PC Game direction? Is it now intelligent mutants or will bandits take over

What?
Are you saying you have never had to deal with a breach before and have never experienced the excitement and feeling of triumph of successfully surviving a breach of your defenses? Some of my most memorable moments in base defense was when they got past my defenses and I had to scramble and fall back to a new position. Sometimes it ended in my death because I panicked and sometimes I had narrow escapes and then ultimately victory which felt extremely satisfying.

I would not want to deliberately let them in to have those experiences so zombie AI that is random enough that it will occasionally happen and the threat that it could happen is always there is something very appealing to me. Being able to build a perfect defense that 100% will always repel a predictable behavior so that I pretty much know a breach will never happen is boring and no thrills.

I want to try my best to survive but I also want for my defenses to have a chance for failure and experience the terror of scrambling to survive in the face of it.
Agree 100% and why I play the game. I like to try and build a base that is defensible and makes sense, but I don't want a guarantee; in fact if things are guaranteed without firing any shots, then I'm losing a big part of why I play this game.

Cops spitting on the cage walls, zombies wailing on the base of my towers, zombies spawning inside my freaking base on a BM and wrecking shop (I lost resources to that one), zombies busting across a bridge and knocking down my doors and getting into the cage ... sweet jesus, that was a butcher job.

A little risk keeps things spicy.

 
What?
Are you saying you have never had to deal with a breach before and have never experienced the excitement and feeling of triumph of successfully surviving a breach of your defenses?
I have no interest in thrills or an emotional roller coaster ride. Yes, I've experienced before that a base didn't hold up and that was anything but a nice experience. That's why I build my bases stronger than necessary to prevent something like that from happening to me again.

 
I have no interest in thrills or an emotional roller coaster ride. Yes, I've experienced before that a base didn't hold up and that was anything but a nice experience. That's why I build my bases stronger than necessary to prevent something like that from happening to me again.
Well, I can see we are polar opposites in what we want in this regard and while I do respect that you enjoy your playstyle, I can't hope for it myself and am therefore excited for randomization and unpredictability in zombie behavior. Personally I love their new pathing in A17 and my only gripe is that it is so easily exploitable due to predictability.

 
The spikes traps are not very durable. If you play with 32 zombies at the same time as me, they are destroyed pretty quickly. The old logspikes did less damage but they were much more durable.
But a sensible ramdomization doesn't mean that all zombies ignore the weakest path and all go for the same thick wall. It means most zombies will do just as now, and mostly single zombies will attack other places. So spikes don't need to be durable, they need to be enough to kill a single or a few zombies. If by chance too many decide to go to the same place, then you are in trouble.

It's not about holding the horde off. I want to destroy the horde.
Maybe you interpret too much into the word "hold off". I meant just that the horde doesn't get to the position you shoot from. It still means that no zombie is left alive after a horde night.

I doubt the block damage will be reduced again. It was significantly increased in A17 and the total HP of the blocks was massively reduced. Therefore, the old melee bases are no longer effectively usable because the zombies break through too quickly.
Madmole said he usually balances by big steps (i.e.doubling or tripling) until it is obviously too much and then dialing back. So significant increases don't signify much. And a better AI that is only predictable to a degree would be as dangerous with less block damage than a too predictable AI with high block damage. As can be seen by base designs that are totally safe independent of zombie block damage because every zombie does the same thing.

If I can't be sure if a base will hold or not, I can give up the base building right away. For me a base is the expression for a strategy and a strategy shouldn't be a gamble. And it shouldn't be spray and pray or use a many guns as possible either. If it comes to that, the game is just a stupid zombie shooter that you play and forget.

People who think they can effectively fight random acting zombies underestimate what that means. Even only 8 zombies at a time are hard to keep track of. With more zombies it is practically impossible to keep track of every single one. Accordingly, the zombies will destroy blocks and perhaps even penetrate the base.
"No strategy survives first contact with the enemy" is a famous quote from a prussian military strategist. Great military leaders always had a plan b or c ready and kept troops back to be able to react to the actual battle. Even great movie villains always have an escape route ready even though they are sure to triumph :smile-new: .

