Does anyone else like to play with classic jombies?

Game Talk The Bunker
1

It feels more tense and real to me with classics on. I think of Left 4 Dead, Mel Gibson Mad Max Road Warrior meets The Book of Eli a la 28 Days Later with the mutated zombies on. Which is for sure interesting! But I find I’m less inclined to identify with my character and do things that I (imagine) I’d do in real life in this situation.

So I play with classics, and house rules.

Rule 1) If I were in this situation, my first order of business would be to find a car. So within reason, I run around outskirts searching for a car before I do anything else.

Rule 2) No skill grinding! This is NOT something I would do in real life. All skills are gained from using them practically. There are a few exceptions of course, like in real life if I built a bow I would definitely shoot a bunch of arrows at a target or something. But I’m not gonna stay in the woods and pick up 50 rocks and throw them at squirrels to train my throwing.

Rule 3) No staying in a cleared out town. Real towns and cities are much bigger, so I try to simulate that by moving from town to town as soon as one seems dull and boring.

Rule 4) No running over droves and droves of zombies in a car! At least until I have one with lots of spiked plating, when it would be more realistic. If I was in this situation and had been lucky enough to find a car, I wouldn’t risk destroying it by ramming it into a wall of zombies. I think in real life the potential for damaging the car by hitting 20 zombies in a row at 50mph is a little higher than it currently is in the game.

It sucks not being able to find science labs and stuff, but for me personally, playing Cata:DDA like this gives me a more rewarding experience. Especially in an ASCII game, where the emphasis is on the player to come up with their own ideas of how to imagine what’s going on in the world.

2

No shocker zombies = no easy CBMs. It’s tantamount to heresy. :stuck_out_tongue:

Nah, you have a good point though. It’s your choice but frankly I find the absence of specials/some wildlife/sci labs and some other fun stuff kinda boring, although it certainly is a bit more realistic. I think classic mode needs to be fleshed out a bit more for it to fully shine-- some more building types could certainly help.

3

Definitely. As much as I love the idea behind this game mode (and, back then, the mod that originated this game mode) it unfortunately becomes boring too fast.

But this mode has the potential to shine once NPCs and their related game mechanics (factions, NPC bases, etc) are properly implemented. If/when this happens I’ll at least give classic mode another try, as it’s closer to the “zombie survival” game that I imagined CataDDA to be.

But, again, without the emergent conflicts that NPC factions would surely create this game mode feels lacking. I’m glad to read that the OP has managed to squeeze some good entertainment from its current state, though.

4

I also love the classic zombie mode.

In the most recent experimental, skill grinding is not possible as a new skill was introduced.

5

[quote=“kenoxite, post:3, topic:2672”]Definitely. As much as I love the idea behind this game mode (and, back then, the mod that originated this game mode) it unfortunately becomes boring too fast.

But this mode has the potential to shine once NPCs and their related game mechanics (factions, NPC bases, etc) are properly implemented. If/when this happens I’ll at least give classic mode another try, as it’s closer to the “zombie survival” game that I imagined CataDDA to be.

But, again, without the emergent conflicts that NPC factions would surely create this game mode feels lacking. I’m glad to read that the OP has managed to squeeze some good entertainment from its current state, though.[/quote]

Yeah, when NPCs are finished it should certainly be a lot more fun. Instead of dealing with day-to-day survival Classic could be fun for focussing more on NPC quests and faction gameplay.

Also did I read that right? Emergent conflicts? Fuck yes. That sounds incredibly awesome.
I can just see some stupid sod trying a holdup on some faction raiding party. Ah, consequences. <3

To skill grinding: people actually grind? Geh. to be honest I don’t think I’ve ever done any grinding in this game aside from taking off parts from my doomtrain to optimize the design.

6

[quote=“Iosyn, post:5, topic:2672”]Also did I read that right? Emergent conflicts? Fuck yes. That sounds incredibly awesome.
I can just see some stupid sod trying a holdup on some faction raiding party. Ah, consequences. <3[/quote]
That is my assumption, based on the little leaked info since factions and fully featured NPCs were announced, mind you.

