Why Cataclysm 2?

[Bonevomit]

[quote=“Rivet, post:59, topic:6219”]I am, unfortunately, very used to it, both in real life as well as here. But you don’t know me, so please don’t pretend to know my motivations.

When you start targeting the userbase here with your insinuations it immediately sets off my warning bells. Would you care to share some examples of ‘how poorly they take criticism on damn near everything’ and ‘the amount of boot licking that goes on around here’, or are you just attempting to troll?

Just because C2 doesn’t have as much junk and pointless content as DDA, doesn’t mean it’s less complex.

if you were playing DDA, I would assume that the feature was removed / edited into worthlessness

Those are two that jumped right out at me. In all fairness, now that I’ve read a few of his more recent posts while digging those two up, I have to say that his snipes at the DDA project appear to have reduced in both intensity and frequency, so that’s nice. I still don’t think much of his attitude towards the project overall, but I’m glad to see that his grudge has loosened a bit.[/quote]
Oh lord

Those same arguments have been made here. Hell, whole big ass threads have been made talking about bloat and other crap. Also I don’t know what you’re talking about “I am, unfortunately, very used to it”, but I do know your motivations, your motivations is winning some stupid argument on the internet. That’s why you called me a troll. I am unfortunately very used to that, but I take it in stride because I’m such a cool guy you know?

And proof of what I said about the userbase? Just look a few posts back at that “be nice or get out” crap I got from kilozombie because I thought this place couldn’t take criticism. And then look back at your posts on Whales and see how well you take criticism. That’s 2 for 2. That’s not even scratching the surface though, people here love to dish it out but they sure can’t take it.

[Weyrling]

Personally I doubt I’ll play C2 at all considering how CDDA keeps getting better, but I would like to say something regarding the recent turn of the thread.

A good part of the issue people have with “criticism” is the overall tone of somebody’s post, if somebody presents themselves in an overtly negative manner, any legitimate points they do have are far less likely to be considered seriously, attacking somebody else reduces your credibility, as well as reducing the likelihood of rational discussion in a thread.
Being civil doesn’t cost anybody anything, and wanting people to be civil isn’t the same as being unable to take criticism, though of course few people are actually good at being criticized.

If you’re criticizing something you begin with a negative message, people are more likely to listen if the rest of the post isn’t presented negatively on top of that.

[Frostwood]

snip

A lot of these items were developed for the type of Cata gamer who likes to build their own stuff-the self sufficiency gamer, and now that these items have been added, the rate of which new items are added has decreased dramatically. Once parts of the game were jsonized it became easier to add items to fill in holes in the game.

As far as some items being close in stats, that’s cool. I’m tired of games that have “x weapon is clearly better than y before it, so if you are to progress, you must use x, which eventually will be obsoleted by y”. That area in Cataclysm is a little more grey, which I like.

[Paquito]

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.

Ditto

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 think this is the case. Anyway, why do people even care what Whales thinks at this point? The original Cataclysm and the game he’s working on now are very different games with very different goals than DDA at this point.

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.

Have you actually spent any time on these forums reading how people are playing this game? It seems pretty clear you haven’t. For starters, you haven’t mentioned throwing as a combat style, one that I personally specialize in most games I play. You also haven’t mentioned armored vehicles players enjoy using offensively. And even within a broad type like “guns” and “melee”, there are specializations (bashing vs cutting vs piercing, shotguns vs handguns vs rifles).

If you don’t think those sub-categories I just pointed out are relevant because players end up equally successful using all of them, you’re missing the point. The reason people enjoy playing this game because there are many, many ways to be successful, ways that cater to a lot of different gameplay preferences and tastes.

Also, a few posters like you are criticizing DDA overall game design by pointing out things that haven’t been implemented, but that clearly don’t violate the game-design. For example: “weapon degradation”. That you think something like this should be in the game is completely unrelated to the discussion of DDA’s overall design, because it’s something that can be added to the game that doesn’t fundamentally change how the game is played. As such, you shouldn’t have been surprised when it was pointed out that this feature is in the experimental build.

[Rivet]

[quote=“Bonevomit, post:61, topic:6219”]Oh lord

Those same arguments have been made here. Hell, whole big ass threads have been made talking about bloat and other crap. Also I don’t know what you’re talking about “I am, unfortunately, very used to it”, but I do know your motivations, your motivations is winning some stupid argument on the internet. That’s why you called me a troll. I am unfortunately very used to that, but I take it in stride because I’m such a cool guy you know?

And proof of what I said about the userbase? Just look a few posts back at that “be nice or get out” crap I got from kilozombie because I thought this place couldn’t take criticism. And then look back at your posts on Whales and see how well you take criticism. That’s 2 for 2. That’s not even scratching the surface though, people here love to dish it out but they sure can’t take it.[/quote]

Thank you for confirming that you are indeed going for a negative reaction. I will reiterate that you do not know me or my motivations. Please stop projecting on me.