A good strategy (at least in real life) just maximizes your chances, it still is a gamble. Most games use randomness to simulate this, very few games are totally deterministic.

 
I have no interest in thrills or an emotional roller coaster ride. Yes, I've experienced before that a base didn't hold up and that was anything but a nice experience. That's why I build my bases stronger than necessary to prevent something like that from happening to me again.
Sounds like, and I mean this sincerely, you simply ought to turn off the Zombie Horde. Ultimately, if your base is impregnable, under any circumstances, then the Horde was pretty pointless anyway.

 
"No strategy survives first contact with the enemy" is a famous quote from a prussian military strategist. Great military leaders always had a plan b or c ready and kept troops back to be able to react to the actual battle. Even great movie villains always have an escape route ready even though they are sure to triumph :smile-new: .

A good strategy (at least in real life) just maximizes your chances, it still is a gamble. Most games use randomness to simulate this, very few games are totally deterministic.
"If you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know others but know yourself, you win one and lose one; if you do not know others and do not know yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle." - Sun Tzu

If a enemy acts randomly then I can not know him. And that is my problem with randomly acting zombies.

It's also not about one or two zombies acting randomly or one zombie running to the left or right but completely random means that they all behave completely irrationally.

Let's take a funnel base as an example. This is about the zombies being led through a corridor where they are either killed by traps or the player shoots at them.

In previous alphas you had to dig deep trenches around the base to get them into the tunnel. In A17 the zombies voluntarily entered the tunnel. Random zombies, for example, wouldn't go into the tunnel at all but would hit the outside walls. Of course you can try to protect the outer walls with iron spikes, but as I said before, they won't last very long. And with a horde each zombie is replaced immediately by a new one.

All your considerations and strategies are worthless because no zombie behaves as you would expect it to.

I'm someone who likes to be strategic and analytical. So far 7D2D has made this possible for me. It would be a real shame for the game to develop into a pure shooter where only the people who would be better off playing COD zombies or similar games would have fun with it.

By the way, escaping is not a problem either. You just sit on your motorbike and ride away. The zombies can't follow anyway.

 
Sounds like, and I mean this sincerely, you simply ought to turn off the Zombie Horde. Ultimately, if your base is impregnable, under any circumstances, then the Horde was pretty pointless anyway.
I've always accepted zombies and hordes as part of the game. But what I never imagined was that I was a lonely survivor or a big warrior and that the zombies were a real threat. I also don't have to get an adrenaline rush out of it because I'm running around in a game and shooting virtual enemies with virtual weapons. I know that they are computer-generated opponents are following certain algorithms.

I am someone who likes to be analytical. I observe the behavior of the zombies and build my base on this knowledge. If the base holds then my analysis was correct. If it doesn't withstand then it's a failure and back to the drawing board.

But if the behavior is just random I can't analyze anything anymore and it becomes really pointless for me. Why even make a plan if I can't plan anything anymore ? You can only shoot wildly around yourself. Then I might as well play COD zombies.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've always accepted zombies and hordes as part of the game. But what I never imagined was that I was a lonely survivor or a big warrior and that the zombies were a real threat. I also don't have to get an adrenaline rush out of it because I'm running around in a game and shooting virtual enemies with virtual weapons. I know that they are computer-generated opponents are following certain algorithms.
I am someone who likes to be analytical. I observe the behavior of the zombies and build my base on this knowledge. If the base holds then my analysis was correct. If it doesn't withstand then it's a failure and back to the drawing board.

But if the behavior is just random I can't analyze anything anymore and it becomes really pointless for me. Why even make a plan if I can't plan anything anymore ? You can only shoot wildly around yourself. Then I might as well play COD zombies.
Well, I'm not arguing for totally random behaviour, let me be clear on that. Zombies should be reasonably predictable. However, they shouldn't be completely predictable either, and that's why I'm looking forward to some degree of random behaviour on their part.

