.

 

Why can't you also accept death in PZ? It even says "This is how you died" when you load the save game

[Pau]

I don't think there's a lot of games that give you the possibility to mess around so much with the sandbox mode. And I honestly don't understand why people don't want to use it and instead they keep trying to change the difficulty in the "pre-set" modes. I love the difficulty in this game, and even if I'd been playing for years I am still really bad at it. I just die all the time. But I love it. If I get frustrated or something there's always the option to just mess around with the sandbox options. It is great that just one little mistake can kill you, it makes you think really well every time you go out, every time you're going to fight. 

There's no shame in messing around with the sandbox settings and make the game super easy if that's what you want. There's no prize for making it impossible. Just different tastes. It is single player and we have dozens of different options to make the game whatever we want, and then mods... Just use the sandbox settings, leave my apoc mode alone! xD 

 

Joking there, but yes, no touching my apoc mode.

[Bossdrive]

8 hours ago, EnigmaGrey said:

Yeah, that’s what I thought: this is just another thread about wanting to do something but being scared of the consequences or ashamed of using sandbox to change it, dressed up as some bigger thing. The insistence that someone disabling infection is in fact an  indictment of rng is proof enough.

 

You continue to misconstrue my argument. I didn't say that disabling infection is an indictment of RNG.

 

In fact, I'm not even opposed to RNG in principle. This should have been clear given my previous posts.

 

I was pointing out the inconsistency of ZAMN's reasoning. Let me break this down for you.

 

ZAMN argued that,

 

1.  He disables infection because he's "perfectly capable of making mistakes and overestimating shit."

 

2. "Putting yourself into a situation where you make a fatal mistake is the opposite of playing smart."

 

Therefore, what? What is the inescapable conclusion given those two premises?

 

 

 

8 hours ago, EnigmaGrey said:

...it sounds like you don’t want to put the effort into designing a character, so why don’t you just “not do that” instead of try and argue there should be a fundamental change to the game? Emotional involvement and character development is all voluntary, just like combat.

 

Once again, no. It has nothing to due with my personal preferences.

 

Granting you the RNG, my question is about the game design regarding character development.

 

Time-intensive character development system/RNG permadeath vrs Streamline character development system/RNG permadeath.

 

It doesn't make sense to invest time in building your character when you're always one dice roll away from permadeath.