Yeah, random strikes hitting the player != fun. Would not mind random strikes hitting everything but the player, and perhaps starting fires.
I think random lightning strikes used to mainly start fires, but even that would probably be going too far if implemented now. Especially since it’d make living in a stable base practically untenable, compared to a mobile base. In the current game where there’s no real way to fireproof a base and very little advantage to a stable base over a mobile one, there doesn’t need to be anything exacerbating that issue.
VVV Neither an educated and nuanced opinion nor a comment relevant to the discussion
[quote=“gtaguy, post:14, topic:5211”][b]FUCK YEAH.
LIGHTNING POWERED ELECTRIC TRUCKS!
TAKE THAT HIPPIES!!![/b][/quote]
[quote=“Inadequate, post:15, topic:5211”]I’m not exactly sure why you think hippies would be against it. Any alternative power source that relies on making use of a replenishable natural phenomenon like lightning over traditional fuels seems like it would be fine by them.
That said, this is still a pretty stupid idea and throwing the word ‘future’ around only gets you so far.[/quote]
No matter how “green” the energy source, the tree huggers will never be satisfied until all humans are living in caves and eating roots and berries. Oh, and not to mention there being less than 100 million of us worldwide.
[quote=“Cherry, post:18, topic:5211”]We don’t even have lighting strikes in the game yet.
But they would make a great “nature hates you” event.
If you suggest that we can charge giant batteries from lighting strikes, than disastrous lighting strikes comes with the territory.
But then people would complain that random lighting storm is OP and makes the game too hard wahwahwah I’m on fire boohoo.[/quote]
This, where can I re-enable lightning?
Yeah, random strikes hitting the player != fun. Would not mind random strikes hitting everything but the player, and perhaps starting fires.[/quote]
They used to randomly strike around the current reality-bubble during thunderstorms. This lead to people fleeing their homes every time it started storming, so as to avoid having their house blown up by the not-so-random lightning strikes. If we had a system where lightning could be destructive but in a way that made sense and didn’t compel the player to avoid safe structures while it was active, we’d likely have it implemented already. As it stands, the current ‘flash of bright light’ thing we have going is a decent placeholder.
How about reimplementing the random strikes in reality bubble so that they can only strike outside? The terrain tiles already have relevant flags, if the terrain is “inside” or has ‘roof’ then no thunder?
I don’t think the game needs any more reason for you to stay inside during bad weather. In between regular acid rain, the radioactive rain someone wants to implement and lightning strikes during regular rain, the player is pretty much forced to explore only during sunny weather, and I’m sure someone is promptly going to suggest scorching sunlight that burns flesh if the player stays out for too long. For people who want to encourage exploration, you sure seem to want features that take away from that stated goal.
If lightning strikes are added back in the game, I think at least the occurrences themselves should be pretty rare, we can have “storm” and then “lightning storm”. Not sure how possible this is to code, but character can have a “conductivity” stat (judging on the material of clothes/equipments) that determined how easy it is to get stricken BUT the most important thing to consider is the height, so if you are standing on a hill or carrying a tall iron pole then the chance to get stricken will increase greatly.
Unfortunately since z-level isn’t there yet, the whole thing is a hypothesis of course.
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?