Also for being able to break open vending machines, they would be hard to crack open without time + tools
ones with common loot like water, soda, lighter, cigarettes would play an alarm when damaged and turn off for a short time.
Big machines like an ATM or ammo dispenser would be very hard to open without high mechanic & electronic skills + proper tools, and damaging them would automatically send police bots at the player
I don’t think you guys seem to grasp the concept that the game is set 5 days after the apocalypse.
This isn’t Fallout or Metro where people have been living in the aftermath of the apocalypse and have set up trade routes, towns, and systems of monetary bartering.
5 days after an apocalypse, people aren’t going to be thinking “Oh, well lets get in a car and go around seeing if we can trade for shit.” They’re going to be looking for ways to escape the apocalypse, let alone survive.
2 diffrent modes/time settings would be cool. The first one would be cata now, few days after everything and houses are still intact and not looted. And 2nd setting/time would be about a few years after everything. Settlements would be there and you would spawn in one. Trades for food and weapons would be there, but the downside is that the zombies are mutated in some way that I don’t really feel like explaining but they would be harder to kill and have a faster revive rate. Towns/citys would be mostly looted but you can still find food and a few guns out there, sitting on rotting bodies of explorers.
Everything about vending machines makes me sad. ;(
Y do u ppl want to abandon realism for being balanced? come on , you could easily smash through the vending machine windows and just grab everything (if i hasn’t already been grabbed.
5 days in apocalypse yo.).
And don’t go with the “vending machines will call police bots and tanks and airstrike by drones” because they don’t have no power and there’s no damn future i want to live in where you can’t just grab and go.
People is busy curing cancer and ending world hunger , not making powerless vending machine with tank bots dedicated to fall down the roof whenever some clumsy guy happens to crack his skull against the vending machine window/riot shield/super alloy plating. And where are the copbots when zombies smash my windows? Did the military and cops forget they have bots and drones ready for any situation , but stationed them so they only wake up when they hear vending machine glass crack?
[quote=“Clayton, post:22, topic:2573”]I don’t think you guys seem to grasp the concept that the game is set 5 days after the apocalypse.
This isn’t Fallout or Metro where people have been living in the aftermath of the apocalypse and have set up trade routes, towns, and systems of monetary bartering.
5 days after an apocalypse, people aren’t going to be thinking “Oh, well lets get in a car and go around seeing if we can trade for shit.” They’re going to be looking for ways to escape the apocalypse, let alone survive.[/quote]
5 days after the apocalypse, you are going to hurting for supplies something fierce. Trade has always existed, even in the most volatile and disastrous situations, as a means of gaining what you need in exchange for what you don’t.
Considering most people are/will be dead 5 days after an apocalypse, I don’t think you’re going to be hurting for supplies. Fun fact: the game starts 5 days after an apocalypse. There are still supplies…an abundance of them, actually. Just sitting there for the taking.
Having trade caravans or NPC towns after 5 days after the apocalypse started wouldn’t make sense.
[quote=“drake1storm, post:18, topic:2573”]Also, ted, that wouldn’t be very hard at all. You would just need a function that would be called when the barter screen opens that will get the id of the target npc, search through both it and the players inventory for anything flagged as a ‘gun’ while adding any gun types found to a separate array for each. It would then run, for each array, checking if that ammo type is in the others inventory, and adjust prices accordingly.
That is likely not the most efficient way (hard to be efficient when using text), but it should be effective while running too quickly to tell, so long as we don’t go gun nuts and add in 50 bagillian of them.[/quote]
As a player, I could drop the gun before bartering. Then I would get cheaper prices, and immediately pick up the gun afterwards. If the game starts checking for guns lying around, I leave the gun slightly further away. Repeat until the developers get sick of it and forfeit the arms race, or they stop trying to gouge me selectively and start gouging me all the time.
[quote=“Kevin Granade, post:19, topic:2573”]But I want the player to work around it, that’s the whole point.
Of course that means you have to have your favorite gun stashed somewhere the NPC can’t see it at all times you’re in sight range of the NPC, which means you don’t have easy access to it if there’s trouble… decisions, decisions… :D[/quote]
In that case, I just get two guns, and buy ammo for one while defending myself the other. Little or no extra risk, and the NPC gives me the better price. I don’t see a way to prevent this without scrapping the gouging idea, or removing most of the guns in the game.