[bahihs]

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.

Have you actually spent any time on these forums reading how people are playing this game? It seems pretty clear you haven’t. For starters, you haven’t mentioned throwing as a combat style, one that I personally specialize in most games I play. You also haven’t mentioned armored vehicles players enjoy using offensively. And even within a broad type like “guns” and “melee”, there are specializations (bashing vs cutting vs piercing, shotguns vs handguns vs rifles).

If you don’t think those sub-categories I just pointed out are relevant because players end up equally successful using all of them, you’re missing the point. The reason people enjoy playing this game because there are many, many ways to be successful, ways that cater to a lot of different gameplay preferences and tastes.

Also, a few posters like you are criticizing DDA overall game design by pointing out things that haven’t been implemented, but that clearly don’t violate the game-design. For example: “weapon degradation”. That you think something like this should be in the game is completely unrelated to the discussion of DDA’s overall design, because it’s something that can be added to the game that doesn’t fundamentally change how the game is played. As such, you shouldn’t have been surprised when it was pointed out that this feature is in the experimental build.
[/quote]

Actually, you are right, I haven’t been reading how other people play the game. I’d rather play the game myself than read about other people playing it, thus I’ve only spoken from my own experience. My point is that these subcategories that you mention are not all “equally successful” because of content imbalance (which I’ve mentioned a few times before), I’ve also played a throwing weapons character, but it quickly became evident that there is not as much content for such a build as there is, for example, a huntsman, or gunslinger. Rather than having an arbitrary bias in content, I think a mod system with optional content would be better (I’ve mentioned this before also, and I know its being done if itsn’t done already).

I don’t understand what you mean regarding weapon degradation. If it is part of the design, then it should be implemented (which it has been, according to the experimental). As for me being “surprised”, that never really happened. I don’t play the experimental build (I’d rather wait for a full release) so I am a bit ignorant regarding what has already been implemented since 0.A. Furthermore, my point was that I wish the devs would spend more time on things like weapon degradation (and other such things which are already part of game design, like stealth and AI) rather than new content (pointless or otherwise). Bringing it back to the op, I’m hoping Cata 2 will focus on the core elements given Whales’ criticism of DDA’s content, because otherwise, he becomes a hypocrite.

[FunsizeNinja123]

Bahis, you’ve quoted yourself.

[Paquito]

Bahis, you’ve quoted yourself.

The quote of my post broke. The first chunk of his post after his quote was my post content

[acehawk]

I don’t understand how a mod system will reduce the so called content bias. All it would achieve is arbitrarily restricting content to a subset of all that exists, making the base game more limited and less interesting.

[FunsizeNinja123]

Oh. Well then

[Paquito]

Actually, you are right, I haven’t been reading how other people play the game. I’d rather play the game myself than read about other people playing it, thus I’ve only spoken from my own experience.

It’s fine that you don’t feel like reading about how other people play the game, but given your admitted lack of knowledge here, it’s clear your criticisms are not well informed. You simply haven’t discovered a lot of the in-game content on your own.

From a designer’s point of view, your experience might suggest that it’s difficult to independently discover some of the in-game content. From my own experience, I think this is the case, so I think that might be a valid criticism of DDA’s game design.

My point is that these subcategories that you mention are not all “equally successful” because of content imbalance (which I’ve mentioned a few times before), I’ve also played a throwing weapons character, but it quickly became evident that there is not as much content for such a build as there is, for example, a huntsman, or gunslinger.

“Content imbalance” is a very different criticism than your quote I was responding to, which was about the lack of game play variety. It’s hard to understand what you’re concerns are when you don’t state them clearly.

I don’t understand what you mean regarding weapon degradation. If it is part of the design, then it should be implemented (which it has been, according to the experimental).

I was lumping your complaint about “weapon derogation” along with other complaints about DDA’s overall design that centered around content that simply hasn’t been implemented yet. But to avoid chasing tangents too far, I’ll just say “never mind” for now

[Bonevomit]

[quote=“Rivet, post:65, topic:6219”][quote=“Bonevomit, post:61, topic:6219”]Oh lord

Those same arguments have been made here. Hell, whole big ass threads have been made talking about bloat and other crap. Also I don’t know what you’re talking about “I am, unfortunately, very used to it”, but I do know your motivations, your motivations is winning some stupid argument on the internet. That’s why you called me a troll. I am unfortunately very used to that, but I take it in stride because I’m such a cool guy you know?

And proof of what I said about the userbase? Just look a few posts back at that “be nice or get out” crap I got from kilozombie because I thought this place couldn’t take criticism. And then look back at your posts on Whales and see how well you take criticism. That’s 2 for 2. That’s not even scratching the surface though, people here love to dish it out but they sure can’t take it.[/quote]

Thank you for confirming that you are indeed going for a negative reaction. I will reiterate that you do not know me or my motivations. Please stop projecting on me.[/quote]
I don’t know when this got personal dude? Chill out.

