Mutation category expansion: Game balance derail

Game Talk The Drawing Board
1

What if instead of combining mutations into mixed ones, you acquired them in good/bad pairs, that, if removed, are removed at once?

That’s not done with health, and for the most part, not with clothes. Also, the current bionic system does not take those into account either, so your argument is extremely, extremely moot.

The point here is that uncapped systems are always flawed on either of the two earlygame-endgame scale ends. You either design them with earlygame in mind, where they’re useful, viable to obtain, and utterly, utterly overpowered lategame, or you design them with lategame in mind, where they’re very hard to obtain early on, and useful but not overpowered later on. As of right now, in Cataclysm, worst approaches of both are combined - bionics are useful earlier on, but damn tough to obtain, later on they become extremely easy to obtain, with some being super powerful(power creep right here) to offset the fact that you can obtain the lower-end ones trivially. And honestly, unlike in a game with levels, here all you need is some easily approachable grind to obtain them. There are no choices to be made, and the system is unsatisfying, prone to power creep, with balance all over the place because of he early-late game dichtomy.

If the system had slots, the following would be taken care of: Drasticity of wasting a bionic earlygame, lack of choices to be made, running out of bionic screen letters, becoming a demigod, lack of lategame choices, inviability of allowing the player to use bionics early(due to how OP they are without limits) - it would be possible to add lower-end consumer bionics that later on could be replaced, unlike now, where it would result in 1+1+2+2+5 total stat bonuses from all the bionics.

That’s not what I’m proposing. I’m proposing making the player less all-powerful, and that is always a good idea.

The thing here is, that repairing a powersuit, or even a crucial part of a high-tech liquid-cooled full-auto weapon, is laughably beyond anything a survivor could do, even if they rebooted an entire science lab.

Heavily damaged parts, dynamically generated “Piece of [item]” for utterly destroyed, which would be possible to melt down, but not outright transmute into something else.

Not everything is crucial to have, and that should be reflected in the gameplay style. As of right now, virtually everything is relatively easy to acquire, leading to every longer-running game ending up essentially the same. The most fun part of great roguelikes is that what you find, especially early on, decides how your playstyle will look. As of right now, in Cataclysm, after 3-4 day mark, virtually no substantial differences in playstyle exist anymore.

For an example, I found a road roller few succession-style characters into my world, and installed roller drums on my deathmobile. And before that I found a military vehicle. Was that fun? Damn yeah. If they were manufacturable, I’d just min-max my way to them. I’d hunt down few animals, stock up on food, set up funnels, and grind my way to everything. And so would everyone else who played the game more than few times, because if you’ve been to the lategame, that’s where you want to be.

Yeah, I’ve been a superman for 5 years now #sarcasm

First off, it’s not, and second off, it leads to a couple of extremely nasty design problems. First off, it makes lategame boring, because at some point, zombies, houses, even cities themselves, become filler, content that’s not even worth your attention. Second off, to prolong the game, you end up adding more content, but that content isn’t ubiquitous between stages of the game. It’s either earlygame, midgame, or endgame. Or endgame of endgame. You end up with a tier system, where everything below your level may as well not exist. It’s wasteful. You could add 100 pieces of armor with interesting effects to the game, and 99% of players would only ever use 5 of them. And third off, a tiered system works in other games for a simple reason - game areas are tiered as well, and so is game content. That’s not the case in Cataclysm. As you grow stronger, majority of the map simply becomes filler. Boring, boring, filler. And so do most items that you can find. Instead of finding something new and being excited, you find something new and not even look at it because it’s worse than what you’ve got.

I’m not going to claim I’m correct about everything I proposed, but game design is the only thing I’m more crazy about than programming. I’ve been reading every single piece on game design that I’ve seen for years, I’ve played hundreds of games for the sole purpose of analyzing them and deconstructing their mechanics. I firmly believe that I have at least a rough idea as to what I’m talking about, and what effects on gameplay it would have. I believe that making various content less crucial, more expirable, more easily accessible, but harder to find and with more use conditions, as well as much less tiered, would result in a game that would have much more playstyle variety, would be easier to balance, have less irrelevant content, be more challenging with less instagib necessary to keep up the challenge, and where the game ends not when you become too overpowered to be entertained, but where you run out of the last bits of content to see and play the last playstyle possible.

