PC My A18 feedback

[Roland]

I said this didn't amount to bait and switch, but that your argument was still ignorant, regardless. So let's worry about that? People concerned that the enemy doesn't act like everyone has every reason to expect is a valid concern. My point was that it is in fact valid and that your argument otherwise is the same type of ridiculousness that would try to justify the aforementioned bait and switch.

I see what you're saying. TFP should be careful not to stray too far from traditional and widely accepted zombie tropes that have already been established if they want to go on calling this a zombie survival game and not upset a certain segment of zombie fans who will be angry that the "zombies" in 7 Days to Die aren't really acting like true zombies. I agree. If TFP cares about not upsetting those people who will be upset by how the zombies are acting then they should be careful how they portray those zombies.

The hell you weren't. He said he he essentially prefered A16 "because it didn't have [x]" issue. To which you literally, and directly responded with "Oh, but you were okay with [y]?" He in absoloutely no damned way said or implied he was okay with that. And your attempt to try to imply that he was somehow fine with that is, in case you forgot, a very dishonest attempt to derail his point. Believe it or not, it's quite possible to not be okay with [y] and still think [x] is a bigger issue and/or one worth mentioning.

Let's not use variables since I'm on vacation today. He said that zombies shouldn't be able to tell the difference between wood and steel. My comment was that zombies could tell the difference between a door and a wall in previous alphas and was there no complaint with that level of perception? I wasn't implying that he was or was not okay with that. I was drawing a parallel between the way things were and the way things are and wondering what the difference was? I never said he couldn't mention his dislike of them knowing the difference between wood and steel. I wanted him to clarify why it was fine for zombies to be able to know what a door was vs a wall but not fine for them to prefer a wood wall to a steel wall. This thread is all about comparing A18 to previous Alphas--and in particular A16. So how is it derailing in the slightest to bring up that in A16 zombies prioritized doors over walls whereas in A18 they prioritize weaker blocks over stronger blocks? It is one of major changes.

You are absolutely correct that someone might be just fine with zombies prioritizing doors over walls but not weaker blocks over stronger blocks. This whole immersion issue over how zombies behave is highly subjective after all.

I wouldn't call it being a "Lorax". Just capable of using the basest form of common sense. Do you touch a fire and expect it to make you cold? Obviously after this exchange, I can't quite speak for you, but most reasonable people would expect it to burn. Why? Knowledge gained from pretty universal information (and maybe a little experience, to boot). To know that people generally come in with an expectation that [this extremely recognizeable thing] will exhibit the same characteristics it does in essentially any/every other scenario doesn't require "being the Lorax of Zombie Fans." It requires basic mental processes and a willingness to use them.

Sorry if the Lorax comment offended. I only meant it as a reference to the book where the Lorax "speaks for the trees". You were going beyond your own personal opinion and speaking on behalf of vast vast VAST numbers of people. I would just say that fire is a real physical state of matter compared to zombies which are scifi/fantasy creatures of imagination. You are probably right that the vast majority of people have something in mind when they think of "zombie" just like they do when they think of "fire" but I bet far fewer would be enraged by deviations to a figment of the imagination than they would be by deviations from something that is actually real.

My own opinion is that The Fun Pimps should go wild with their creativity and have the freedom to redefine what a zombie is for their own universe and not worry about the people who will be upset by that.

 

[Guppycur]

Why do you people try to "win" and bring debate tactics and war board methods into these discussions?

...It'd be a hell of a lot more productive without all of the attacks, passive aggressiveness and defensiveness. Just saying.

Fostering this kind of behavior on a forum just leads to a bad forum experience overall.

 

[Ac75]

While I see zombies that are laughably predictable and therefore, by definition, not much threat.
In A16 I saw zombies that were horrifically random in their attacks and thus felt visceral. Yup that's the absolute right word here. A16 zombies felt visceral: mindless, random, violent. A17 zombies feel....programmed.

I agree.

 

[Kubikus]

I see what you're saying. TFP should be careful not to stray too far from traditional and widely accepted zombie tropes that have already been established if they want to go on calling this a zombie survival game and not upset a certain segment of zombie fans who will be angry that the "zombies" in 7 Days to Die aren't really acting like true zombies. I agree. If TFP cares about not upsetting those people who will be upset by how the zombies are acting then they should be careful how they portray those zombies.

And I see what you're saying: They don't care. Why don't you just say "they don't care"..?
Personally, btw, I am not "angry" or "enraged" over the 7dtd zombies not being what one actually would a zombie expect to be. I'd say that I find it "unfortunate", because the atmosphere of a zombie apocalypse is quite dear to me, and I find the ways the zombies in this game deviate from that atmosphere unwelcome.

