Bring the survival back with progressive difficulty

I don’t understand what the problem with this would be. If you specialize your character to deal with one threat, that shouldn’t automatically mean you’re good at dealing with all of them. The game should force you to switch up your playstyle, to adapt and plan to overcome challenges, it shouldn’t coddle you so that no matter what you do you’ll come out on top in any situation.

This isn’t DCSS - there’s no requirement to go anywhere, and very little in the way of lock-in progression. It’s perfectly acceptable for the difficulty of a given zone to vary depending on what sort of build you’re tackling it with, esp. since it’s generally fairly easy to largely change your build. DCSS is a very tactical game, but playing it will certainly teach you the importance of choosing when, what, and where to engage. Not every battle is a good idea. But DCSS is a more tactical game, while Cataclysm is operating at a more strategic level. I don’t think it’s a problem for there to be entire small towns where engaging might well be a mistake for your particular character - if anything, it’s a way to keep things interesting by asking players to balance the risk and reward of moving into an area they might not be optimized to handle.

I'm not sure if you followe dthe link to the forum thread about the special zombie types, what GlyphGryph is referencing is "extra special" zombies that would be produced by some event, like a portal opening nearby. It wouldn't change over all the zombies, in fact it would only change a small minority if I understand the proposal correctly.
Actually, I was trying to outline a general system for making zombie challenges more interesting - we'd talked about this in an earlier conversation on IRC, about different ways to keep zombies fresh, and I think you're the one who actually brought up the idea of having variation from town to town in the sort of zombie challenge the player might face. And yes, one of those variations would be the portal-spawn and netherum-mutated zombies, but there could be others as well, rewarding the player for scouting ahead and picking their battles or at least preparing instead of always knowing "I dealt with the last town I can deal with this one too!"

I’m not terribly familiar with how Cata tracks things that are outside of the ‘reality bubble.’ So this may not be applicable at all, but in abstraction;

I’ve played at least one game where sites the player wasn’t actively in would be tracked with sort of a threat level. Like a scale from 0 to 10+, where 0 means the place is clear and 10 means it is absolutely teaming with enemies.

Each level is a potential amount of enemies. If it were a tabletop RPG it might be a 2d10 roll or something. Whenever your character enters the area it ‘rolls’ the number of enemies in the area.

In order to abstract the movement of large numbers of enemies outside the character’s influence, you would sort of peel off one or more threat levels and move them somewhere else. The actual number of zombies doesn’t matter until the group enters the player’s sphere of influence, at which point the game could figure out how many zombies are in the group.

This accomplishes a few things;
a) It allows the game to track large groups of ‘living’ entities without devoting much processing time. Hordes of zombies could move around the world and it would be akin to tracking the pathing of 30 individual zombies, even though it might represent 300 or more.

b) It gives you some control over how zombies move around rather than relying overly much on their pathing:

  • If a ‘site’ can be defined as something as small as a cave or as big as a city, then you could put hard limits on how many ‘levels’ of zombies can fit into that location. A cave might only be threat level 4 while a city might be threat level 10+City Size.
  • There could be a subtle long-term pressure by the system to depopulate overly populated areas (the chance of a level of zombies leaving a site is dependent on how many are already there compared to its ceiling), which would mean that you could start the game with prisons having very high threat level (10 of 10 max) and so they would be a natural tendency for prison zombie populations to leak out and join surrounding sites. If this overpopulates that site then the zombies will continue to migrate until the area’s zombie population is relatively homogeneous.
  • Certain sites could be ‘locked’ and cannot receive or donate threat levels until some condition has been met. This would allow you to preserve dangerous or ‘easy’ locations until the gates have been opened or a specific amount of time has passed, or perhaps just as a random event. It would be interesting to clear out an area and then have a FEMA camp open up and suddenly three levels of zombies are wandering through town.