Sorry for the wall of text semi-irrelevant to the topic, and for the potentially aggressive tone. I tend to get randomly agitated sometimes.

2

I agree about pretty much all of that.

Especially the part about tiered locations. “One size fits all” causes most of the balance problems with the game - new players complain about drones gunning them down, experienced players complain about being able to shank everything else by the end of the 2nd day.

3

I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who is having trouble with the current mutation system.

Does it really remove the sense of getting something good or bad by mixing them though? It does to a degree, but I don't think it removes that entirely. Mutations are basically acquired in two different forms. There's early game where the player gets irradiated, fails a bionic installation, finds a mutagen, or other means by which they gain a random mutation. The current system works perfectly as-is for this, as mutation becomes a gamble with the potential for great payoff. The second form is where the player carefully guides their mutation by repeatedly mutating and purifying to get something that they want. Anyone who survives long enough will reach this point. This turns the risk-reward system into a controlled grind, and all but removes the negative aspects of mutation. It almost becomes the opposite of what it was, what it should be, once the player is given control over it.
When you're in the late game, there is no sense of risk in mutation. It does feel risky in the early game when you're getting mutagen from random sources. But in the late game when you have 10+ cooking skill, gallons of mutagen lined up in neat little rows, several volumes of information on it, and plenty of in-depth experience, KA101s description of what mutagen should be is no longer accurate with the reality of the situation. It doesn't feel like it should be risky, it feels like it should have already become a science to the character involved but is not, because the game demands it not be through some dogmatic reasoning. You would obviously expect to get a better deal than back in square one, so you grind until you get something worth all of your effort in rounding up the crap you need to get this far with mutagen. The mutation "gamble" has very little merit in terms of gameplay or even lore then. It just seems incongruous.

You will always have a grind for “the perfect mutant” in the late game because who would want to exchange effort for negative traits? It’s an unpleasant experience for the player and a turn off. You feel like you wasted your time, and by all accounts you have.

What if instead of combining mutations into mixed ones, you acquired them in good/bad pairs, that, if removed, are removed at once?
This sounds really cool, and I was about to suggest it too.

I also agree with most things you said in that post. There were a lot of good ideas there. I especially agree with the idea that there is no variation in the late game of DDA. All of the characters agglomerate into a big sameish blob at a point.

4
  1. There are specific mutations for health (especially - post-threshold ones). So nope, it is done for health
  2. Clothes are not done not for in-game reasons, but for reasons of difficulty of actual implementation of this right now. So as it stands XL-clothes system is placeholder for it. So, again, nope.
  3. And the current bionic system does not take those into account exactly because it is slotless anyway.

So it is your counter-argument is what is “extremely, extremely moot”.

But let me tell you a secret: you can… not grind. Yes, it is not necessity - it is your choice. It is not like the game will punish you for not-grinding.

And, whether you like it or not, grinding (to some degree) is realistic: what do you do when you want to become stronger? You do strength training. And you do it again and again until you gain more strength (oversimplification, sure, but analogy still stands). How are you expecting for game that aims to be realistic to avoid that?

I still fail to see, what you consider to be a problem. Do not want to be a demigod? - Okay, do not become one. The choice is yours, but do not force your choice onto others.

As for “lower-end consumer bionics” in the world of Cataclysm they do not exist by canon: “the initial drive for bionic augmentation (for the Troops) has resulted in higher-end consumer electronics being integrated into one’s body, though bionic gear remains largely unaffordable for the working classes…”

By enforcing arbitrary concrete ceilings? No, it is not. With enough time and effort intelligent creature in capable of everything. And with far less time - if you have access to such wondorous technologies.