Let's not use variables since I'm on vacation today. He said that zombies shouldn't be able to tell the difference between wood and steel. My comment was that zombies could tell the difference between a door and a wall in previous alphas and was there no complaint with that level of perception? I wasn't implying that he was or was not okay with that. I was drawing a parallel between the way things were and the way things are and wondering what the difference was? I never said he couldn't mention his dislike of them knowing the difference between wood and steel. I wanted him to clarify why it was fine for zombies to be able to know what a door was vs a wall but not fine for them to prefer a wood wall to a steel wall. This thread is all about comparing A18 to previous Alphas--and in particular A16. So how is it derailing in the slightest to bring up that in A16 zombies prioritized doors over walls whereas in A18 they prioritize weaker blocks over stronger blocks? It is one of major changes.

Of course I can't speak for others, but as I already mentioned, there are a couple of plausible reasons why zombies might go for doors. More importantly, the problem with using doors just as bait was far less prominent than the way one pretty much HAS TO utilize the zombies' psychic powers these days. If you want to build a proper base, you have to consider that they magically know all these things about your base and build accordingly.

Some people - I don't really know any percentages or so - just think that if you respond to someone voicing what they consider a problem without actually discussing said problem, but draw the attention away from it, by pointing out other aspects or issues or problems, is a form of derailment. When utilized intentionally, particularly in politics, this is called "whataboutism". For example recently, when I voiced criticism about the company making changes with the expressed intention to cater to new players and you wanted to discuss if it's a problem to make changes because of technical reasons. It is "a good idea" to at least also discuss the problem that is brought up or explain why you don't.

I haven't seen your opinion on zombie AI on horde night. Do you enjoy building bases around forseeing how zombies will navigate through an obstacle course..?

You are absolutely correct that someone might be just fine with zombies prioritizing doors over walls but not weaker blocks over stronger blocks. This whole immersion issue over how zombies behave is highly subjective after all.

Do you think we should just not discuss any of these things at all? That seems to be a reoccuring angle of yours.

Sorry if the Lorax comment offended. I only meant it as a reference to the book where the Lorax "speaks for the trees". You were going beyond your own personal opinion and speaking on behalf of vast vast VAST numbers of people. I would just say that fire is a real physical state of matter compared to zombies which are scifi/fantasy creatures of imagination. You are probably right that the vast majority of people have something in mind when they think of "zombie" just like they do when they think of "fire" but I bet far fewer would be enraged by deviations to a figment of the imagination than they would be by deviations from something that is actually real.
My own opinion is that The Fun Pimps should go wild with their creativity and have the freedom to redefine what a zombie is for their own universe and not worry about the people who will be upset by that.

I agree that the devs should go wild with their creativity, but if you wanted intelligent enemies, why do you call them "zombies"? Because it is indeed a true fact that the VAAAAAAAST majority of people understand a fairly certain thing under a "zombie". Being intelligent (or feeling pain) is usually none of them. So why use zombies, when your creative vision is something else?
I think, though, that it is not so much a creative vision. It's more a technical problem, that is being solved in a, let's say, less-than-ideal manner. That comes with noticable flaws and new problems. Such as that the zombies are now way too intelligent. Which is not a problem because of expectations, but because it's just not the same gameplay anymore. Was that intended? Was it the plan all along? Or is it actually a flaw the devs accept because they can't solve their problems without introducing such flaws..?

 

[Kubikus]

Why do you people try to "win" and bring debate tactics and war board methods into these discussions?
...It'd be a hell of a lot more productive without all of the attacks, passive aggressiveness and defensiveness. Just saying.

Fostering this kind of behavior on a forum just leads to a bad forum experience overall.

Not quite sure what exactly you mean, but tbh, when I see someone in charge of enforcing the rules using such tactics or allowing them, I kinda feel invited to participate accordingly, and so I do, cuz I enjoy that stuff. It's kind of a battle of the wits, and, if practised mindfully, can lead to great results. When an opinion or theory can stand up against all such tactics, it might be sound.
When it's unwanted, that's fine as well, but it seems to be normal round here, does it not?

 

[Ghostlight]

He said that zombies shouldn't be able to tell the difference between wood and steel. My comment was that zombies could tell the difference between a door and a wall in previous alphas and was there no complaint with that level of perception?

OMG of course there wasn't!!! These are so different that you just have to be trolling now. Zombies telling the difference between one material and another is ridiculous beyond belief and immersion breaking. Zombies homing in on doors (or windows even) is totally expected. You really saying these amount to the same thing? What's the first thing you do in every zombie movie ever? BAR THE DOORS AND WINDOWS.

