Why Cataclysm 2?

[SpaniardSlayer]

Weren’t Z-levels promised as part of the kickstarter?

Yes, until a developer working on them mysteriously vanished IIRC.

[i2amroy]

Weren’t Z-levels promised as part of the kickstarter?

Technically they were set as a kickstarted goal, but not actually promised per-say. That said we do still have about a thousand dollars in kickstarted money that is set soley to be used for z-level issue bounties.

[Paquito]

Not to mention that its possibly awkward to pass from being the creative director of your own game and having the final world on everything in your game to being just a contributor (albeit one with a big name) who ultimately has nothing but a fraction of power that he has to share with persons who may not share the ultimate vision for his game. IMO thats the biggest reason of why he didn’t join us. I can’t really blame him for that, I would also hate losing the creative freedom of my own stories.

Kevin Granade is our leader now

[Paquito]

Are there any thoughts to making a concentrated effort to refactor the code?

[vache]

The code is being refactored in small chunks on a regular basis. Most users never see the fruits of this labor because everything performs more or less the same; it’s just easier on the developers.

[dambuk1]

If Cataclysm 2 will have tiles support i’ll play both of them without hating on either. I am sure there are some interesting things in CDDA that Cataclysm 2 will lack, and i am sure there will be some interesting content in Cataclysm 2 that CDDA will lack. Still, i have fun playing CDDA, and i might have fun playing Cataclysm 2 as long as i treat them like different games. I might stop liking one if it starts hating too much on the other/claim the other one’s infringing copyright.

[kilozombie]

I heard this analogy once, it’s not perfectly accurate but it’s OK in summation.

Half Life 1 as to Cataclysm, as is Counter Strike 1.6 as to Cataclysm DDA.

Except CS and HL are not related, as these games are. But the same idea applies- we can enjoy both games.

[i2amroy]

The code is being refactored in small chunks on a regular basis. Most users never see the fruits of this labor because everything performs more or less the same; it’s just easier on the developers.

Pretty much. Small chunks get changed all the time, with the occasional large chunk being reworked as well. It’s just that a lot of it is behind-the-scenes stuff, such as removing hacks and other workarounds to replace them with the “right” way to do thing. This, of course, usually doesn’t result in any new content itself, but just makes it much easier to actually add future new content.

[bahihs]

I may get some flak for this, but I happen to agree with Whales regarding “content” in DDA.

All games in DDA eventually have an event horizon, where nothing but your own stupidity can kill you. It eventually gets to the point where one can’t play the game anymore because “you know what to do”. Granted, you can roleplay, you can give yourself challenges, deny certain weapons, deny certain builds, deny items, playstyles, locations. But self imposed limitation shouldn’t be necessary for challenge.

There is a non-existent endgame, there’s too much repetition and imbalance (not in the sense of over-powered, but rather in terms of choice). But that’s what is supposed to happen when you have the model that DDA operates with. Coders add what they want, when they want. So if someone wants deeper crafting for bows, but doesn’t care about guns or crossbows or one-handed weapons, then, there will be an imbalance (in content) toward bows.

DDA is faster (in updating), and it probably always will be, because many hands make light work. But Cata 2 will be tighter and more focused. I’m not too concerned about z-levels (it makes things pretty complicated and I don’t see what it really adds to the game), I wish the devs would spend some time on stealth mechanics, or flavor content or AI, rather than z-levels. I can live with two dimensions, I can’t however, live alone. These things would change the way we play the game, the very definition of “content”. Enemies with deeper mechanics, with interesting and different behaviors, with weaknesses and strengths rather than just different attacks. That would change the game; that would be “content”.

I think Cata 2 may surpass DDA because it makes deeper those things which are central to the game, and removes those things which exist on the fringes. And yet, I think DDA will succeed in the end, because of sheer numbers. Whales says he is committed (or more committed) than last time; I remain skeptical, but hopeful; but if Whales quits, Cata 2 dies. DDA, like the zombies, can never die. I just hope that turns out to be a good thing in the end, and not a bad one.

[Creamy_Goodness]

I agree with some of your statements, better ai would mean more to me than z levels too.

[StopSignal]

I agree with some of your statements, better ai would mean more to me than z levels too.

Well… zombie’s ai is lampshaded, they are zombies.

NPCs is the thing. Their impact in gampley will be huge, and the one with better NPCs will get the prizes.

[kevin.granade]

I may get some flak for this, but I happen to agree with Whales regarding “content” in DDA.

It’s kind of hard to either agree or disagree, he’s never said anything specific enough, just that he doesn’t like it. If I’m wrong and he has substantive criticism of DDA’s content other than complaining that certain items exist at all, please link it and I’ll see if we can do something about it.