But if we assume factions can be either allied, neutral or at war with each other, and, following the survival theme, they’ll need resources the same way players do, I can imagine that a logical consequence would be inevitable fights over resources when two opposing factions are too close to each other. Only one city to raid, a water or food source around, etc. Something like this is already planned for monsters in the form of fungal migrations/expansion, so I don’t think seeing this eventually applied to the factions system is too far off.

That and quests, which AFAIK are intended to interweave with the factions mechanics (so, you’ll have missions by faction A to hurt or help faction B in some manner).

Hopefully all this isn’t just wishful thinking or me reading too much on the mentioned features. But I guess it’s fair to assume that some of that will be present, even if it’s in a very raw, simple form. As a hint of things to (hopefully) come, there’s already an item you can craft which allows you to establish an NPC base yourself.

7

It all sounds pretty nice. I’m sure that’s how it will be, but I’m thinking we’re quite far off from now. That item, would that be the shelter kit?

8

I was referring to the bulletin board. By creating one you can assign orders to the NPCs under your control (mainly, stay here, defend this, etc). Basically, it establishes a given point in the game world as a base.

9

YES this is exactly what I’m hoping for. Have you guys ever heard of the game Project Zomboid? It’s not free, but it’s an isometric zombie survival game with lots of roguelike tendencies that, in the final product, will feature a metagame filled with NPC camps and groups that will interact with one another. I actually got into Cataclysm after Zomboid, but Cataclysm is much more playable at the moment in my opinion.

But I totally agree with all above points, NPC group/individual interaction is MUTHA FUCKIN PARAMOUNT to all zombie survival games…in my humble opinion teehee. Also probably the hardest mechanic to accurately implement, so that’s kind of a bummer. But that’s one of the reasons I’m so excited about Cataclysm AND Zomboid, both teams have stated their desires to make this happen!

10

No need to guess, this kind of thing is exactly what we want with factions, but as also mentioned, it’s absurdly difficult to do right, so it has the greatest risk of anything we’re planning on of completely failing. I have total confidence that we’re going to have working tiles, z-levels, stealth, a cool fighting system, and a whole lot more.
I’m not super-confident that we’ll be able to implement NPC factions in a way we’re going to be totally happy with :frowning:

BUT! there’s a consolation prize, which is that we should be able to scale up NPC interactions bit-by-bit to have working NPC allies, then shopkeepers or similar, then settlements, then inter-settlement conflict. We’ll definitely be able to do the first few, the question is how far up this line we’ll be able to push it without burning ourself out, overloading the game, or making the universe implode.

11

If the universe implodes with you Kevin, and your skillset, then it means that I was driving. :stuck_out_tongue:

12

[quote=“Kevin Granade, post:10, topic:2672”]No need to guess, this kind of thing is exactly what we want with factions, but as also mentioned, it’s absurdly difficult to do right, so it has the greatest risk of anything we’re planning on of completely failing. I have total confidence that we’re going to have working tiles, z-levels, stealth, a cool fighting system, and a whole lot more.
I’m not super-confident that we’ll be able to implement NPC factions in a way we’re going to be totally happy with :frowning:

BUT! there’s a consolation prize, which is that we should be able to scale up NPC interactions bit-by-bit to have working NPC allies, then shopkeepers or similar, then settlements, then inter-settlement conflict. We’ll definitely be able to do the first few, the question is how far up this line we’ll be able to push it without burning ourself out, overloading the game, or making the universe implode.[/quote]

YES! This is great news…not sure how you guys were planning on tackling NPC factions, but one idea could be to just have a few static factions. Like how the old GTA games used to do it with Zaibatzu and the Rednecks and the…shoot…those hippy guys haha. Ya know? And there could be independent NPC’s not affiliated, but it just might be easier than trying to have NPCs who form their own coalitions.