It’s still very silly in the end result - I jump through an awkward hoop to trick the NPC into thinking I’m not using the things I’m buying. Why wouldn’t the NPC just start with the assumption that I’m buying things because I need them? To the extent that posturing over how badly the player needs stuff exists, it should just be abstracted into part of the Barter skill.
Also, if every trade encounter has a real risk of the player getting shot at, even with known trading partners, then trade probably won’t be very viable, so how it works wouldn’t matter.
[quote=“Clayton, post:26, topic:2573”]Considering most people are/will be dead 5 days after an apocalypse, I don’t think you’re going to be hurting for supplies. Fun fact: the game starts 5 days after an apocalypse. There are still supplies…an abundance of them, actually. Just sitting there for the taking.
Having trade caravans or NPC towns after 5 days after the apocalypse started wouldn’t make sense.[/quote]
You might be surprised. In times of crisis, obvious resources are quickly wasted (yes, people do fight over cans, only to leave with no can at all) as people stockpile random crap. There is also the issue that food has a set shelf life unless preserved, water is precious regardless, and you are going to need a means of defense against both zombies and your fellow humans. We can just look at katrina for how this went: tons of supplies SHOULD have been available, yet, regardless, there was still starvation and countless medical issues.
Humanity has just evolved to be not very good at sharing, unless they think they profit more in the end. But, you are right, trade caravans would definitely not be out at day 5. Honestly, the npc’s "FUCK YOU"s are probably more appropriate for this time period after a major disaster.
[quote=“Clayton, post:26, topic:2573”]Considering most people are/will be dead 5 days after an apocalypse, I don’t think you’re going to be hurting for supplies. Fun fact: the game starts 5 days after an apocalypse. There are still supplies…an abundance of them, actually. Just sitting there for the taking.
Having trade caravans or NPC towns after 5 days after the apocalypse started wouldn’t make sense.[/quote]
Speaking of that, if npc get a [size=36pt]huge[/size] advancement in their AI then we could possibly see things advance over time, at first lots of surivors making their homes into bases where they wait for [tt]their impending doom[/tt], the apocalypse to end. Over time some towns might become lawless zones controlled by gangs, or wild west like with everyone and their grandma packing heat.
Or just start the game a month or so after the apocalypse with the survivor in their borded up home and out of food.
Why I don’t think pre-existing NPC towns/merchants should be in the game…developing ones would be awesome! Like, helping/coordinating the creation of a town.
But still I see they are quite viable. Think of it as a greedy man entrepenuer before suddenly found a way to make a big hit. I could also see it as a man (canibal) lures walking food players in with the idea of trading, just to eat them.
I think that early on trades would be great, both storywise and balance wise. 5 days is more than enough time to turn a pickup truck or van into a trading outpost on wheels.
As for the idea of evolving bases and NPC towns. I agree it would be nice to say something like “No, the lookout tower should go on the west side, watching the swamplands.”. But I also think that the amount of coding to add dynamically created towns into the game, along with human interaction into their creation would be seriously hard. If it can be done than I am all for it, but otherwise I would have to say stick to the easier parts.
See I was thinking more along the lines of the NPC evaluates you when he first spots you and sizes up all your visible equipment, storing it for later reference.
So to pull one over on them, you’d need to spot them first, hide the weapon you want ammo for (by the way, you don’t know what ammo the NPC has at this point, so congrats on the precognition), then approach and barter with them.
[quote=“ted, post:27, topic:2573”][quote=“Kevin Granade, post:19, topic:2573”]But I want the player to work around it, that’s the whole point.
Of course that means you have to have your favorite gun stashed somewhere the NPC can’t see it at all times you’re in sight range of the NPC, which means you don’t have easy access to it if there’s trouble… decisions, decisions… :D[/quote]
In that case, I just get two guns, and buy ammo for one while defending myself the other. Little or no extra risk, and the NPC gives me the better price. I don’t see a way to prevent this without scrapping the gouging idea, or removing most of the guns in the game.[/quote]
Yep, you can totally approach with one gun at the ready to defend yourself, and buy ammo for the other, but what if they only have ammo for the gun you have? And now they know you have that gun.
Very silly assuming you can game it, you seem to think I’m talking about setting up the AI in a moronic way where the NPC will only evaluate what gear you have on you when you barter with them.
I’d say there’s a very low chance of the NPC ambushing you if you’ve successfully done business with them before, what I’m talking about mostly applies to the first encounter with a NPC, where you’re likely to both be on your guard. That having been said, if you showed up once kitted out with all kinds of weaponry and traded with a NPC, then later showed up being apparently defenseless, the NPC may well decide to take you out.