All games in DDA eventually have an event horizon, where nothing but your own stupidity can kill you. It eventually gets to the point where one can’t play the game anymore because “you know what to do”. Granted, you can roleplay, you can give yourself challenges, deny certain weapons, deny certain builds, deny items, playstyles, locations. But self imposed limitation shouldn’t be necessary for challenge.

I’m not following you, are you saying the difficulty of merely surviving should keep increasing over time? Or that there are certain monsters you should never be able to kill with certainty? In even the most difficult games, you reach a point where you can defeat everything, that’s kind of the point of the game. The only way that DDA is different is that once you reach that point there are OTHER things for you to do, in most games once you reach that point, it’s “game over” because you’ve “won”.

There is a non-existent endgame, there’s too much repetition and imbalance (not in the sense of over-powered, but rather in terms of choice). But that’s what is supposed to happen when you have the model that DDA operates with. Coders add what they want, when they want. So if someone wants deeper crafting for bows, but doesn’t care about guns or crossbows or one-handed weapons, then, there will be an imbalance (in content) toward bows.

Yes the “end-game” type content is nonexistent, that is definitely a problem.
I’m not following what you mean by, “imbalance of choice”. are you saying it’s inherently a bad thing to have more of one kind of content than another? Also, if you have one developer, you merely have their biases instead of the collected biases of a group of developers, it’s not inherently better or worse either way.

DDA is faster (in updating), and it probably always will be, because many hands make light work. But Cata 2 will be tighter and more focused.

This is a bit of a peeve of mine, just because you only have one person working on something doesn’t mean it’ll be “tighter and more focused”. It’s incredibly easy for a single developer to make an unfocused game. It’s a matter of discipline, not numbers.

I think Cata 2 may surpass DDA because it makes deeper those things which are central to the game, and removes those things which exist on the fringes. And yet, I think DDA will succeed in the end, because of sheer numbers. Whales says he is committed (or more committed) than last time; I remain skeptical, but hopeful; but if Whales quits, Cata 2 dies. DDA, like the zombies, can never die. I just hope that turns out to be a good thing in the end, and not a bad one.

I’m afraid you understate the disparity if anything, DDA has ~40 devs working on it at any given time, with C2 you have something like 1/3, “I’ve been refocusing on Edibotia recently. Gotta work on different projects to stay fresh. Edigotia is my medieval/fantasy city game.” -whales.

[wad67]

In terms of cataclysm 2, I am quite happy to see it progressing, I am a big fan of all rouge-likes and another cataclysm game would only contribute to the “dystopian cataclysm” genre.
This board/game has gone through quite a few periods, and I have witnessed quite a few (since about 0.3).
It has had it’s ups and downs (vehicles,lazy cats,kick starter) but as far as i am concerned it has been quite a successful as a game.

I don’t think Whales really “hates” DDA, although I can imagine he would be a bit peevish that a mod stole the limelight
I do have to agree with whales that DDA is “cluttered”. Concise, simple but altogether engaging concepts are what I am hoping for in cataclysm 2, I have toured through the source code a few times and I would have to say it is a far cry from the original cataclysm, as in far more structured and concise than previously implemented.

All in all, the three cataclysm titles we have are great, and bound to improve, and coexist somewhat happily

[bahihs]

[quote=“bahihs, post:29, topic:6219”]I may get some flak for this, but I happen to agree with Whales regarding “content” in DDA.

It’s kind of hard to either agree or disagree, he’s never said anything specific enough, just that he doesn’t like it. If I’m wrong and he has substantive criticism of DDA’s content other than complaining that certain items exist at all, please link it and I’ll see if we can do something about it.

All games in DDA eventually have an event horizon, where nothing but your own stupidity can kill you. It eventually gets to the point where one can’t play the game anymore because “you know what to do”. Granted, you can roleplay, you can give yourself challenges, deny certain weapons, deny certain builds, deny items, playstyles, locations. But self imposed limitation shouldn’t be necessary for challenge.

I’m not following you, are you saying the difficulty of merely surviving should keep increasing over time? Or that there are certain monsters you should never be able to kill with certainty? In even the most difficult games, you reach a point where you can defeat everything, that’s kind of the point of the game. The only way that DDA is different is that once you reach that point there are OTHER things for you to do, in most games once you reach that point, it’s “game over” because you’ve “won”.

There is a non-existent endgame, there’s too much repetition and imbalance (not in the sense of over-powered, but rather in terms of choice). But that’s what is supposed to happen when you have the model that DDA operates with. Coders add what they want, when they want. So if someone wants deeper crafting for bows, but doesn’t care about guns or crossbows or one-handed weapons, then, there will be an imbalance (in content) toward bows.