A17 has shown clearly that no matter what Zombie AI is put in place, if it's 100% predictable, it'll be 100% cheesable too, so the best solution to making the whole of the base defendable, not just some corridor-of-unavoidable-death-set-up, is to given them a degree of random behaviour, so that not all of them get churned to tiny little bits by traps while the player sits there reading their latest issue of Cosmo..... ;-)

 
This debate is one of the reasons I am looking forward to A18 and beyond.

Will the Zombies and the bandits co-exist or will they fight each other on sight (like Bears and wolves attacking zombies) as this would make Bandit attacks during BM nights interesting and the potential of leading a Herd into a Bandit camp for giggles.

Will Base defenses developed vs A17 zombies the current AI was tested with be effective vs the bandits the Ai was tested for?

Personally, like most, I have played too many games of 7 Days to feel any lasting satisfaction from opening crates or completing a POI for the 100th time, BUT finding a way to not only survive but thrive vs dumber zombies and the bandit threat...

Yea, I'm down for that

 
This debate is one of the reasons I am looking forward to A18 and beyond.
Will the Zombies and the bandits co-exist or will they fight each other on sight (like Bears and wolves attacking zombies) as this would make Bandit attacks during BM nights interesting and the potential of leading a Herd into a Bandit camp for giggles.
According to madmole the bandits will appear in the gold version at the earliest. The A18 might not be that yet.

As for leading the horde in a bandit hiding place, the zombies will ignore the bandits completely because they are focused on you. This can be seen very well in multiplayers when one player kills the zombies of another player. The zombies are not interested in being attacked from another player.

Will Base defenses developed vs A17 zombies the current AI was tested with be effective vs the bandits the Ai was tested for?
Personally, like most, I have played too many games of 7 Days to feel any lasting satisfaction from opening crates or completing a POI for the 100th time, BUT finding a way to not only survive but thrive vs dumber zombies and the bandit threat...

Yea, I'm down for that
I have since alpha 16 always separate bases for the blood moon horde and for work.

Since the bandits are probably more interested in your property, they are a problem for my work base to solve. But here the information the AI has should be limited in the same way as a human at PvP. They shouldn't be able to tell if a block is made of steel or just painted wood when they look at it.

I also assume that the amount of bandits is less than the amount of zombies in a bloodmoon horde. Accordingly, the defense must be designed to deal with a few intelligent opponents as is the case with PvP.

The bloodmoon horde, on the other hand, should be many stupid opponents. A completely different approach to defense.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"If you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know others but know yourself, you win one and lose one; if you do not know others and do not know yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle." - Sun Tzu


If a enemy acts randomly then I can not know him. And that is my problem with randomly acting zombies.

It's also not about one or two zombies acting randomly or one zombie running to the left or right but completely random means that they all behave completely irrationally.
Ok, we are talking about different degrees of ramdom. Totally random zombies are very similar to A16 zombies, just without the running in circles. If that is the case players would have to go back to the rather unimaginative square boxes of A16 with spikes all around. I don't think TFP will do that.

By the way, escaping is not a problem either. You just sit on your motorbike and ride away. The zombies can't follow anyway.
Is that the right strategy for someone who wants to destroy the zombies, not merely hold them off :cocksure: ?

As for leading the horde in a bandit hiding place, the zombies will ignore the bandits completely because they are focused on you. This can be seen very well in multiplayers when one player kills the zombies of another player. The zombies are not interested in being attacked from another player.
You are talking about an implementation detail that may change the moment bandits step into the game.

 
Ok, we are talking about different degrees of ramdom. Totally random zombies are very similar to A16 zombies, just without the running in circles. If that is the case players would have to go back to the rather unimaginative square boxes of A16 with spikes all around. I don't think TFP will do that.
On the contrary. The AI in A16 didn't have a particularly pronounced path-finding but their actions were not random. They ran directly towards the target and hit everything in the way.

If they were directly at the target's position but couldn't get to the target because it was higher up, they didn't know what to do. That's why you could direct the zombies wonderfully from above and e.g. pull them through spikes like a magnet. Now the destruction mode has been introduced. If they can not reach you then they destroy blocks nearby.