 

[Prisma501]

Generally the zombies in these situations are the slow, lumbering and unintelligent kind first made popular in the 1968 film Night of the Living Dead.[9] Motion pictures created within the 2000s, however, have featured zombies that are more agile, vicious, intelligent, and stronger than the traditional zombie.[12] In many cases of "fast" zombies, creators use living humans infected with a pathogen (as in 28 Days Later, Zombieland and Left 4 Dead), instead of re-animated corpses, to avoid the "slow death walk" of Romero's variety of zombies.
In addition, ‘special’ zombie types may also be included, depending on the genre, either as unexpected mutations or superior classes compared to standard zombies, boasting special abilities or heightened skills such as strength, speed or ferocity, as seen in video games such as Half-Life 2 and The Last of Us.

There are the Romero zombies and the evolution of them. Its not new. Its not a concrete dried lore. They are still zombies (living dead, mutated if needed). So if the Pimps want to call them zombies, let them. Why on earth limit yourself to the Romero zombies? Its a matter of preference which is subjective. No VAAAAAAST majority can be identified. Speaking for /them/ is an act of guessing and using it as an argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_apocalypse

Cheers

 

[Kubikus]

There are the Romero zombies and the evolution of them. Its not new. Its not a concrete dried lore. They are still zombies (living dead, mutated if needed). So if the Pimps want to call them zombies, let them. Why on earth limit yourself to the Romero zombies? Its a matter of preference which is subjective. No VAAAAAAST majority can be identified. Speaking for /them/ is an act of guessing and using it as an argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_apocalypse

Cheers

I like to think it's deductive reasoning, not guessing. The vast majority of ppl will always use the most common definition to characterise anything. Zombies have some basic characteristics, variations are beyond these. Intelligence is a variation. Feeling pain is a variation. Self healing is a variation. There certainly is no doubt that in a work of fiction you are allowed to call your creature a zombie. You are allowed to call it a banana peel. But when the vast majority of ppl hears "zombie", they don't think of an intelligent creature that can feel pain and self heal. They think of a creature as portrayed in "The Walking Dead". Just like you instantly think of a bunch of certain characteristics when I say "vampire". Even though there are variations as well.
It's not really an argument in the discussion wether the new AI is good or not. It's a sidenote, that is being discussed because there seem to be different opinions. I suspect much of the differences root in disagreeing ppls desire to defend the changes. The core of the discussion should be wether it's good or bad that the game's enemy can know things that elude "normal" perception.

 

[stallionsden]

There are the Romero zombies and the evolution of them. Its not new. Its not a concrete dried lore. They are still zombies (living dead, mutated if needed). So if the Pimps want to call them zombies, let them. Why on earth limit yourself to the Romero zombies? Its a matter of preference which is subjective. No VAAAAAAST majority can be identified. Speaking for /them/ is an act of guessing and using it as an argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_apocalypse

Cheers

Zombies that have a uni degree.....

Cheers

 

[Gazz]

There are the Romero zombies and the evolution of them. Its not new. Its not a concrete dried lore. They are still zombies (living dead, mutated if needed). So if the Pimps want to call them zombies, let them. Why on earth limit yourself to the Romero zombies?

Even if you limit yourself to Romero zombies they could ride a horse or use a rifle so they can clearly be smarter than a brick.

It's pretty common that people pick one particular piece of lore or one particular movie and declare everything else illegal. =)

 

[Prisma501]

Zombies that have a uni degree.....
Cheers

Yes. Zombies.

Cheers

 

[Prisma501]

I like to think it's deductive reasoning, not guessing. The vast majority of ppl will always use the most common definition to characterise anything. Zombies have some basic characteristics, variations are beyond these. Intelligence is a variation. Feeling pain is a variation. Self healing is a variation. There certainly is no doubt that in a work of fiction you are allowed to call your creature a zombie. You are allowed to call it a banana peel. But when the vast majority of ppl hears "zombie", they don't think of an intelligent creature that can feel pain and self heal. They think of a creature as portrayed in "The Walking Dead". Just like you instantly think of a bunch of certain characteristics when I say "vampire". Even though there are variations as well.
It's not really an argument in the discussion wether the new AI is good or not. It's a sidenote, that is being discussed because there seem to be different opinions. I suspect much of the differences root in disagreeing ppls desire to defend the changes. The core of the discussion should be wether it's good or bad that the game's enemy can know things that elude "normal" perception.

No. YOU think that. And you want to give more weight to your "argument" by making up that the /vast majority/ thinks the same.

I agree that the devs should go wild with their creativity, but if you wanted intelligent enemies, why do you call them "zombies"?