“Laughably beyond”? Nope, not at all. Maybe you consider survivor to be some barbarian, illiterate, running around in loincloth and uncapable to use a console, but some survivors can have (especially - with right mutations and bionics) IQ far beyond 200 - more than enough to use any technology.

And technology is intact: manhacks and eyebots are flying around, scitterbots and security systems are perfectly functional within labs and bunkers. And survivor can acquire all needed skills for the job.

As for unrepairable equipment itself: as germans learned so painfully during latter part of WWII with their tanks, an americans - during earlier part of war in Vietnam with their assault rifles - mass-produce something that is intended for war but cannot be repaired in the field is utterly foolish. And those rifles and armors are not some kind of “prototypes” - they are produced and delivered to army in stock.

But “lumps of steel” already represent exacly this: pieces of metal items. What you are proposing is unnecesary detalization of trivial things. And all those forges (supposedly) have equipment for metal-forming anyway, so this would be just unneeded additional step in the process.

If you do not want something - do not craft it. What is the problem?

  1. “Everyone of us wants to learn how to stop speaking for everyone of us” =) When you start speaking about fun - remember, that you are speaking only for yourself, and others may not consider your “fun” to be fun.
  2. So are you essentially proposing that player’s playstyle should be decided by RNG rather than player himself?
  3. If you want different playstyle - play differently. It is Low-intensity roguelike no one is going to kill you (and your character =) for it. And you keep speaking as if someone chained you down to “path to demigodhood”.
  1. Again: “fun for you” is not “universal fun”. You want your fun - you can have it. But you should not force everyone else into your “fun way” to do things.
  2. Your min-maxing is your choice and not a game problem.
  3. Your grinding is, again, your choice and not a game problem.

You would have if you’d had such free and unrestricted access to such convenient human-modification technology and desire for it. #deadserious

First off, it’s not,[/quote]

Why, because you said so?

No. It is content that you are not forced to pay attention to anymore. And yet you are free to play with it if you so wish.

Do you feel like you must be forced into everything?

If someone would add heavy, winter and fireproof XL survivor armors - I would gladly use them, by the way. And if you create “armor with interesting effects” and no one uses them - that means that your armor’s effect is not “interesting” for players - it is useless for them.

And now you fighting differently colored creatures for differently colored items. Sooo exciting… #goneintohybernation

Speak for yourself. When you find something new - you may as well be excited about finding something new, regardless of its usefullness to you personally. You know, “joy of exploration” and all that.

Being crazy about something and being good at it are greatly different things.

And the only thing you are demonstrably good at (judging by this thread) seems to be construction of virtual operant conditioning chambers (also known as Skinner boxes). Which is saying much about current state of game design theory. This is sad.

And that gives you nothing. Why? Because when you create a game - you create it not for yourself. You create it not for the game itself. You create it for players. And your players are going to be (most probably =) humans. So you would have been better served by “analyzing and deconstructing” players rather than games. For example - have this. This will help you to understand “fun”. Not your “fun” but “fun” as generalized category.

I actually enjoy such tone, so you are welcome to use it =)

5
  1. There are specific mutations for health (especially - post-threshold ones). So nope, it is done for health[/quote]

Is this the hidden health stat that determines your healing speed and susceptibility to disease/infections, or are you talking hit points?

6

There are mutations for both.

7

-Snip Part Two-[/quote]

This whole argument from the very beginning looked like yet another rise of “The game is too easy for me now, make it harder.”

Cataclysm’s biggest problem, content wise, is there’s a lot of end game gear but not challenge, so what ends up happening is 85% games will start off, last maybe a day, but ultimately die, and the other 25% are the ones where you get all the end game gear and spend the rest of the game rolling around doing nothing. In the beginning, when you first start playing the game, these numbers are more along the lines of 95% and 5%, and late game, once you know all the mechanics and how to survive the beginning five minutes, you’re left with the only dieing from the occasional rectal-exam tankbot/turret/mi-go at the start.