Yes the “end-game” type content is nonexistent, that is definitely a problem.
I’m not following what you mean by, “imbalance of choice”. are you saying it’s inherently a bad thing to have more of one kind of content than another? Also, if you have one developer, you merely have their biases instead of the collected biases of a group of developers, it’s not inherently better or worse either way.

DDA is faster (in updating), and it probably always will be, because many hands make light work. But Cata 2 will be tighter and more focused.

This is a bit of a peeve of mine, just because you only have one person working on something doesn’t mean it’ll be “tighter and more focused”. It’s incredibly easy for a single developer to make an unfocused game. It’s a matter of discipline, not numbers.

I think Cata 2 may surpass DDA because it makes deeper those things which are central to the game, and removes those things which exist on the fringes. And yet, I think DDA will succeed in the end, because of sheer numbers. Whales says he is committed (or more committed) than last time; I remain skeptical, but hopeful; but if Whales quits, Cata 2 dies. DDA, like the zombies, can never die. I just hope that turns out to be a good thing in the end, and not a bad one.

I’m afraid you understate the disparity if anything, DDA has ~40 devs working on it at any given time, with C2 you have something like 1/3, “I’ve been refocusing on Edibotia recently. Gotta work on different projects to stay fresh. Edigotia is my medieval/fantasy city game.” -whales. :/[/quote]

First let me say the fact that an admin is taking time to address the lamentations of a peon such as myself is one of the reasons DDA will endure forever.

Now, let me see if i can answer some of the questions. Regarding Whales criticism I was refering to the “pointless junk” comment which someone has already stated.

By the event horizon I am saying that it should be longer and ideally non-existent. I shouldnt be immortal in an ingame week (Im sure this is being addressed so Im not stressing this too much). And I also believe, that yes, there should be things that can kill you late game. And that yes, even when fully geared and outfitted doing stupid things like waltzing into the middle of the town firing a shotgun should be met with some sort of consequence. I think Whales is addressing this by having more than 2 simul attacks (i.e when you are surrounded) be impossible to evade. I think this can be taken further by allowing zeds to charge for short periods making large scale battles very difficult and proper stealth and tactics essential to survival. I dont think a charging system similar to the shocker periodic shock attack system would be too difficult, you can change the speed temporarily for a few turns with a cool down.

Regarding endgame and imbalance. Glad to hear the endgame is at least on the list. For imbalance, I do think biased content is a problem. Id like to see the core game be bare bones with a mod system which adds wanted content (already implemented to some degree) but which is optional. I do agree that the single dev bias will bleed through no matter what but having played cata 1 I dont know if that will be an issue with Whales.

Regarding the “tight and focused” comment, I still believe that a single or a small group of devs will have a more focused approach then a large fluctuating group. There are cases Im sure where this is not the case, but I feel these are exceptions and not the rule. And from reading Whales posts, he does seem to have a clearer picture of what he wants this time around.

Let me end by saying, I dont partiularly like Whales. From what ive seen of this community they have been nothing but supportive of his efforts despite his bashing of DDA. Valid or not there is no reason to attack another product when discussing your own, fly by your own merits dont shoot down other people. Furthermore I am in agreement with your skepticism of the completion of his game. I am hopeful, because its worth being hopeful in chance something comes of his project. But his history does leave much to be desired. Still Im new here and to cata in general, so take what I say with a lick of salt.

[Rivet]

Let me end by saying, I dont partiularly like Whales. From what ive seen of this community they have been nothing but supportive of his efforts despite his bashing of DDA. Valid or not there is no reason to attack another product when discussing your own, fly by your own merits dont shoot down other people. Furthermore I am in agreement with your skepticism of the completion of his game. I am hopeful, because its worth being hopeful in chance something comes of his project. But his history does leave much to be desired.

More than a few of us stand with you on this.

[Frostwood]

snip

I love the pointless junk it the game, as it gives the game atmosphere, and supports different playstyles. In fact, the wide variety of items and stuff to do is one of the main attractions to the game.

[i2amroy]

[quote=“bahihs, post:34, topic:6219”]snip

I love the pointless junk it the game, as it gives the game atmosphere, and supports different playstyles. In fact, the wide variety of items and stuff to do is one of the main attractions to the game.[/quote]
Yeah, this opinion right here is one of the reasons the game stays the way it is. Half of the fan base seems to be the opinion that there’s lots of stuff in the real world, so there should be lots of “stuff” in C:DDA. The other half is of the opinion that the game should basically have no items at all, but instead should move everything into mods. It’s a deeply broken base on that topic.