In 17.2 you can find the first approaches of random behaviour like zombies instead of following the open path starting to hit the wall. The box with spikes is exactly what remains at the end when the behavior is no longer predictable.

Is that the right strategy for someone who wants to destroy the zombies, not merely hold them off :cocksure: ?
That's why I have plan A which works so well that all 3 waves of the zombies are destroyed long before the night is over. And that with a gamestage of over 500.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting thread to read, tbh. I see a lot of peoples view differ, but the general consensus about how the zombies operate right now is less than stellar. There are good things about the changes:

1.Hidden zombies add further challenge to the looting aspect of the game. However, since many buildings have several hidden zombies in multiple closets, it doesn't really make sense. When I break into a building and find zombies, my mind immediately tries to explain why they're in there. A mom and dad with friends got mauled in the house and died while boarding it up? Sure, that makes sense.

However, a house filled to the brim with zombies, many of which are inexplicably hiding, but not doing anything, is hard to explain in any rational way. They're like the skeletons that pop out in a haunted house ride... except the skeletons don't try to kill you with all their skeletal buddies.

2. The zombies are no longer running in little circles. That was just bad coding and really silly. Zombies are mindless, not pinata enthusiasts.

3. The zombies are more effective at working ladders. While I kinda liked the ladder exploit that kept the bulk of the zombies at ground level, I always wondered why they couldn't jump. Even in old zombie movies, their limitations were somewhat silly. Having to hide my ladders in better ways adds to the strategy.

Despite those good aspects, there are a lot of things I do not like about the game direction with the zombies thus far. Most notably the lack of loot. If I want that fat bastards Hawaiian shirt, I should be able to strip that bloody rag off his back. Taking loot away from the zombies was a poor decision as it reduced incentive to kill all the zombies. I find myself still dragging the group away while my partner sneaks into the building to deal with the stragglers and loot. It's a fine strategy, but now I don't waste arrows or stamina for potential goodies on corpses.

I'm also disappointed with the lack of environmental changes that occur with dead zombies. However, I understand the need to maintain performance, so this one is less of a problem for me.

Another aspect that bugs me is that we can't dismember corpses anymore for bad meat and bones. Sure, it was a little tedious to clean up the massacre, but all that glue and fertilizer, baby. If we're gonna recycle, let's get serious!

As for the AI, I'm not expecting much. The zombie basics, to me, are as follows: they react to light, movement, and sound. Heat detection is silly. Smell is also silly. Also, once a zombie "detects" something, all other zombies should be reacting similarly as they're simultaneously reacting to the one zombies noise as well as a generalized instinct to chase hunger. The reason a roaming horde forms is because a single or small group of zombies react to stimuli and others tag along reacting to the movement of the group. They don't know where they're going, they're just reacting to activity.

That makes the zombies predictable, but gives their behavior purpose. Why is that zombie attacking the wall? Because it is reacting to sounds going on beyond that wall. The challenge should be in dealing with a combination of numbers, random traits of the zombies themselves, and whatever fantastical elements TFP wants to add to the zombies. If making them "smarter" is their best idea of a fantastical element to add to a zombie, I gotta say, that's the wrong approach. Smart bandits are fine. Small groups of intelligent beings trying to get your stuff or your base makes sense and is a reasonable challenge, just as large numbers of mindless, hungry zombies that break down anything in front of them to find the source of activity that brought them there.

If you want to make zombies unpredictable, but adhering to the traits that make a zombie a zombie, then apply to the virus/bacteria/radiation lore of the game to give them special abilities that don't involve intellect. Once they show intellect, they cease to be zombies. Instead, have them physically react to things in ways that create a challenge for the player. IE: when late stage zombies take a certain amount of damage, they react like the cops and explode. Or, have their traits get more brutal the longer the zombie progression continues within the host. Late stage zombies could be something else entirely, in which intelligence can come into play, but the zombies themselves should always be mindless beings in search of nourishment for an unknown reason. Perhaps their need to feed stimulates the virus's evolution to more intelligent, dangerous beings.