And this scares away a lot of players. Then, who it doesn’t scare away, eventually learn the dark truth of the game, in that there’s no late-game challenge. Which leads them to do one of two things: Go away until someone tells you on Tumblr some big changes have happened and you should give it another chance like an ex insisting they’ve changed. Or, alternatively, go on the forums and cry “IT’S TOO EASY. MAKE IT HARDER. NERF ALL THE THINGS, make zombies spawn on the dead dealers, make Mi-Gos spawn on dead soldiers/scientists, Have all the gun stores patrolled by columns of tankbots, remove Rivtech, remove bionics, remove mutations, remove anything that makes late game easy, but for the love of god don’t make late game more difficult.”

Sorry to derail the topic, but this train was already well on it’s way off-track.

8

yup

9

Isn’t that functionally the same thing, but with more complexity?

[quote=“Bonevomit, post:3, topic:8589”]

Does it really remove the sense of getting something good or bad by mixing them though? It does to a degree, but I don’t think it removes that entirely. Mutations are basically acquired in two different forms. There’s early game where the player gets irradiated, fails a bionic installation, finds a mutagen, or other means by which they gain a random mutation. The current system works perfectly as-is for this, as mutation becomes a gamble with the potential for great payoff. The second form is where the player carefully guides their mutation by repeatedly mutating and purifying to get something that they want. Anyone who survives long enough will reach this point. This turns the risk-reward system into a controlled grind, and all but removes the negative aspects of mutation. It almost becomes the opposite of what it was, what it should be, once the player is given control over it.

When you’re in the late game, there is no sense of risk in mutation. It does feel risky in the early game when you’re getting mutagen from random sources. But in the late game when you have 10+ cooking skill, gallons of mutagen lined up in neat little rows, several volumes of information on it, and plenty of in-depth experience, KA101s description of what mutagen should be is no longer accurate with the reality of the situation. It doesn’t feel like it should be risky, it feels like it should have already become a science to the character involved but is not, because the game demands it not be through some dogmatic reasoning. You would obviously expect to get a better deal than back in square one, so you grind until you get something worth all of your effort in rounding up the crap you need to get this far with mutagen. The mutation “gamble” has very little merit in terms of gameplay or even lore then. It just seems incongruous.

You will always have a grind for “the perfect mutant” in the late game because who would want to exchange effort for negative traits? It’s an unpleasant experience for the player and a turn off. You feel like you wasted your time, and by all accounts you have.[/quote]

I agree completely. This is why we have people bragging about 55 gallon drums of mutagen.

If you give the player a choice to either get more powerful or stagnate, nobody is going to choose the latter. Having the choice not to become more powerful is the same as having the choice to not play the game at all. It’s a moot point. A desire to improve is a major driving force. Unfortunately, if the player becomes too powerful, then there is no challenge left to overcome. The player needs to be able to continue to improve without either hitting a hard cap, or skyrocketing into godhood.

This is why I think that mutations are the perfect system to specialize the player’s abilities, not just boost them. It improves the player without just being a solid stat-booster. The player has a goal to work toward, is better off for reaching it, and it maintains the game’s challenges.

Also, further on the topic of late-game challenge, I think adding a fatigue system would work wonders.

10

If anything, I am precisely against that. For the note, the mention of tiered areas and content was not a suggestion. It was a demonstration of how MMO games deal with the problems of tiered content, that are not possible in Cataclysm. Skinner box style design is precisely what I hate the most and am against.

Also, you talk about choosing to. You mention the skinner box model, so I will assume you know what that is. It’s constructing a game using mechanics that have a subconscious effect on the player’s decisions, choices, as well as ones that cause addiction/compulsion. One of such effects, is the drive to be stronger, particularly, in a game where death means loss of all your achievements. If there is a way to become a demigod, the majority of people will walk precisely that path. And that leads to the problem of tiered content, which leads to more secondary and tertiary problems, including running out of fun, or making a lot of content utterly irrelevant.

