You’re advocating hacking together yet another ill-considered mechanic and bolting it clumsily to the game for what essentially boils down to a chance to kill players at random. What’s the point?
Did I say “rare”? The point is you are not supposed to go out in a thunderstorm in REAL LIFE, let alone in the Cataclysm - where all sorts of terrible weather can happen.
Did I say “rare”? Stop with the hyperbole, it’s not like thunderstorm (the one that has chance to strike lightning, not just “flash of light”) will happen everyday. Even then the chance to get stricken is pretty slim unless standing in a middle of the field in a tall hill (which doesn’t happen now because z-level aren’t there). One aspect of survival is to cope with the unfavorable weather and conditions, that’s what saving food and supplies are for.
The idea above is a hypothesis, the main obstacle to it is z-level. But surely I can discuss something currently not yet possible in the game, can’t I?
And I must ask where do you got this “ill-considered” thing? In it’s previous implementation the lightning was frustrating because the unpredictability and no way to prevent it happen, that’s why we can discuss how lightning can be improved to be more plausible, realistic but not game-breaking or frustrating.
It was previously implemented, and taken out because it was such a bad idea. If even the crowd around here disliked it, that’s a testament to how bad the idea was. There is practically no worse idea to discuss.
For all your arguments for ‘realism’ and ‘plausibility’, there is no positive benefit to it, you just want to revive a mechanic that kills players at random. Why are you making a case for a long-dead idea? There is no realistic way you can implement this that doesn’t come off as a cheap shot at the player, you could make an easier case for the player slitting his throat at random.
Questionable. The implementation was bad, but doesn’t mean it can’t be improved upon. And no need for your snide remark here " If even the crowd around here disliked it, that’s a testament to how bad the idea was"
I didn’t say my idea was perfect if anything it’s pretty bare-bone right now, but “no realistic way you can implement this that doesn’t come off as a cheap shot at the player”? How did you reach that conclusion? at least tell me why you think it’s impossible (to reach a reasonable implementation). You didn’t have backup to your claim that it’s impossible.
No need for your hyperbole here.
Suppose you implement it perfectly. You take into account conductivity, height, everything. At the end you have a simulation completely accurate to real life, one that could predict when and where lightning will strike a person with a hundred percent accuracy. At the end, when the average player is playing, though, it just comes down to a system that at best provides a chance to avoid random and sudden instadeath, and at worst kills players at random before they have a chance to learn about the system. It either turns them off the game, or it encourages them to look it up, find out about the conductivity mechanics and metagame around it, thus trivializing it. Then they come here, complain that the instadeath mechanic is too easily trivialized and it becomes a race to implement more and more mechanics aimed at killing players at random. This game is already deep in that vicious cycle, it doesn’t need anything more that adds to that, especially not a failed mechanic.
No, I didn’t say go for “perfect” realism, I said "plausible, realistic but not game-breaking or frustrating.
And I’m saying, no matter how well you implement it, it boils down to a system that instakills you at worst and allows you to avoid instadeath for a while at best. That’s not the type of challenge this game needs.
Might want to talk to less braindead hippies then. Most of them are not for mandatory population control, and they are quite realistic. Most of them do not want to return to caves and roots. And it is silly if you really think that. Try interacting with them for real and listen to the smart hippies, and not just parrot what the retards of the movement said.
(Else cataclysm becomes: They wanted to add zombie fetusses and abortion clinics! And they want all players to randomly die! Etc).
Surprisingly a lot of groups which you might have kneejerk reactions towards are not that stupid or unrealistic. Try interacting with them. Or, perhaps, just reading their online forums. Focus on the positive things they want/do not the outrageous comments some of them make.
Once was looting a town at night during a thunderstorm, the flashes where you could see all the Z’s were very interesting and fun.
And apart from that I agree with inadequate, it is a silly idea and was removed for a good reason.
I’ve got it! We allow players to construct metal walls and roofs, that don’t burn down! I knew it would be useful eventually, if not impractical.
A: That’s the usual issue of having one specific fix to avoid a problem that ruins every other playstyle. I don’t think players should be discouraged from using 90% of the buildings that already exist.
B: if you look at his original post, you can see he’s clearly talking about lightning hitting the player directly. Not that starting fires at random would be a good idea either.
C:…Metal attracts lightning. And don’t try to handwave it with ‘Faraday Cage!’, they aren’t completely foolproof.
Inad, it’s a fucking roguelike. Everything is a random chance to kill you. Turn around a corner? Oh look, two brutes. Get down into the lab? Sudden hypothermia and instadeath.
Point is there are a lot of other thing that could be improved.
You have a chance to run away with brutes. You have a chance to escape the lab once you notice the frostbite. Lightning doesn’t give you a fighting chance, it kills you right there and then. So what if that’s part of a normal roguelike, it’s out of place in this game and that’s the more important thing.
And of course there’s a lot of things that could be improved. So why waste that time that could be spent on improving stuff that fleshes out the game, like NPCs and z-levels, in an attempt to revive a failed mechanic?
You guys forgot about lighting-powered cars already?
No need to worry about random lighting strikes killing players or starting fires.
It’s lame, was already deleted, and will never bother you in the indefinite future.
Question: Is there a chance that the future New England has a technology to capture
lighting in a bottle battery?
If not, then f$%k this thread.
Else, let’s talk about that then.
I’d like to point out an important fact about lightning, it’s very, very rare. Having lived in a place that’s very similar to the cataclysm area (lightly forested, fairly short buildings) for almost 21 years now I have had exactly 1 lightning strike that landed anywhere near me, and even that was nowhere near close enough to be within the range of a “reality bubble” centered on me.
Even if lightning is added, the chance of it actually striking close enough to you to have an effect would be virtually zero, and would definitely not be common enough to power a car.
For the record, it’s was oversight in my part that I mentioned the character only, but an important part, where most of the lightning strikes will hit would be terrain (relatively here, since lightning should be rare to begin with) unless the player go out of their way to attract it (standing in a field, under a tall tree, on the rooftop); random death by lightning should be very rare.
And I haven’t even mentioned the mortality rate of being struck (between 10% and 30% from a quick search). So no, sudden death is unlikely, more likely messed up if you decided to wear full body steel armor outside in a stormy night.
Just drop it. All you’re focused on is random lightning strikes hitting the player. That’s what your original post was focused on, and anything after that is trying to come up with more and more elaborate justifications for that. It was a bad idea then, it’s a bad idea now, and everyone seems to agree on that point.
No, you think it a bad idea. But the most important thing is everyone may think it a bad idea but at least they are willingly to explain how I can make it better.
[quote=“Cherry, post:41, topic:5211”]No need to worry about random lighting strikes killing players or starting fires.
It’s lame, was already deleted, and will never bother you in the indefinite future.[/quote]
I’m finding it very hard to read anything other than ‘drop the idea’ in everyone else’s comments, but you seem willfully determined to ignore that point.
So how do you make - bright flash of light that illuminates area for a turn or two - better?
Lightning storms are rare and I never notice them while playing.
As soon as it rains, I run and read some books for morale (in case it turns to acid rain).
If it was a lightning storm, there is generally no danger other than rain effects and slight vision penalty and I continue on with the day.
Lightning strikes are sporadic and unpredictable.
Many people don’t find dodging or defending from lightning fun. (In many video games)
I’m sure the comments on lightning powered items was generally in jest.
I’d fall for any paragraph of technology playing the future card, so try your best!
Edit: L I G H T N I N G
REAL LIGHTENING!