A few little suggestions to complicate the game

Aren’t zombies supposed to be only threatening in numbers?

Zombies are not smart. Even though the lack of awareness is due to a bug, if it got fixed I would push for it to be renew led if only for zombies, since a lack of situational awareness makes perfect sense for zombies. Besides, while kiting is a good strategy, it’s not perfect. Houses/cut off your view and groups of large zombies can easily smash through cars and go past shrubs. So, while taking down a small group of zombies should be easy, taking down a horde should be hard.

[quote=“Clayton, post:40, topic:4438”][quote=“John Candlebury, post:37, topic:4438”]Technically speaking strategy in real life IS STILL EXPLOITING YOUR SITUATION IN ORDER TO DEFEAT THY ENEMIES.

so if you have ever used strategy for anything you are by definition a dirty cheater![/quote]

Uh, no. No, not at all. Sorry. But no.

I don’t think strategy means what you think it means…and I don’t think exploiting means what you think it means.[/quote]

Exploit: to make productive use of (something)

Strategy: the science and art of military command exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions

Then exploiting your current situation for your benefit is strategy

I dont see why my approximation, even if worded in a ridiculous way is incorrect

It’s an exploit not a tactic (NOT A STRATEGY WHICH IS HIGH LEVEL), as it’s a ‘no-brainer’ - there is no reason NOT to bring them over bushes. This is a bad gameplay mechanic pure and simple.

What I really don’t understand is How is getting rid of the penalty more tedious?! I literally do not understand. You are now forced to find different ways to deal with them, which aren’t just ‘lead them into a bush’ - surely ANYTHING is less tedious than that!?!?!

The different tactics suggested were: walk backwards while hitting them whenever they get too close, walk around picking up stones and tossing them at zombies, grind melee on rats before you actually fight anything. The first two require even less thought when moving around than kiting them over bushes, and the last one is barely worth considering.

And the exploit/strategy/tactic issue is really a semantic one, and doesn’t belong here.

There is a difference between exploiting an enemy’s weakness in strategy/tactics and exploiting a game mechanic.

Name a single other game where bushes are the bane of a zombie’s existence? None.

So that must mean that it’s a product of the game’s engine and how it handles bushes and zombies.

So you’re taking advantage of the fact that a bush negates the zombies effectiveness…or…exploiting that fact.

Dun dun dunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Alright let’s tone it down a bit.

There are lot’s of potential tactics; I just named off a couple that came to mind. The bush strategy isn’t that useful for large groups right? So, if the implication here is that a player can’t handle 1-3 zombies without a bush without dying, they need to go back to square one and re-evaluate their entire strategy. I’ve said a quick smash and grab should be a viable solution if there’s not a huge crowd of zombies. Just charging and bashing should be a viable option in small numbers. You shouldn’t expect to escape every fight with a non-shocker without taking any damage. I guarantee with proper bush/obstacle usage, the only zombie that poses any threat is a shocker, and those are really only that dangerous when mobbed.

If you spot a brute or a special zombie day one and you can’t handle it, then you shouldn’t be able to rely on a bush to save you. You should have to avoid that section of town until you can handle them, or rely on other tactics to loot that area, sneak in at night, etc.

Yeah that is actually right. And If the bush thing is actually a ridiculous exploit is debatable, have you ever trying moving through a hedge or a wild bush, those things are pretty much a waist high web of branches and moving through them without cutting them is actually pretty slow and hard.

My point is that we shouldn’t really remove this “cheap tactic” that allows us to gain advantages when engaging zombies in melee without adding another, preferably more sensible, way of achieving the same results (breaking knees for example).

What I could see is every attack you do towards a bush having a (lets say 1 in 3) random chance of damaging the bush in a similar way as a smash, that would actually make sense and make it impossible to clear complete towns with a single brush.

I think you’re looking at this purely from the point of view of looting a city and facing a horde of zombies, but you have to consider the wilderness by itself. I understand that you’re trying to promote different tactics than pulling zombies out into the wilderness where you can kite them into bushes, but what about when you’re out in the middle of a field, with no cities nearby, and a pack of ravening wolves? Those are every bit as brutal as a horde of zombies, and kiting them over bushes is often the only way to survive early on. Particularly since zombears and zombie dogs now spawn dynamically.

The actual answer here is that the AI for intelligent animals should evade moving through the bushes to get to you, because thats pretty much the way animals act in real life. Not nerfing bushes.

You are in a bush. I am not in a bush, I have an advantageous condition over you (mobility/movement points)

I think some mobs such as cats, dogs (and zombie dogs), squirrels, rabbits, and rats shouldn’t get movement penalties from bushes.

In real life, without weapons and skills to use them, you would be torn apart by wolves, bushes or not. Your character does not have any special abilities unless you give them to it (which you have the option of doing in generation). If you choose not to take them, you shouldn’t complain when you get die in a situation where a normal person without those abilities would have no chance.

By that same token, you might as well not have zombies in the game at all, since you don’t find them in real life. This adds nothing to the discussion.

Actually, the entire premise of the game is a realistic zombie survival game. The mechanics should be realistic, the environments and enemies not necessarily. There is nothing realistic about slaughtering a pack of wolves because you were standing beside a bush.

And it adds plenty to the discussion because your argument for preserving an unrealistic mechanic is that it helps you to do something that would be completely unrealistic to expect someone to be able to do.

“Actually, the entire premise of the game is a hard, realistic zombie survival game.”

Went ahead and fixed that for everyone’s benefit.

Did Whales specify that? I don’t remember him particularly making it clear that Cataclysm was made to be specifically difficult. Might be remembering wrong, though.

It’s Clayton’s own particular hangup, I wouldn’t read too much into it.

Can you please not snipe at Clayton? I get you two don’t like each other, but you should probably keep that stuff between yourselves so we don’t end up with threads blowing into arguments again and again.

“Surviving is difficult: you have been thrown…” - From the Wiki

See that key word? “Difficult”. As in, it’s supposed to be difficult.

The countless admittances of exploiting the game I have seen are a testament that, in fact, the game isn’t difficult.

Along with the tons of other reasons that have been mentioned.

That’s the wiki’s description. You’re talking about the base premise which summarizes it’s unique points. DF would be advertised as being difficult. Cataclysm isn’t really advertised for it’s incredible difficulty, is it?

I figured you’d guys come up with a way to refute that hahahahahahahahaha.

“Uh…well…it’s uh…that’s not true!” lol