[bahihs]

[quote=“bahihs, post:34, topic:6219”]snip

I love the pointless junk it the game, as it gives the game atmosphere, and supports different playstyles. In fact, the wide variety of items and stuff to do is one of the main attractions to the game.[/quote]

I believe “atmosphere” can be achieved with flavor content (journals, audio logs, diaries of other survivors, newspapers, etc.), this type of stuff is not difficult to add (no more difficult than any other new item, and certainly easier then weapons, armor or food) and I don’t really see how many of the existing items help with such immersion.

As for varied playstyle, if the “pointless junk” were evenly balanced then I suppose it would allow variation in playing style. In that case it would be a question of realism vs. game balance. For example, bows are an archaic weapon, rare and difficult to use without skill. Guns are pretty common (or should be, in a pre-cataclysm, 2nd amendment-toting U.S) and not too difficult to use (“point and shoot” doesn’t require developed muscles or a high degree of skill), while melee weapons are a last resort, and (other than bats, 2x4’s, crowbars and the like) should be incredibly rare (which they are). That’s realism. But this is a game, if something is rare, it should be powerful, if something is common it should be nerfed in someway. I do like the approach the dev’s have taken with guns (noise and limited ammo), but bows, for example, are too powerful relative to their rarity. Guns should be far more accurate than bows in longer distances regardless of skill (fundamentally, guns are a more accurate weapon).

Finally the I think the “variety” is really an illusion, yes there is more stuff, but its not terribly different from one another. There are really only 3-4 combat variations: melee, guns, bows and maybe fists/martial arts. Within these, scales in weapon usefulness destroy any variety that is possible (we end up using the “best” weapon). I think this issue might be resolved with weapon breakage (I think this is going be implemented soon), which will allow variety, since the mechanic skill would have some use other than building vehicles, and since new items (weapon parts) can change how weapons are crafted. (I think I’m going to make an extended post about this in the suggestion board, check it out if you want).

[acehawk]

[quote=“bahihs, post:34, topic:6219”]snip

I love the pointless junk it the game, as it gives the game atmosphere, and supports different playstyles. In fact, the wide variety of items and stuff to do is one of the main attractions to the game.[/quote]
Seconded, the so called pointless junk is basically the only reason I play DDA. Without it it would be generic and boring.

[Rivet]

I believe “atmosphere” can be achieved with flavor content (journals, audio logs, diaries of other survivors, newspapers, etc.), this type of stuff is not difficult to add (no more difficult than any other new item, and certainly easier then weapons, armor or food) and I don’t really see how many of the existing items help with such immersion.

The first time I found a laser gun I thought, ‘Hmmm okay, so this isn’t our world, but one that’s very similar looking.’ So there’s that.

As for varied playstyle, if the “pointless junk” were evenly balanced then I suppose it would allow variation in playing style.

I see people using this word ‘balance’ all the time, yet I’ve yet to see any of them explain what it’s supposed to mean in this context, or offer to help do anything about it.

In that case it would be a question of realism vs. game balance. For example, bows are an archaic weapon, rare and difficult to use without skill.

I’ll agree with you on all points except rarity. Maybe you’re a city-person, but out where I live they’re about as common as firearms.

Guns are pretty common (or should be, in a pre-cataclysm, 2nd amendment-toting U.S) and not too difficult to use (“point and shoot” doesn’t require developed muscles or a high degree of skill)

This reinforces my belief that you’re cityfolk (and I apologize if I’m incorrect) because there’s a lot more to a firearm than ‘point and shoot’ and it does in fact require quite a bit of skill to hit anything that’s not within throwing range.

But this is a game, if something is rare, it should be powerful, if something is common it should be nerfed in someway.

A large part of what informs our decisions is ‘what is fun?’ and ‘what is realistic?’ but we generally try to avoid intentionally making anything suck because ‘it’s too common and gamestuff’.

Finally the I think the “variety” is really an illusion, yes there is more stuff, but its not terribly different from one another. There are really only 3-4 combat variations: melee, guns, bows and maybe fists/martial arts. Within these, scales in weapon usefulness destroy any variety that is possible (we end up using the “best” weapon).

Have you played any other roguuelikes or RPG-type video games? that’s how they all work. Eventually you stop using your rubber sword +1 because you’ve found the magic flaming unobtanium sword of awesomeness +1000000. A lot of folks get bored without some sort of equipment progression, and improving your gear is a basic trope of these sort of games.

I think this issue might be resolved with weapon breakage (I think this is going be implemented soon), which will allow variety, since the mechanic skill would have some use other than building vehicles, and since new items (weapon parts) can change how weapons are crafted.

We’ve had weapon wear and breakage for a number of months now. Firearms got it first, shortly before 0.A came out, and for the last month or so everything else is susceptible to damage via usage in the experimentals.