[kevin.granade]

Telling someone you know what their motivations are, and that by implication they’re lying about them is an excellent way to make things personal. So is telling people to “chill out” when you’re arguing with them.
At this point you’re coming across as trolling. You made some vague accusations about “the community treating things like a national emergency”, ignored any requests to clarify or point out instances of this happening, and now you’re focusing on irrelevancies and making things personal rather than resolving anything.

[KA101]

[quote=“bahihs, post:66, topic:6219”]Actually, you are right, I haven’t been reading how other people play the game. I’d rather play the game myself than read about other people playing it, thus I’ve only spoken from my own experience.

It’s fine that you don’t feel like reading about how other people play the game, but given your admitted lack of knowledge here, it’s clear your criticisms are not well informed. You simply haven’t discovered a lot of the in-game content on your own.

From a designer’s point of view, your experience might suggest that it’s difficult to independently discover some of the in-game content. From my own experience, I think this is the case, so I think that might be a valid criticism of DDA’s game design.

My point is that these subcategories that you mention are not all “equally successful” because of content imbalance (which I’ve mentioned a few times before), I’ve also played a throwing weapons character, but it quickly became evident that there is not as much content for such a build as there is, for example, a huntsman, or gunslinger.

“Content imbalance” is a very different criticism than your quote I was responding to, which was about the lack of game play variety. It’s hard to understand what you’re concerns are when you don’t state them clearly.

I don’t understand what you mean regarding weapon degradation. If it is part of the design, then it should be implemented (which it has been, according to the experimental).

I was lumping your complaint about “weapon derogation” along with other complaints about DDA’s overall design that centered around content that simply hasn’t been implemented yet. But to avoid chasing tangents too far, I’ll just say “never mind” for now :)[/quote]

OK, some content should be tough to discover (the whole “progress” and “discovery” thing) but it’s entirely possible we’ve made too much of it too opaque or too easy. That’d be a helpful thread to have.

Weapon degradation is in the experimentals; I was extremely antsy about it but so far it seems pretty reasonable. Nice job by Rivet there.

Gear being imbalanced is a pretty tough thing to tackle but we work on it where we can. If you’ve got specific spots you’d like addressed, let us know. (Corpse map-specials were a Problem for a very long time by DDA-dev standards. I think they’re OK now?)

As for the presuming people’s thought processes: Kevin pretty much nailed that, so yeah.

[Bonevomit]

[quote=“Kevin Granade, post:73, topic:6219”]Telling someone you know what their motivations are, and that by implication they’re lying about them is an excellent way to make things personal. So is telling people to “chill out” when you’re arguing with them.
At this point you’re coming across as trolling. You made some vague accusations about “the community treating things like a national emergency”, ignored any requests to clarify or point out instances of this happening, and now you’re focusing on irrelevancies and making things personal rather than resolving anything.[/quote]
Fuck, I guess I got carried away. Sorry I was a cunt.

Hey, even someone as great as me has bad days.

[KA101]

[quote=“Bonevomit, post:75, topic:6219”][quote=“Kevin Granade, post:73, topic:6219”]Telling someone you know what their motivations are, and that by implication they’re lying about them is an excellent way to make things personal. So is telling people to “chill out” when you’re arguing with them.
At this point you’re coming across as trolling. You made some vague accusations about “the community treating things like a national emergency”, ignored any requests to clarify or point out instances of this happening, and now you’re focusing on irrelevancies and making things personal rather than resolving anything.[/quote]
Fuck, I guess I got carried away. Sorry I was a cunt.

Hey, even someone as great as me has bad days.[/quote]

Yeah, you were being a jagoff. (That “as great as me” may lead people to think that you still are. Careful!) “Jerk”, “troll”, and other such negative terms could apply there, too. I’ve flipped out at people too; it’s not something to be proud of but it happens. Now, to not make the space Crappy like that again?

However, “cunt”, no matter the locale you’re from or intervening etymology, is originally a slang term for female genitalia, and typically used as a derogatory. By using it as a negative term, people get the idea that the genitalia are a bad thing–and by extension, folks who have such anatomy are inferior/Bad too.

And that’s not so good. Some women are working to actively re-cast the term as a positive one; however, this wasn’t such a usage. (IME, men can best help with this by not adding to the problem.)

So let’s go with “jerk” or something similarly non-gendered next time, OK? (“Jagoff” is Pittsburghese, so if you use that people may think you’re from Pittsburgh.)

[youtoo]

Some people just like doing their own thing and starting new projects. There is value in starting over because there is legacy code that you don’t need to deal with.

