[Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline

[Rivet]

the cordoned region of New England were survivor act CZ - Cataclysm Zone

The Cataclysm wasn’t limited to New England; the whole world has been affected, and there are no more safe places.

[Stretop]

The Cataclysm wasn’t limited to New England; the whole world has been affected, and there are no more safe places.

True, but New England had the worst of it: it housed more portal-researching facilities that any other territory.

[kevin.granade]

Really? where’s that stated? My reading is that New England isn’t particularly special, it’s just where you are.
If we implemented very long-range (in terms of geography) changes, it would vary the climate and possibly vary the mixture of the cataclysmic events, but not the severity.

[Stretop]

[quote=“Kevin Granade, post:66, topic:5277”]Really? where’s that stated? My reading is that New England isn’t particularly special, it’s just where you are.
If we implemented very long-range (in terms of geography) changes, it would vary the climate and possibly vary the mixture of the cataclysmic events, but not the severity.[/quote]

Well maybe it was about original Cataclysm. Anyway, that actually makes my question even more important. Where all those faction-people are going to come from?

[Lorknis]

[quote=“Stretop, post:67, topic:5277”][quote=“Kevin Granade, post:66, topic:5277”]Really? where’s that stated? My reading is that New England isn’t particularly special, it’s just where you are.
If we implemented very long-range (in terms of geography) changes, it would vary the climate and possibly vary the mixture of the cataclysmic events, but not the severity.[/quote]

Well maybe it was about original Cataclysm. Anyway, that actually makes my question even more important. Where all those faction-people are going to come from?[/quote]
Out of state maybe or from those special towns with a crater in the middle of them where vaults are.

[RAM]

How self-sufficient should survivors be? Should camping out in the woods with a small farm and not a care in the world be a viable objective?

[Stretop]

Out of state maybe

If 99% of humanity is dead everywhere - not very likely.

[KA101]

[quote=“Lorknis, post:68, topic:5277”]Out of state maybe

If 99% of humanity is dead everywhere - not very likely.[/quote]

As of game start, there are probably (at least) some 17,695 living humans throughout the New England region. Given time and communication, 10-100 member factions are entirely reasonable.

And camping in the woods is currently pretty reasonable: there’s a profession specifically designed to do that, if you pick the “out in the woods” start.

[Stretop]

[quote=“KA101, post:71, topic:5277”]As of game start, there are probably (at least) some 17,695 living humans throughout the New England region. Given time and communication, 10-100 member factions are entirely reasonable.

And camping in the woods is currently pretty reasonable: there’s a profession specifically designed to do that, if you pick the “out in the woods” start.[/quote]

But how about estimates for mortality rates in post-Cataclysm world? Wouldn’t most of those 17,695 humans die out in the following 2-3 years? Also, how many of those 17,695 are actually able humans? As far as I understand your calculations - many of them are elderly (we should also factor in common tendency for modern human populations towards increasing of average age), many of them are physically or psychically unfit (and some are reliant upon complex medications and will quickly die without it). And some of them are even underaged children.

[iceball3]

[quote=“Stretop, post:72, topic:5277”][quote=“KA101, post:71, topic:5277”]As of game start, there are probably (at least) some 17,695 living humans throughout the New England region. Given time and communication, 10-100 member factions are entirely reasonable.

And camping in the woods is currently pretty reasonable: there’s a profession specifically designed to do that, if you pick the “out in the woods” start.[/quote]

But how about estimates for mortality rates in post-Cataclysm world? Wouldn’t most of those 17,695 humans die out in the following 2-3 years? Also, how many of those 17,695 are actually able humans? As far as I understand your calculations - many of them are elderly (we should also factor in common tendency for modern human populations towards increasing of average age), many of them are physically or psychically unfit (and some are reliant upon complex medications and will quickly die without it). And some of them are even underaged children.[/quote]Those survivors aren’t chosen randomly. Only the ones lucky or adept or coordinated enough will be part of that surviving population to begin with. The frail, disorganized, and unlucky folks are already zombies.

[Stretop]

Those survivors aren’t chosen randomly. Only the ones lucky or adept or coordinated enough will be part of that surviving population to begin with. The frail, disorganized, and unlucky folks are already zombies.

Good point. But that depends on how exactly that 1% survived. If they survived in evac-shelters - there would be plenty of “the frail, disorganized, and unlucky folks” - they simply must be close enough to that shelter at the starting moment of the Cataclysm.

[KA101]

I didn’t much bother with precision and checking on who would be most likely to survive, because enough demographics can change between 2010 and 2042/8 that it might well not matter. The point was to demonstrate that significant amounts of NPCs would live to game start and therefore could live to encounter the PC, not that any particular one would.

[Stretop]

Okay then. Can a list of currently planned factions and their agendas be added to design document?

[skavenswarm]

Could you make animals like coyotes eat none infected corpses please.

[kevin.granade]

This isn’t a feature suggestion thread.

[Derpular]

Just one thought: near the bottom of page 6, change

is xemself

to

are themselves

This isn’t the mid-nineties, we don’t need to prove how edgy we are by inventing new gender-neutral pronouns that sound like we’re gargling Lovecraftian summoning rituals. “They” has served just fine for this purpose since the middle ages.

[John_Candlebury]

In general I would support the use of “they” or null subjects over “xe”, both in the wiki and in documentation.

Just seems more adequate.

[MormonPartyboat]

[quote=“Derpular, post:79, topic:5277”]Just one thought: near the bottom of page 6, change

is xemself

to

are themselves

[/quote]

It’d be better English to just eliminate the phrase entirely, as it’s redundant. As a bonus, it’d shift the sentence’s focus from the player to the world: “Transcendence involves actively modifying parts of the world… bearing in mind that the player character is part of the world.”

This isn’t the mid-nineties, we don’t need to prove how edgy we are by inventing new gender-neutral pronouns that sound like we’re gargling Lovecraftian summoning rituals. “They” has served just fine for this purpose since the middle ages.

just lol

[FatherTed]

How strict is the “eschewing of fancy graphics”? I’m trying to get into making or editing tilesets and have thought of a few ideas in regards to the visuals/graphics. I’m guessing this is something that would be best made into a mod of some sort? My biggest problem is I have no idea what I’m doing.

Heres a link to the post that explains my ideas (and a link to another post that explains my ideas).

http://smf.cataclysmdda.com/index.php?topic=10695.0

Edit: Well I’ve thought about my own question for a bit and I’m not sure it’s really necessary to post it here. If prompted I’ll remove it but otherwise ill just leave it here. (Honestly I’m just trying to funnel as many people as possible to my original post, with the hopes that some poor soul will actually read all of it and decide to help me.)

[Pthalocy]

Mmn, last post here was on March 25 of this year. This thread is a very open-ended one so I’m not calling anybody out for thread necro (we have no official rules against it at time of this post’s writing). Your post here’s primary intent seems to be promoting your other thread, which is not really a bad thing, but I don’t see how it will help your intended goal.

Don’t worry man. We’ll find and post in your desired thread if we have something to contribute! Sometimes we’re a little slow. If the thread is a flop for whatever reason and gets buried behind new topics, it is perfectly okay to start a new thread and try again sometime later.