Being aware of player psychology and how it affects the way games are played is not synonymous to attempting to condition players.

As for toning down the vertical progression, which was the bulk of my argument - the steeper the power curve is, the higher the “help police bots mow me down / help tankbots are too weak for me :(” syndrome is. There is no solution other than toning it down, and toning it down will most certainly have positive results.

And right here you’re demonstrating the problem. In steep vertical progression systems, there are only two places for new, relevant content. First is new earlygame option, second is endgame stuff that’s stronger than everything else than exists. And fireproof/warm/bulletproof is an example of horizontal progress - different gear for different circumstances. Arguing against me, you right now have demonstrated the validity of my arguments.

Sorry, but no IQ level will let you bypass requiring an entire experimental technology industry to work on a powered suit, or otherwise let you achieve an extremely high level of precision. And IQ is at most indicative of intellectual capacity, it means nothing about the ability to learn and use things. If anything, intellect is related more closely to the ability to come up with new associations and ideas, rather than learning how to accomplish tasks. And besides, many things are outright irreparable. You can’t repair an actually smashed gun without replacing parts, the same is the case with virtually any precision machinery. You can’t just straighten an engine cylinder or a piston.

All in all, I believe you don’t get any of my points. If majority of game content is easily acquirable and can be repaired ad-infinitum, the result is, citing Bonevomit

And the worst is that the same thing happens earlier on as well. This game has enough content to be playable in a million ways, and yet, with the current system, there is virtually no real choice. Do you limit your success in life by roleplaying? Throw away half your money perhaps? Do you really expect people to do the same in a game? Yeah, it’s not reality, but the psychology is the same. Even if a stealth run would be extremely entertaining, nearly no one is going to risk their character for its sake. If a game’s mechanics result in it being less fun, regardless whether they can be optionally avoided, they can, and should be, fixed.

If you really want to, you can do anything you want in any game. But roleplaying a traveling musician isn’t the same as playing as one, with instruments and dedicated mechanics that are viable. If you need to play a game inside a game to have fun, that’s sort of shitty.

Also, I could as well not post this because Synthetic summed it up perfectly. I suck with words, and I suck hard.

11

No. It is content that you are not forced to pay attention to anymore. And yet you are free to play with it if you so wish.

Do you feel like you must be forced into everything?[/quote]

Being “forced” to do stuff is the difference between a game and storytelling/simulation/roleplay.

A “game” with no goals, no chance of losing, no requirements and no difficulty is not a game.

The game’s name is Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead. Not Walking Simulator: Days of Walking Around.

12

But “not being a demigod” does not kill you in this game. There is no such power creep of the game world you have to outpace to survive.

So what do you want to do about it?

It is mathematically impossible. You see, steepness of this curve is due to it having many contributing factors (skills, mutations, bionics, equipment). Each of them have a near-linear progression and together they have a multiplicative effect. This makes resulting curve nearly parabolical, and parabolical curves can be toned down only by decreasing function’s power (and for this you must remove some of contributing factors) or adding linear or parabolical deductible function (game-world resistance power creep). Neither of this seems to be feasible (judging by design document).

And right here you’re demonstrating the problem. In steep vertical progression systems, there are only two places for new, relevant content. First is new earlygame option, second is endgame stuff that’s stronger than everything else than exists. And fireproof/warm/bulletproof is an example of horizontal progress - different gear for different circumstances. Arguing against me, you right now have demonstrated the validity of my arguments.[/quote]

Yes, I am demonstrating problem, and no, I am not demostrating the validity of your arguments. What your are arguing for is diversity for the sake of diversity, what I am arguing for (and demonstrating with that armors) is diversification of challenges.

Right now everything except cold and hunger can be solved with appropriate application of bullet-to-the-head (or arrow-in-the-face, if you prefer). What this game needs is not more of such bullet-solvable challenges, but something entirely different. But I am not sure, what to offer.