Granted, you start getting into Resident Evil territory when you do this as their zombies evolved into other creatures like Lickers, but it gives your monsters an evolutionary process that enhances in game lore and continuously challenges the player.

 
Overall a nice recap but I disagree with a couple of your own points... ;)

Heat detection is silly. Smell is also silly.
As far as I know the zombies have never reacted to heat. The "heat map" never referred to temperatures. It refers to the amount of activity and industry going on in a biome that would attract greater attention.

Smell or whatever you want to call the zombie ability to sense brains is a pretty classic trope and I disagree that it is silly at all. It was a great mechanic that I wish would be brought back. I don't think it is a stretch to go from zombies "smelling" brains to "smelling" any living flesh they might desire.

...adhering to the traits that make a zombie a zombie
The developers usually refer to them as "infected" and "special infected". They also use the term "zombie". Some people get hung up on narrow vs broad definitions. The developers are not among these people. Whatever abilities the zombies end up having are the traits that will make these zombies these zombies. I agree that appropriate lore to back it up is important but I disagree with semantics debates about make believe creatures.

 
Overall a nice recap but I disagree with a couple of your own points... ;)
A disagreement? I hope you know, this means wah!

As far as I know the zombies have never reacted to heat. The "heat map" never referred to temperatures. It refers to the amount of activity and industry going on in a biome that would attract greater attention.
Fair enough. A lot of YTers I watch had mentioned heat thresholds bringing in screamers n such. If it's just the method to for the game to determine certain activities, no problem.

Smell or whatever you want to call the zombie ability to sense brains is a pretty classic trope and I disagree that it is silly at all. It was a great mechanic that I wish would be brought back. I don't think it is a stretch to go from zombies "smelling" brains to "smelling" any living flesh they might desire.
Perhaps, but it seems to me the smell of other rotting corpses (let alone their own corpse smell) would render "smell" ineffective. I'm one to run with Max Brooks zombie theory about zombies maintaining the abilities/traits they had in life only hindered by damage/decay of time. However, we are talking about fictional monsters, so a heightened sense of smell for live flesh is in the realm of possibility.

The developers usually refer to them as "infected" and "special infected". They also use the term "zombie". Some people get hung up on narrow vs broad definitions. The developers are not among these people. Whatever abilities the zombies end up having are the traits that will make these zombies these zombies. I agree that appropriate lore to back it up is important but I disagree with semantics debates about make believe creatures.
I get that and I'm all about reinventing the zombie, but the game is still following much the established zombie lore including shambling, fleshing eating corpses. They can play around with that all they like, I'd just like them to have a defined reason for it, even if it's just between them. Have a hidden lore that no one knows about and the game is designed to hint at those points allowing the player to come up with reasons for themselves. At the moment, it's a mish-mash of old ideas and some new ones without any real focus.

Or, perhaps, a bit too much subtlety for an idiot like me to pick up on. XD

 
Last edited by a moderator:
1.Hidden zombies add further challenge to the looting aspect of the game. However, since many buildings have several hidden zombies in multiple closets, it doesn't really make sense. When I break into a building and find zombies, my mind immediately tries to explain why they're in there. A mom and dad with friends got mauled in the house and died while boarding it up? Sure, that makes sense.

However, a house filled to the brim with zombies, many of which are inexplicably hiding, but not doing anything, is hard to explain in any rational way. They're like the skeletons that pop out in a haunted house ride... except the skeletons don't try to kill you with all their skeletal buddies.
Possible explanation: Zombies, similar to some animals, like to hide in small dark places. They don't like light, don't like open spaces. If they haven't fed for a long time, they go into hibernation and hide, preferably in a dark closed off space. Ever seen a bear hibernate in the open? I don't think there is a problem with giving zombies instincts on the level of animals.