c) This would ensure that zombie hordes aren’t spawning from nowhere, which would be frustrating. A well built up part of the map would be more dangerous because there would be more sites to attract threat levels of zombies, but you could, over time, clear out all the nearby sites and buy yourself considerable time before a threat level manages to wander in from far away. So you get the best of both worlds; threat of zombie hordes, but the possibility of clearing an area out. It just takes more time and a wider net than it has before.

d) This would make it possible to have very, very dangerous sites in the beginning that slowly become less dangerous over time, while increasing the danger of the world around it. This is a nice difficulty scaling measure for an entire area, that also opens up some very dangerous specific sites to exploration later in the game, after the population has thinned out a bit. This means you could potentially make access to certain locations (which may have high-tier gear) particularly difficult until later in the game. Another nice balancing mechanism.

e) Potentially you could use this to communicate information to the player about how dangerous a place is. This might not be a great idea depending on your view, but it might be nice if you could scout an area and discover its threat level. Since threat level is kind of a variable anyway and not a specific amount of enemies (if it were indeed a roll of 2d10 then that is 2-20 zombies per threat level, meaning a threat level 1 site could potentially have more zombies than a threat level 9 site if the rolls were wonky enough). But it would let the player know ‘hey, this area is scary’ or ‘this area has been cleared out.’ Add in a delay so that it only updates once every 24 hours or something, and you remove the ‘certainty’ element, so you can’t really be sure an area is cleared until you wait a while. (I have a feeling this wouldn’t be popular, as I’m sure some would prefer a ‘go by what you see’ philosophy, but I thought I’d tack it on there)

Fairly solid, and lines up with some things I’ve been thinking about.
Absent some stimuli, a group of zombies would either stay put or wander randomly with a probability of:
(group_size - terrain_cap) / X
Open fields and road would have a terrain cap of 0, and encourage wandering.
Houses, in-town roads, and shops would have a higher trerrain cap, meaning zombies would tend to stick there unless they’re overpopulated, and special areas like prisons/hospitals, malls would have very high caps, but probably be highly populated anyway. This also means if you clear out a part of a town, the rest of the population will tend to flow into the cleared area. Also zombie populations will tend to diffuse out of towns during the early part of the game, and eventually they would tend to stick in scattered locations with an elevated terrain_cap. The problem with this is that while we can afford to run such a thing across one or even several overmaps, we can’t do it across every overmap, so going to a new overmap would reverse this trend and you’d run into zombie populations that are still clustered in their original towns. Really that’s a marginal issue though, will probably not be noticeable in a real game.

As for implementation, it’s just as easy to have an actual group of zombies moving around, as long as you treat them as a group and don’t reference their individual data as they move around. The grouping is very important though.

The question of “what you see is what you get” is tricky. On the main display you can only see individual monsters within a certain range, but you can see overmap features from a bit further away. It might be reasonable to check for monsters and warn that “there is a large group of something over here” on the overmap, or even as some kind of indicator on the main UI. While spotting a single zombie might be questionable, you’d be able to see a herd from quite a distance away.

All good points and have clarified it greatly.

Kevin: Completely agree with it being a bit jarring if you clear it and they appear again from no where - you’re quite right that your system works better, I just had thought of it as one singular big horde that wanders around and deposits zombies - if there are lots of smaller hordes/groups which follow your plan of moving (fantastic ideas by the way on terrain cap) and filling in empty areas then it’d make a lot more sense.

Possibly infested skyscrapers/something in the middle of big cities could also generate more zombies? this would make sure that zombies kept on flooding into the big cities from the centre instead of relying on groups to filter in.

Haha, you’ve obviously already put plenty of thought into it. I like what you’ve got, the terrain_cap concept is pretty interesting and gives a more fine-grained movement pattern for individual zombies. I just figured that moving around hundreds of zombies all the time would be prohibitively stressful on processing turns.

