PC Developer Discussions: Alpha 17

Developer Discussions: Alpha 17

  • Newly Updated

    Votes: 1 100.0%

  • Check out the newest reveals by Madmole

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Over 100 new perk books with set collecting and bonuses

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    1
Status
Not open for further replies.
If they make an HP bar and you don't like it because "I can scan an area for zombies" which you already can by turning up your Gamma. You could like, just turn it off. Simple, yet exceptionally effective.
Click to expand...
The problem with this solution is it presumes there will be an option, when there's no evidence that there will be. Your assumption that players can turn it off is no more justifiable than GuppyCur's assumption that it won't be there at all.

 
Have not been on much since A16 stable dropped, Whats the news with bandits and other NPC's? I havent heard or seen anything about it and thought it was gonna be in A17.

 
I play at 50% gamma and things are still too bright on occasion (from a realism standpoint, at least).
Click to expand...
I keep the gamma as close to the default as I can stand it, for the sake of not affecting gameplay. But I've given up on the default of 75%, and play at 90%. I don't have to adjust the gamma for any other game. I've always thought the game is too dark, from requiring too many lights to light one's base, to the aesthetics of not seeing texture details on a zombie standing in broad daylight. I still believe we could have a prettier looking game with better performance, without hurting the light-sensitive parts of gameplay.

 
The problem with this solution is it presumes there will be an option, when there's no evidence that there will be. Your assumption that players can turn it off is no more justifiable than GuppyCur's assumption that it won't be there at all.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure the devs have made it clear that the HP bar over every zombie is a development tool, I'm also pretty sure either MadMole or Kin have explicitly said this... I forget which. They haven't said that HP bars will never be used so it's a reasonable assumption that they _may_ be used for ridiculously over-powered zombies, such as those at the end of a quest.

Given the amount posts this topic has taken up so far and the range of opinions on either side it would be foolish not to have it as optional in the main menu.

 
Don't get me wrong mate, I know that anything we see in the videos is just WIP and not much more than a sneak peek at what MAY be coming.
But... I just can't resist stirring the pot a bit. ;)

Much like poking Roland with a stick, it causes much mirth and a little consternation but in the end it's all just harmless fun.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but, poor stick...
Click to expand...

So confirmation we are getting sticks back?

 
Why though. We have NEVER needed this before? Now all of a sudden zombies need to show damage? I keep hearing "dont mind the bars they are just in here for devs to work on stuff" but yet we KEEP seeing them. I mean if they are going in, nows probably a good time to confirm so I can make plans to remove their coddling nature.
Click to expand...
I can think of at least one substantive reason, if your question of why is serious. We didn't have zombies with regenerating health before Alpha 16. Before that, the player knew they were making progress towards killing a zombie, so long as their hits were landing. In A16 and beyond, that's not always true. So one can at least make a case for new UI, in light of there being something new about zombie hit points.

 
Don't get me wrong mate, I know that anything we see in the videos is just WIP and not much more than a sneak peek at what MAY be coming.
But... I just can't resist stirring the pot a bit. ;)

Much like poking Roland with a stick, it causes much mirth and a little consternation but in the end it's all just harmless fun.
Click to expand...
Don't go bringing up sticks in this forum. That's just a whole different pot to stir.

 
I keep the gamma as close to the default as I can stand it, for the sake of not affecting gameplay. But I've given up on the default of 75%, and play at 90%. I don't have to adjust the gamma for any other game. I've always thought the game is too dark, from requiring too many lights to light one's base, to the aesthetics of not seeing texture details on a zombie standing in broad daylight. I still believe we could have a prettier looking game with better performance, without hurting the light-sensitive parts of gameplay.
Click to expand...
I turn it down on my newer monitor, which is brighter by default than my older monitor. But I'm trying to get myself in the habit of turning it up when I record, because YouTube videos come out ridiculously dark sometimes. Nobody likes to watch a black screen for more than 5 seconds if they aren't actually the one playing the game.

 
That's an interesting perspective but mine is different. To me, adventure games and traditional FPS games start easy and then ramp up difficulty as you gain powers and gear.
Survival games, OTH, start out extremely difficult with your very survival always on the blade of a knife and only after you gain powers and gear does life become easier. This is what helps you feel the progression from "caveman" to "modern" quality of life. For example, you should be on the cusp of dying from starvation because of ineffective gear, food spoilage, and scarcity. IF you survive to the point where you have a farm, refrigeration, and decent hunting gear then the game becomes easier.

For survival games the first week should always be the most difficult part of the game with the greatest risk of death due to zombies, starving, dehydration, exposure, disease being at their greatest.

That's not to say that there shouldn't be new threats introduced later that will challenge the player but I've always viewed survival games as having an inverted difficulty curve.
Click to expand...
Mmm, I'm not so sure. It seems to me that any game with an inverted difficulty curve, even a survival game, has the same problem. They're unstable, in that players will 'slide' towards one end or the other. Either a player can't get over the 'hill' or 'wall' of maximum difficulty at the start, and give up because the game is too hard, or, like bloom_meister, they master that initial difficulty and then complain that "there is no mid game or end game content," because everything forever after is too easy. You're left with a fractured community of noobs and veterans, with an eroded middle.

The optimal difficulty curve for a survival game is probably pretty flat, but noisy. Any threat to your survival has to be taken seriously, but they're spread out over different timescales.

  • You need to eat and drink, but thirst must be dealt with in a matter of days, while hunger must be dealt with in a matter of weeks.
  • Hunting and scavenging for food will keep you going in the short term, but soon enough you'll deplete the local resources, so you'd better start plans to start a farm or move.
  • Boarding up the windows should keep the zombies out tonight, but if more of those cops start showing up you'll need something stronger...

...And to keep things interesting, this is all interspersed with more noisy and random parts, like "nuts, I just got infected" and "GAAAH zombie dogs!"

 
I tend to subscribe to your thinking CC. Different challenges at each stage. Like in Starvation we added things like plagues and a harsh winter to make farming not a final solution like it is in vanilla.

 
I like biome based challenges, with finite resources... It fits the move or else motif and means you can eliminate levelled loot, something I've recently decided I'm not a fan of. ;)

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top