What do you think about the option to rob NPCs? Perhaps as a dialogue option. You select ‘Give me your stuff!’ and the NPC runs some logic to determine whether or not they submit peacefully or puts up a fight. Then it opens an exchange window where you can ‘take’ things for free, though each item you take comes with a risk (related to the item’s value) that they might change their mind and either fight or try to flee.
Then you can tie in a bit of a reputation system where robbing people gets you poor reputation with members of the faction you robbed from. Of course, if nobody were to find out…
Likewise, NPCs shouldn’t always attack when they want your stuff, they should give you the option of submitting. At first it’s ‘give me your stuff!’ and you choose to let them rob you or fight. Then it picks items the NPC wants from your gear and you again have the option of either letting them have the stuff or refusing and initiating combat.
Yea, threatening and robbing NPCs should be an option.
Actually the NPCs already have a mode where they rob you, but it’s a bit broken 
[quote=“Kevin Granade, post:32, topic:2573”]See I was thinking more along the lines of the NPC evaluates you when he first spots you and sizes up all your visible equipment, storing it for later reference.
So to pull one over on them, you’d need to spot them first, hide the weapon you want ammo for (by the way, you don’t know what ammo the NPC has at this point, so congrats on the precognition), then approach and barter with them.[/quote]
In the part you are quoting, I am explaining to someone else why just checking my inventory for guns wouldn’t work. Context matters.
The AI doesn’t need to do any evaluations or track any data. It can immediately infer that I am able to use ammo from my desire to purchase it. The system you propose makes NPCs behave less intelligently than they otherwise would. It serves no purpose.
Not nessecarily. Because I know that faction 2 will pay top dollar for my .22 rounds, I will buy them from faction 1 who is selling them dirt cheap.
Even in post apocalyptic societies people are still trying to make money.
The AI doesn’t need to do any evaluations or track any data. It can immediately infer that I am able to use ammo from my desire to purchase it. The system you propose makes NPCs behave less intelligently than they otherwise would. It serves no purpose.[/quote]
So you concede that it’s not a trivially game-able system?
Now on to your new argument, the item in question has a particular value to the NPC. For example, if its their only usable ammunition, they’d probably only part with it in exchange for something of high value, if then. If it’s surplus ammunition to them, it’d be a more moderate value, and if they can’t use it at all, it’d have minimal value. Regardless, they know how much it’s worth to THEM, and have to guess how much its worth to YOU. If they have surplus ammo and little food/medicine/whatever, they want to maximise the trade value, but they want to make that trade! They know if they set the price too high, the deal might fall through, and they’re stuck schlepping around potentially worthless gear. So, the thing to do is to try and infer how much its worth to YOU, and you possessing a gun of the matching type is a very good indicator of greater value. If they assume a high demand for everything, they risk not making a trade at all, and potentially starving, or dying of infection, whatever.
Also, you wouldn’t buy ammo in case you ran across a gun of that type later? that’s a kind of bizarre assumption to make.
No. You can still protect yourself with independent weapons like molotovs, grenades, and LAWs. However, the system is now very random - gaming it is more a matter of luck than anything else, so the mechanic is increasingly pointless because the player has fewer means to manipulate it.
All trade is directed by the player. When the player asks to buy something unprompted, it does not make any sense to offer a lower price, regardless of whether you think the player has a use for the item. The player obviously has a use intended for it, or there would not be a request for it.
If the player has proven disinterest in ammo the NPC does not value, such as by not buying it over an extended period of time, then it makes sense to make a special offer at a lower price. But in that case, the player has already demonstrated disinterest, which is more important than superficial indicators such as equipment.
If the NPC’s life hinges upon successful trade, that is better handled by changing the prices the NPC offers for the player’s stuff, not the prices of its own stuff. NPCs can have a good understanding of what they need, but struggle to determine what the player needs.
It’s very bizarre that you expect NPCs to sell ammo they can’t use, and players to buy ammo they can’t use.
No. You can still protect yourself with independent weapons like molotovs, grenades, and LAWs. However, the system is now very random - gaming it is more a matter of luck than anything else, so the mechanic is increasingly pointless because the player has fewer means to manipulate it.[/quote]
“Gaming” something with “luck” is an absurdity. Gaming something means that you can consistently influence the outcome in your favor, with an implication that it’s to a degree that allows you to extract arbitrary value from the system.