This is sort of a tangent, but this might be an opportunity to use the radio to communicate information about the area to the player. Automated messages for when a prison opens up could alert the area of a prison break, thus informing the player that a new horde of zombies is wandering from that location. Same could be done for FEMA camps and potentially other areas. The messages would need to be automated (not about zombies, more generic alert messages that imply that zombies have moved out of an area, into an area, or through an area) and the player should have to do some guesswork regarding what it means, but it would help provide some context so that these elaborate systems don’t appear overly opaque.

Just have the radio transmit all relevant messages from the map area the player is in, probably including time-stamps of when the event occurred so that the player can distinguish between two identical messages from different locations.

FEMA camps already transmit, but they’re (intentionally) downright misleading.
Automated “jailbreak” message from the prison sounds cool.
This is something I’d like to expand a bit more, I need to extract radio messages to a json file so people can mess with them. Might to go the overmap terrain file since radio messages are generally attached to that, not sure though.

There is no big problem with spawn, the problem is in respawn.
Right now after looting one city I can just grab a car and move to another one easily, looting infinitely. The same stuff with labs and military objects.

The idea:
Every time when game expands your overmap, there should be these modifers, representing looting and carnage IF at least from two to five days from the last change passes:

  1. -10% of amount of food in the houses and stores. (Up to -60% in houses and -80% in stores)
  2. -15% chance to find something advanced (automatic weapons and non-revolvers) in gun stores (up to -60%)
  3. +5% for military objects of being opened and looted (up to 40%).
  4. +10% to spawn additional zombies near corpses (military, scienticists, etc), up to 90%.
  5. +4% to every building of being burned, particaly or entirely (up to 20%).
  6. +10% for every shop being looted (up to 60%).
  7. +5% for every car to be additionaly damaged after creation (up to 50%).
  8. -10% to find no gas in the pump (up to -70%).
    9)+5% for zombies to become advanced ones (up to 40%).

Starting season: autumn. WINTER WILL BE SOON UPON YOU, SURVIVOR.

[quote=“Atelerd, post:47, topic:4434”]There is no big problem with spawn, the problem is in respawn.
Right now after looting one city I can just grab a car and move to another one easily, looting infinitely. The same stuff with labs and military objects.

The idea:
Every time when game expands your overmap, there should be these modifers, representing looting and carnage IF at least from two to five days from the last change passes:

  1. -10% of amount of food in the houses and stores. (Up to -60% in houses and -80% in stores)
  2. -15% chance to find something advanced (automatic weapons and non-revolvers) in gun stores (up to -60%)
  3. +5% for military objects of being opened and looted (up to 40%).
  4. +10% to spawn additional zombies near corpses (military, scienticists, etc), up to 90%.
  5. +4% to every building of being burned, particaly or entirely (up to 20%).
  6. +10% for every shop being looted (up to 60%).
  7. +5% for every car to be additionaly damaged after creation (up to 50%).
  8. -10% to find no gas in the pump (up to -70%).
    9)+5% for zombies to become advanced ones (up to 40%).

Starting season: autumn. WINTER WILL BE SOON UPON YOU, SURVIVOR.[/quote]

I think that’s a good way of dealing with it, but despawning items might leave some people to feel as though they need to quickly rush around and grab stuff (which I feel is easily gameable) and I feel there are better ways to deal with zombies than just straight addition.

However, damage to buildings and cars as well as the looting of some shops/houses at random (a small amount, but sort of noticeable) over time would be a great addition.

[quote=“Binky, post:48, topic:4434”]I think that’s a good way of dealing with it, but despawning items might leave some people to feel as though they need to quickly rush around and grab stuff (which I feel is easily gameable) and I feel there are better ways to deal with zombies than just straight addition.

However, damage to buildings and cars as well as the looting of some shops/houses at random (a small amount, but sort of noticeable) over time would be a great addition.[/quote]

What will you do if there will be apocalypse? Yeah, for the first days you will try to gain as many supplies as you can, cause you know that it will be harder to obtain anything valueble after these first days. So, there is nothing bad or unrealistic.