It already allowed - in case of NX-17 charge gun.

How high is required “level of precision” for creation of implantable finger-mounted laser-gun? Because this is what we already do =)

Learning ability and IQ sow high levels of correlation. Also “ability to come up with new associations and ideas” is exactly what you’ll need while thinking up ways to scale down mass-produced technology to personal-produced technology.

But you can create damaged parts anew. Even nowadays an entire sattelites can be constructed merely in universities (look up “ELaNa” program). Imagine, how far will this technology get in 30 years.

Oh, yes, and I remind you that times of Cataclysm is 204X year. Account for this =)

[quote=“Llamageddon, post:10, topic:8589”]All in all, I believe you don’t get any of my points. If majority of game content is easily acquirable and can be repaired ad-infinitum, the result is, citing Bonevomit

It is not a problem of tools. It is problem of homogeneity of challenges. It is problem that you can solve any presented challenge with the same tools. And it is not solved by nerfing or denying that tools.

No. This game is about your character eating, drinking, sleeping and killing everyone who tries to stop him. That is why there is virtually no real choice.

(nearly chokes) You cannot even start to imagine, how much all humans on this planet limit their success in life by roleplaying. And bad roleplaying at this: “this is beyond my capabilities”, “I am expected to submit to my vices on such celebrations” and so on.

As for myself - I am not limiting myself in actualization of my inherent potential, but I am also not whining about how I become mentally and physically superior to those around me. So sorry, but I am not a correct example for your argument.

You again forgetting that your fun is your fun, not some kind of universal fun. Now please, if you are going to discuss this in terms of “fun” - use provided “8 kinds of fun” template and be specific about what kind of fun you find to be insufficient.

Nope. You can do only thing that programmers allowed you to do.

Er… You know that you are moving ASCII characters around the screen pretending them to be survivors, zombies and the like?

This is improvable by training and practice.

13

[quote=“Coolthulhu, post:11, topic:8589”]Being “forced” to do stuff is the difference between a game and storytelling/simulation/roleplay.

A “game” with no goals, no chance of losing, no requirements and no difficulty is not a game.

The game’s name is Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead. Not Walking Simulator: Days of Walking Around.[/quote]

You may want to look at this. Especially “freeform” and “survival-sim” points.

Also, returning to the topic and bullet-solvable problems. How about this: add new type of zombie, that raises from corpse of mutated numan and therefore has one or several combat mutations (non-combat mutations in zombie is of no concern)? And each threshold can have its own post-threshold mutant-zombie. Imagine: mutant-zombie-ninja-turtles! =)

14

Survival-sim would be a good way to add difficulty/goal without relying totally on zombies.
“Survival” directly implies the possibility of death, though. NEET life simulator wouldn’t be a survival sim.

There’s that nice part:

A lot of the player’s time and efforts are spent ensuring a constant supply of food and clean water are maintained, and problems like illness, infections, food poisoning, frostbite, and exposure to the elements provide a constant threat to their continued survival. In most roguelikes one’s needs are abstracted down to occasionally consuming an iron ration while venturing ever deeper into the dungeon in search of treasure. In C:DDA your current ‘quest’ is often as simple as ‘I must keep fed, hydrated, and warm’ and the risk of dying from hypothermia while you are sleeping is often as great a risk as any monster.

“Constant threat” and “risk of dying”.
Those would be cool to have in the game.

15

[quote=“Coolthulhu, post:14, topic:8589”]“Constant threat” and “risk of dying”.
Those would be cool to have in the game.[/quote]

95% of new players cannot get their characters to survive the first day of the game. What exactly are you proposing?

16

That we actually get difficult stuff moved to areas that should be difficult. I’m in favor of moving the tankbots to military facilities and having them be the reward for a job done particularly well (friendly) or poorly (hostile).