As you point out, you can interact with the system, but not freely manipulate it, which is the whole point. When approaching a potential trading partner, you can either keep your best gun at the ready for better protection, or conceal the fact that you need it. If you have access to many alternates such that you can conceal any and all items that this would be pertinent for and simultaneously protect yourself, congratulations, trading from strength has its advantages.
Also how do you get “random” out of a purely deterministic system? Just because you don’t have all the information doesn’t make it random.
Not all trade is directed by the player, why would it be? The NPC naturally won’t offer all their possessions for trade, that would be absurd. So it’s a decision on the NPCs part to offer things for consideration for trade, the player does the same. You can certainly bias the interface to be player-centric, letting them propose a deal and let the NPC have the accept/reject decision, computationally this is much easier, but there’s no reason the NPC can’t propose offers as well. You can have the NPC either propose entire deals, or propose adjustments to the deal offered by the player.
Or the player is trading something of high value to the NPC and low value to the player for something with a low value to the NPC and a high value to the player, perhaps even something of equal worth, but more portable. Regardless of whether there’s an actual currency, there’s value in possessing valuable items for future trade. Also with bartering it’s quite common to trade items both parties are somewhat indifferent about in order to balance the transaction. Also the question isn’t whether the player wants it, it’s a question of how much the player wants it, misc barter items or lifesaving self-defense equipment, it makes a difference.
Superficial indicators, like “I use this equipment to defend myself”. Why the hell would you be carrying around a gun you don’t intend to use? Certainly you could factor in things like “player didn’t buy this before” over time, but that’s a false dilemma, you can factor in both indicators.
That doesn’t make any sense, to evaluate a trade, you need to determine what an item you offer is worth to your trading partner, and what an item they are offering is worth to you, these values need to balance. If you lock down either side of the equation, you aren’t acting on all available information. Of course you also need to evaluate what an item you offer is worth to you, if its worth more than what’s offered in exchange, obviously the correct choice is to not make the deal. Similarly evaluating the value of an item offered by your partner to them can be an indicator of how much you can push the deal.
So you really need to evaluate the value of every involved item to every participant, removing this complexity is one of the major benefits of currency, allowing much easier evaluation of the worth of deals as well as enabling trades between entities who otherwise may have nothing of value to offer each other. Perversely, adding this complexity back is precisely the reason to have bartering in the game, as an additional mental challenge for the player to interact with.
It’s very bizarre that you expect NPCs to sell ammo they can’t use, and players to buy ammo they can’t use.[/quote]
Ammunition is highly portable, extremely valuable to the right person and can be finely divided, it’s very likely to be a dominant form of “small change” in a barter system. However, Its value as a currency will generally be overshadowed by its value as a weapon if you happen to have and be proficient with that weapon, especially if it’s your primary weapon.
I particularly like the idea of ammo having a relatively stable minimum value, to be used as discreet units to balance trade deals. That’s somewhere near to what Metro is doing but not explicit. You’re right, ammunition is the one thing that you can be relatively certain is always going to be useful to someone. It’s light, portable, easily divided, have different objective ‘values’ (some ammunition is better/rarer than others) and at the end of the day it might save someone’s life. It’ll just be more valuable to someone who has a gun to stick it into.
In a really ideal bartering simulation, the value of an object (or group of objects) would always be fluid.
Imagine a scenario where you approach an NPC, see he has ammunition for a gun you have back at your safehouse. You say ‘what do you want for all of those bullets?’ And the trade-savvy NPC thinks ‘what he really wants is these bullets. They must have value to him. I will demand extra.’
Imagine an alternative scenario where you approach an NPC, see he has ammunition for a gun you have back at your safehouse. But this time you are savvy and you look at his gear and say ‘Alright I’ll trade you this spare kevlar vest for that backpack, your flashlight, and since we’re still not even why don’t you give me that ammo you’ve got.’ And the trade-savvy NPC thinks ‘sweet, I’m getting one really good item for a handful of mediocre items.’ You get the bullets for the minimum trade value. You’re down a kevlar vest but you have some other gear you can exchange with someone else for stuff, or keep for a pinch.
Stuff like this would be reeeeally hard to code in, but I think it drives home the point that trade negotiations don’t have to be all or nothing. They can be fluid and have a puzzle component. You should be able to make mistakes, end up making bad deals, etcetera.