[quote=“Atelerd, post:49, topic:4434”][quote=“Binky, post:48, topic:4434”]I think that’s a good way of dealing with it, but despawning items might leave some people to feel as though they need to quickly rush around and grab stuff (which I feel is easily gameable) and I feel there are better ways to deal with zombies than just straight addition.

However, damage to buildings and cars as well as the looting of some shops/houses at random (a small amount, but sort of noticeable) over time would be a great addition.[/quote]

What will you do if there will be apocalypse? Yeah, for the first days you will try to gain as many supplies as you can, cause you know that it will be harder to obtain anything valueble after these first days. So, there is nothing bad or unrealistic.[/quote]

And if there are looter wrecks/corpses with the missing Stuff, fine. That’s realistic. Looter Zeds even and piles of stuff.

But since 99% of the population is already dead or rezzed within 72 hours…WHY would loot disappear? Who’s around to take it? Food rots but nonperishable goods…don’t. That’s the point.

Oops, my bad. Looter zombies - sounds good.

The problem is that this system largely serves to disencourage traveling. Once you know that all the good loot is gone after the first few days, after that first mad scramble to grab everything possible, you’d just hole up with all your stuff and never travel anywhere after that. Which is a legitimate playstyle, if someone wants to play that way, but I don’t think you should force it onto people. Plus, it encourages metagaming, where the player just spawns new characters over and over again at different survival shelters, consolidating all the loot in safe spots while ensuring the game never progresses beyond those first few days.

That’s why I think that these factors would be good in extreme moderation. Maybe one house out of 15 per fortnight could get looted (and not completely cleared out either I suppose) - it’d make the world feel alive, and might have an impact on your survival, but wouldn’t mean you’d just run out of stuff.

If anything though, looting would surely encourage travelling and exploration, as you’d have to keep moving to non-looted areas? If you needed more ammo, and the gun shop was looted, you’d need to make your way to another town to find one. That’s exactly what I want out of a survival game!!

Also, When NPC camps/bases are implemented, these could have a ‘looting radius’ which ups the looting considerably in that area. This would in turn cause you to explore more and possibly side against an NPC camp if it was in an area you particularly wanted to keep.

It really only works if the stuff near to you disappears, though, and that’s hard to justify if you don’t have any survivors or looters nearby. If the further you travel, the less stuff you find, you’ll probably conclude you’re wasting fuel and retreat to your starting base to make the best use of the resources you have.

The game is intended to eventually have NPC groups. They’re just not implemented yet.

So you can assume there are people who are looting. They’re just acting ‘behind the curtain’ right now because NPCs are not fully implemented. Just because you can’t run into people doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

It may be a decade before they actually get implemented, but that’s not really the point.

Still doesn’t address the core issue, though.

It isn’t meant to address it directly. It is meant to be a justification for a system that diminishes the number of items in the world.

Yes, but the proposed system, even if justified on a ‘realistic’ level, still encourages metagaming and burning through as many characters as possible, which seems contrary to the style of play the game tends to encourage.

I’m sure this would be fixed when this sort of thing/time was implemented. I mean, the direction the game (or at least what seems to be planned) seems to be going in is that linear time will be a big factor, and this will have to be sorted out for the re-spawning aspect.

As I see it, it would eventually be tied to NPC groups, so areas without NPC groups would probably be more dangerous but less looted and vice versa, until then, this could just be a very small chance behind the curtain. I’d expect to see at most 5-10 per average city looted, so it’s not going to be like you run out of stuff.

Secondly though, this IS a survivalcraft game, and part of that is not being able to find everything you want.

Problem with that system is many people where simply killed right from the start before they even knew what was going on. Though I agree houses could be filled a little less, just having loot poof in to thin air is stupid. Also you cant use something as an excuse if it doenst even work >.>