This is why i wrote that post. They ARE zombies. You can call it a variant of YOUR perception of a zombie. Its still a zombie.

Multiple games and movies have gotten rid of that Romero type of zombie. And thats okey. And they are still called zombies.

Sidenote or not. You asked the question in a passive aggressive attempt to make your argument more valuable. I just state that they are still zombies and you have no argument whatsoever that the creatures in 7dtd can not be called zombies.

Cheers

 

[Hek Harris]

Many people are unaware that zombies have evolved considerably since Romeo's movies. Learn to recognize them or you will meet your creator earlier than expected.

Spoiler

 

[Prisma501]

Even if you limit yourself to Romero zombies they could ride a horse or use a rifle so they can clearly be smarter than a brick.
It's pretty common that people pick one particular piece of lore or one particular movie and declare everything else illegal. =)

Yeps. Exactly my point.

Cheers

 

[Kubikus]

No.

There is no reasoning for your "no".

YOU think that. And you want to give more weight to your "argument" by making up that the /vast majority/ thinks the same.

I actually honestly think that the vast majority thinks that, for the reasons I layed out, while I personally am fully aware of the fact that zombies come in a million different flavors (including Marvel zombies with super power, a comic series, that, btw, I enjoyed very much). I agree that anybody has the artistic freedom (and should have it) to call anything they want to a "zombie".

Still, calling an enemy a zombie creates expectations, and the objection that a zombie should not be intelligent, should not feel pain, should not self heal, is just as valid as the artistic freedom of the creator. I have all the rights in the bloody world to deny that the enemies in 7dtd are zombies. Which I don't do, but I have all the rights. You couldn't sue me over it.

On topic, that y'all seem to be avoiding, I do think that the enemies in this game SHOULD behave more like a traditional generic Romero-zombie. No, not the three or five rogues that show a more sophisticated behaviour, but the other 99% and those that we see exclusively in The Walking Dead. I think that because that is the type of zombie I personally enjoy the most, I find the mindless zombie the most terrifying and "atmospheric", when, though, it is orcestrated adequately.

This is why i wrote that post. They ARE zombies. You can call it a variant of YOUR perception of a zombie. Its still a zombie.

And if the devs call them vampires, they ARE vampires. The question remains unanswered: Why do the devs call them zombies? If the devs want intelligent enemies that feel pain, can heal themselves - they even bleed and die from bloodloss, right? - why call them zombies?

Multiple games and movies have gotten rid of that Romero type of zombie. And thats okey. And they are still called zombies.

Cuz ppl have a certain expectation what a zombie is, and it is that expectation that sells games and movies and whatnot. To people who like zombies. For example is there a movie by the name "The Dead don't die". I was interested, because it's a zombie movie with an A-league cast. I stopped watching when the "zombies" had coffee in the diner.

In 7dtd it's different, though, the devs originally wanted zombies, with the minor variation that they run at night. But then they also thought that it would be kewl when the enemy shows a certain reaction to being hit in a limb, that's when they started feeling pain. They also thought different mocap-animations would be great, and had some made that don't look like zombie-walktypes at all. Already, the atmostphere of the game changed significantly.

The AI has been introduced because the old one was making problems, one being the pathfinding, another being that the player could very easily defend against them on horde night. The pathfinding has improved, defending on horde night seems even easier, because their behaviour is very forseeable.

Sidenote or not. You asked the question in a passive aggressive attempt to make your argument more valuable.

I don't see the passive aggression in that question, can you elaborate?

I just state that they are still zombies and you have no argument whatsoever that the creatures in 7dtd can not be called zombies.

You just quoted me saying "There certainly is no doubt that in a work of fiction you are allowed to call your creature a zombie. You are allowed to call it a banana peel." But at this point, the one thing that zombies have in common with, you know, zombies, is their appearance. They look mostly dead.

- - - Updated - - -

Even if you limit yourself to Romero zombies they could ride a horse or use a rifle so they can clearly be smarter than a brick.
It's pretty common that people pick one particular piece of lore or one particular movie and declare everything else illegal. =)

Same here, noone is doing that. Unless I missed it. And the few zombies in the Romero movies actually serve a plot. There is a reason why they behave like so, and that they behave like so is - within the story - remarkable. Unusual. Not normal.
Why are 7dtd-zombies clairvoyant?

 

[Kubikus]

Btw, afterthought: 7dtd has zombies that "puke" and explode. Is that a zombie? If you ask 100 randomly selected people, how many would say "zombies puke acid and explode"? We accept that that's a zombie because we know why it's there: As an interesting gameplay element. That's where the "zombies" in games come from, they're called zombies because zombies sell, but only zombies are too boring, so special types are added, and just being called zombies too.