Possibly that we make more quests and such. I’ve got ideas for several. Professions/thresholds would likely be mutually exclusive as the Old Guard wouldn’t trust some Shaolin COMMIE TRAITOR and likewise a US Marshal would be turned away as the Temple is its own entity. Scavengers/merchants might trust a space-lizard to deliver a package or find a missing convoy, but you’d need to found your own society.

And the Mycus just wants to take custody of the planet and its inhabitants.

Repeatedly wall-o-texting at me isn’t going to improve things any faster.

17

So what do you want to do about it?[/quote]
He says what he wants to do about it in the very next part that you reply to. “Tone down the vertical progression.” I take that to mean, Don’t make character progression a vertical line up to demigod. Instead, make it branch out a bit. Make it less tall, more horizontal. I completely agree with it.

It is mathematically impossible. You see, steepness of this curve is due to it having many contributing factors (skills, mutations, bionics, equipment). Each of them have a near-linear progression and together they have a multiplicative effect. This makes resulting curve nearly parabolical, and parabolical curves can be toned down only by decreasing function’s power (and for this you must remove some of contributing factors) or adding linear or parabolical deductible function (game-world resistance power creep). Neither of this seems to be feasible (judging by design document).[/quote]

No. No it is not impossible.
Part of what makes players turn into demigods is that everything you acquire in the game is based around the idea of linear improvement. All of the different things you get stack together for accumulating bonuses with no checks against that stacking power. You get something good, you become better. Implementing a more horizontal progression is entirely achievable.
What if power armor could not be repaired? You could end up just as powerful, but have to re-think how you use it if it could be lost.
What if installing too many bionics made most mutations impossible? You’d have to decide which route to take to improve yourself.
Those are just examples, not necessarily the best solutions, but it can easily be tackled bit by bit.

I like this. It’s nice to encounter difficult stuff, but it always seems unfair if they’re unavoidable when completely under-prepared.

18

Difficulty increasing with time, like it happened when dynamic spawn was a thing.
Zombies mutating (monster groups shifting from decayed zeds to hordes of hulks, then to something worse), full scale invasion spawning mi-go (with mi-go guns) armies after few seasons, temperatures getting progressively more extreme, wildlife getting tainted and less edible etc.

With a “Not actually cataclysmic” easy mode mod that disables all of that, so that people who prefer to play farming/grinding demigod don’t need to play a game that depicts a cataclysm, nor any dark days.

19

I strongly agree on this one. My first attempt at playing version 0.B was exactly 10 steps long before my survivor was forcibly removed from existence by tank-bot from beyond his line of sight.

But the state sponsor some mutants from the beginning (as in “Volunteer Mutant” profession). Would that influence relationships between such mutants and the military? Also, how tolerant are shaolin temples toward mutants (it is not unknown, after all, in eastern mythology for monks to teach and to be taught by otherwordly beings)? I am just imagining disciples trying to spar in dragon style with actual dragon (well, chimera, but still), and this is so adorable =)

20

Coolthulhu: Dynamic difficulty may or may not come back. Wildlife already zombifies over time; temp extremes might happen around ice labs or other places that would justify it. Zed enhancement is desirable. Mi-go invasion, probably only if you trigger a resonance cascade or otherwise open the floodgates. (Flying polyps are also a possibility.)

Your mod proposal comes off as derogatory, and is therefore unacceptable. Not everyone’s played the game as much as you, and as I’ve said repeatedly, we take all kinds here. Ease up.

Stretop: Everyone agrees on that one. High-powered bots are, by far, the most unpopular addition I’ve ever made. IMO it’s an excellent illustration of how few forum folks check Git or the IRC as I’d developed 'em with discussion & live testing there.

Shaolin would not take post-thresh folks and I’d also see to it that they don’t take Psychopaths or Cannibals. They, like the Old Guard, are a force for social rebuilding.

Generally: I suppose Light/Rivtech PA could be made of a superalloy/aluminum composite, which would make repairing possible but ingredient-limited (no creating superalloy). That’s one fix that comes to mind and can be accomplished in about a minute.