I don’t know why whales would have a grudge against dda. No one claimed they started this and he open sourced the code…

I can see the allure of just wanting to do your own thing.

[Sanarr]

Its been a few months since I’ve visited Cata forums, but eternal discussions regarding balance and different game concepts are still present. I think it is a good sign showing that people are still concerned about the game. Anyway - greetings again to the community, I’ll be putting my two cents here.

I agree that devs done a great job by improving the code and game itself, along with contributors who fill it with items/features/other stuff (necessary ones and… not so necessary ones ) ). It is always good to see that game is evolving. But I also agree with bahihs on some of his statements.

My thoughts:

There are lot of games in which your char ends up as invincible. But if game offers you plenty of ways to become one in a in-game week… something should be done here. I understand that this is not a dungeon crawl game with fixed difficulty progression, so it is hard to balance type and overall ‘awesomness’ of randomly generated gear, but maybe someone should add some ‘rarity’ descriptor (correlating with drop rate multiplier), preventing players of finding plasma rifles right after few hours before escaping from evac shelter.

There also might be some enemies that keep you cautious no matter how equipped you are. Killing zombear with combat knife with only a few scratches fits to some action movie, but I assume that CDDA aims for more grim/dark/survival genre. Same with hordes. I was very happy when they were implemented, but result was the same - combat knife with not so high skill + less than moderate gear = kill them all. I ran from hordes a few time not because of danger, but because of lack of time to deal with them. Game desperately needs some imrpovements regarding multiple opponents fights (sorry if it is already omplemented, havent played game for a month, at least) .

I hope that game would also have some mid- late- game challenges to keep player busy. Growing fungi/ant/hive/goo stuff that may force you out of your base to deal with its source. Disabling some malfuctioned nuclear power plant that is about to explode, bringing you some radioactive fallout. Faction wars and missions (when they appear) and more other challenges and opportunities.

So… to conclude, I hope that DDA will continue to become better and better over time. If Whales would bring his game into good and playable shape, well, good for him, and for those who love post-apoc roguelikes (and who care about quality of the game, not about name of the dev and his/her/their previous deeds), so they would enjoy both of them - wide and borderless DDA and strict + finite Cata2.

[bahihs]

@Sanarr I think that a rarity modifier is a decent step in the right direction. I think that implementation of the AI could also solve some of the gear problems (through trading equipment). I’ve always thought a weapon crafting system similar to the vehicle construction system (with parts and tools necessary to repair and make weapons) would also solve some of these problems (it would also be pretty time consuming to implement), since you can now have “broken” weapons similar to how you have “broken” vehicles (not to mention custom weapons). This eliminates the necessity for arbitrary rarity; still, rarity might end up being the solution because IRL, somethings really are quite difficult to obtain.

I have to say, the biggest thing I’m looking forward to in Cata 2 is the AI. I do love the whole “last man on earth” vibe that DDA currently gives off, but the zompocalypse needs more people. People to kill, people to trade with, people to join…uh, people to kill.

DDA will become better over time, its kind of inevitable given the devs interaction with the community. And as long as Cata 2 is free, I say why not?

[Morrigi]

[quote=“KA101, post:76, topic:6219”][quote=“Bonevomit, post:75, topic:6219”][quote=“Kevin Granade, post:73, topic:6219”]Telling someone you know what their motivations are, and that by implication they’re lying about them is an excellent way to make things personal. So is telling people to “chill out” when you’re arguing with them.
At this point you’re coming across as trolling. You made some vague accusations about “the community treating things like a national emergency”, ignored any requests to clarify or point out instances of this happening, and now you’re focusing on irrelevancies and making things personal rather than resolving anything.[/quote]
Fuck, I guess I got carried away. Sorry I was a cunt.

Hey, even someone as great as me has bad days.[/quote]

Yeah, you were being a jagoff. (That “as great as me” may lead people to think that you still are. Careful!) “Jerk”, “troll”, and other such negative terms could apply there, too. I’ve flipped out at people too; it’s not something to be proud of but it happens. Now, to not make the space Crappy like that again?

[spoiler=Look out for that slur there]
However, “cunt”, no matter the locale you’re from or intervening etymology, is originally a slang term for female genitalia, and typically used as a derogatory. By using it as a negative term, people get the idea that the genitalia are a bad thing–and by extension, folks who have such anatomy are inferior/Bad too.

And that’s not so good. Some women are working to actively re-cast the term as a positive one; however, this wasn’t such a usage. (IME, men can best help with this by not adding to the problem.)

So let’s go with “jerk” or something similarly non-gendered next time, OK? (“Jagoff” is Pittsburghese, so if you use that people may think you’re from Pittsburgh.)
[/spoiler][/quote]

You really feel the need to call someone out for saying “cunt” on the internet? Jesus, Bonevomit was 120% right about people being too easily offended here.