Either this instinct comes from self-preservation (or a remnant of that because this creature had that when alive once) or as a predator it likes to hide (like a trapdoor spider) to wait for prey. The latter motivation is a little suspect since zombies could not have learned this by some evolutionary force. It would need the zombies to have remnants of intelligence left, maybe zombies can think but their higher thought processes are so slow that simple deduction takes days.

 
On the contrary. The AI in A16 didn't have a particularly pronounced path-finding but their actions were not random. They ran directly towards the target and hit everything in the way.
In A16 the side they were spawning at and therefore attacking was randomly picked but fixed over the whole horde night. So any base had to have maximum protection from all sides but they only attacked one side. If A16 zombies had only been enhanced with a random attack angle though they would have been totally ineffective as they would have distributed their attack power on ALL the spikes of all sides instead of only one side.

There are multiple differences in A17: One is the bonus they get when they attack one spot. This is the change that even in A16 would have brought any design based on a ground floor cage to its knees because the zombies would get through too fast. And the destruction mode added to A16 would have made exploity stilt bases impossible. The third change was the path finding, the fourth the random angle they spawn at.

Of all those changes only the path finding makes A17 LESS random, and turning that off would make the zombies behave more random and more like A16.

There are a few ways that A17 could enhance randomness for basic zombies:

1) They could make the length of a path much more expensive (for the pathfinding of the zombies). The more expensive you do that the more you simulate A16 behaviour. Also remove the random spawn angle and A16 behaviour is fully back.

2) They could randomly decide if they use attack mode or destruction mode. But then the next question is at what time do they randomly decide this? At spawning or when they have arrived at the base? Before or after following the least expensive path to the player?

3) They could make a path calculation but randomly decide which of the best paths they ultimately follow, the best, the second best, ...

What you seem to be warning about (correct me if I'm wrong) is basically version 1. I hope it is clear now why I consider it to be similar to A16.

Because the zombies would attack from any angle and mostly not get any block attack boni working the most problematic result would be that the box with spikes would be here again as the only and most effective way by far to combat these zombies

If they were directly at the target's position but couldn't get to the target because it was higher up, they didn't know what to do. That's why you could direct the zombies wonderfully from above and e.g. pull them through spikes like a magnet. Now the destruction mode has been introduced. If they can not reach you then they destroy blocks nearby.
It isn't as if defending from a higher position is impossible now (it probably was in 17.0 where the block damage bonus for multiple zombies was very high). You just can't do it anymore with filigrane stilts. You need to put yourself on a durable foundation. Leading ineffective zombies around and laughing like a maniac was fun but also too effective for the effort you put into it. Aka an exploit.

That's why I have plan A which works so well that all 3 waves of the zombies are destroyed long before the night is over. And that with a gamestage of over 500.
Boasting about taking on the horde and "destroying" it completely and then having a plan B of meekly driving off on a minibike is sending a mixed message :cocksure: . That was my point.

Building bases in creative mode and testing them before really using them is your way of eliminating risk. If I did that I would need no plan B either. I try to keep risk low by building robust bases that should work even if zombie AI changes, and I make a plan B that should work even if luck is against me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It isn't as if defending from a higher position is impossible now (it probably was in 17.0 where the block damage bonus for multiple zombies was very high). You just can't do it anymore with filigrane stilts. You need to put yourself on a durable foundation. Leading ineffective zombies around and laughing like a maniac was fun but also too effective for the effort you put into it. Aka an exploit.
When the task is to destroy the zombies, I do it as effectively as possible and not as ineffectively and risky as possible. Call it cheesy or expoit or whatever.

I wouldn't use such a stilt base in A17.2 anymore. I once saw a Twitter post from madmole showing a wooden hut after it was dismantled by the horde. There was only rubble left.

I would like to avoid such things for my bases because I invest too much time and work to build them.

Building bases in creative mode and testing them before really using them is your way of eliminating risk. If I did that I would need no plan B either. I try to keep risk low by building robust bases that should work even if zombie AI changes, and I make a plan B that should work even if luck is against me.
It's more of an occupational disease with me. I always run simulations before I do anything. Someone in my job who takes risks is out of place.

 
Back
Top