13

[quote=“Kevin Granade, post:10, topic:2672”]No need to guess, this kind of thing is exactly what we want with factions, but as also mentioned, it’s absurdly difficult to do right, so it has the greatest risk of anything we’re planning on of completely failing. I have total confidence that we’re going to have working tiles, z-levels, stealth, a cool fighting system, and a whole lot more.
I’m not super-confident that we’ll be able to implement NPC factions in a way we’re going to be totally happy with :frowning:

BUT! there’s a consolation prize, which is that we should be able to scale up NPC interactions bit-by-bit to have working NPC allies, then shopkeepers or similar, then settlements, then inter-settlement conflict. We’ll definitely be able to do the first few, the question is how far up this line we’ll be able to push it without burning ourself out, overloading the game, or making the universe implode.[/quote]

Well, if we can at least have NPCs which can be interacted with in a meaningful way (have personalities, memory, might generate missions based on their background and needs, etc) and that are able to react and respond to the world properly (able to scavenge, barter, defend themselves, etc) then that’s certainly something.

Maybe a middle ground between what I guess is your vision of a full fledged faction system and something slightly simpler could be found if there would be two categories of NPC: primary and secondary. Primary NPCs would be a handful which you can interact fully with and which have all the mentioned AI capabilities. Secondary ones would basically be copy-paste ones with minimal AI, the only purpose of which would be to populate areas (fortresses, wandering in forests, etc). As you can see, my suggestion is nothing new. It’s how most RPGs use NPCs . You have the “story” or “utility” -shopkeepers, et- ones and then the rest -a random peasant randomly walking on a market square. It might also help to lessen the inevitable performance impact.

STALKER is a particular game (series of games, actually) which deals with NPCs in a similar way, and provides all the features that seem to be expected from a CataDDA one. They also divide them in two categories: those related to quests or who provide some kind of good, and then the rest of random ones whose only purpose is to either fight for their faction or scavenge on their own (and interactions are limited to ask for “news” or barter). In fact, STALKER would be a very nice example for CataDDA could be, as it deals quite successfully with everything we’re talking about here (NPCs, faction wars, AI scavenging, virtual wildlife, etc).

14

if we’re going to have factions, bases, etc. one thing that needs development is some kind of property system, so that if you pick up something that gets flagged as yours so once you drop it friendly NPCs won’t take it. neutral NPCs will only take it if there is no one else around to witness their crime, and of course hostile NPCs will take it, and try to kill you if you object.

15

Yeah, though cata is very far off from STALKER SOC, and I don’t mean by genre. The NPCs in STALKER were some of the best in any game I’ve ever played, period. Yeah, the music isn’t from STALKER, but it seems to fit so well. Do enter all those details and watch it, it’s well worth it.

I’ve still yet to see the NPCs take on the monolith though.
[size=3pt]
Also freedom was here, dutyfags suck.[/size]

16

I prefer classic zombies, I think it gives it a “28 Days Later” kind of feel. Unfortunately, I don’t like the change in map generation playing classic, so I usually don’t play with it.

17

i played classic when i first started out, kind of as a trainer, but once i figured the game out i moved on to the full game.

18

Yes, this is also why I’ve begun to play regular.

Does anyone know of a way to edit the special zombies and their attacks or something? I mean obviously there’s a way since it’s open source, but I would have no idea where to start

19

If the objection is with special zombies and special zombies alone, an option is to download the source, browse overmap.cpp in notepad++/etc, search ‘skip non-classic’ (around line 2914 I guess when I look at the current source), and invert the (OPTIONS[“CLASSIC_ZOMBIES”]) argument with a preceding ! to reverse the behavior so that special zombies are no longer spawned in normal mode. That way you could play regular mode without seeing any special zombies in towns, but you’ll still have giant ants, bees, etc.

If the objection is with not having labs in classic, you could search ‘ot_lab_stairs’ and add mfb(OMS_FLAG_CLASSIC) to the line beneath so that it’s still generated. Mi-gos, special zombies and other junk would probably still be generated as in non-classic since it’s not intended as a classic location, but I’m sure you can Resident Evil a plausible explanation for that. You can do the same with other locations in that file if you want, too.

Hopefully that works. However, I’m not a coder (and I’m not going to pretend to be), nor have I tested this, so I have no idea if it’ll even work. It is a starting point, though.

20

Ok, I downloaded the source but it’s for .6 I believe. Is there a way to edit the latest build? I’ve been trying to mess with the frequency numbers in monster groups but it seems to cause the game not to start.