 

[meganoth]

There are the Romero zombies and the evolution of them. Its not new. Its not a concrete dried lore. They are still zombies (living dead, mutated if needed). So if the Pimps want to call them zombies, let them. Why on earth limit yourself to the Romero zombies? Its a matter of preference which is subjective. No VAAAAAAST majority can be identified. Speaking for /them/ is an act of guessing and using it as an argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_apocalypse

Cheers

Not to forget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasting_Away and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warm_Bodies . Both movies show types of intelligent zombies. Comics and movies have been instrumental in widening the definition of what a zombie is. I would guess that people now expect zombies to be half-dead, rotten and hunger for brains. Anything else is negotiable.

Whether it is good for the game, is a different question: I would say for horde night it has good and bad consequences. The good consequence is that "tower defense" now really works.

The bad consequence is that many of the rules are not consistent and therefore can't be logically derived. Partly that was the case in A16 too, I remember a horde base in A16 that failed for me because the zombies didn't use the open doorway because a trap behind it made an artificial barrier. Now there are a lot more hidden rules, for example what exactly constitutes a path to the player.

 

[Kubikus]

Not to forget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasting_Away and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warm_Bodies . Both movies show types of intelligent zombies. Comics and movies have been instrumental in widening the definition of what a zombie is. I would guess that people now expect zombies to be half-dead, rotten and hunger for brains. Anything else is negotiable.
Whether it is good for the game, is a different question: I would say for horde night it has good and bad consequences. The good consequence is that "tower defense" now really works.

The bad consequence is that many of the rules are not consistent and therefore can't be logically derived. Partly that was the case in A16 too, I remember a horde base in A16 that failed for me because the zombies didn't use the open doorway because a trap behind it made an artificial barrier. Now there are a lot more hidden rules, for example what exactly constitutes a path to the player.

28 days franchise - they're not dead, not rotten, they don't eat flesh. "In 2007, Stylus Magazine named it the second best zombie movie of all time".
iZombie. A fully conscious girl, that eats the brains of murder victims and then has visions of their last moments. She works as some kind of cop, solving crimes.

What is a zombie? Can be anything. Literally.

Edit: In other words, if you ask "what is a zombie", by these arguments what's called a "zombie" in pop culture, a zombie can be anything. There is no definition of what a zombie is. According to these arguments.

Oh and just btw: The brain eating comes from the "Return of the Living Dead"-series, right? Originally.

 

[meganoth]

28 days franchise - they're not dead, not rotten, they don't eat flesh. "In 2007, Stylus Magazine named it the second best zombie movie of all time".
iZombie. A fully conscious girl, that eats the brains of murder victims and then has visions of their last moments. She works as some kind of cop, solving crimes.

What is a zombie? Can be anything. Literally.

Edit: In other words, if you ask "what is a zombie", by these arguments what's called a "zombie" in pop culture, a zombie can be anything. There is no definition of what a zombie is. According to these arguments.

Oh and just btw: The brain eating comes from the "Return of the Living Dead"-series, right? Originally.

I stand corrected. 28 days zombies just look rotten and flesh-eating but are defined quite differently. Ironically all the blood around the zombie mouths is explained as their own. Sort of duck typing applied to zombies: What looks like a zombie, rotten, bloody and with an urge to attack humans, must be a zombie.

Can we maybe agree on the urge to kill humans and a rotten look as base line characteristics of zombies ?

 

[Kubikus]

I stand corrected. 28 days zombies just look rotten and flesh-eating but are defined quite differently. Ironically all the blood around the zombie mouths is explained as their own. Sort of duck typing applied to zombies: What looks like a zombie, rotten, bloody and with an urge to attack humans, must be a zombie.
Can we maybe agree on the urge to kill humans and a rotten look as base line characteristics of zombies ?

Already

had overcome the "urge". So did Michonnes protection zombies (the narrative is they kinda gave up, with no arms and jaws). Without being able to give you names, I've seen a buttload of movies and books with zombie-interpretations that don't kill, the urge for flesh is there in iZombie (she never kills, though), same with "Santa Clarita Diet", where "Sheila", the "zombie", does not look dead or rotten at all. iZombie at least is pale, so is the guy from Warm Bodies (also not a killer).
I guess you can find an example for everything. The original question or assumption, however, was that there is a common general expectation of what a zombie is. When you ask random people. Those who are into the theme might point out that there are all these variations, but even they (us) will, if they have no reason not to, list the traditional characteristics. Dead, rotting, killing and eating people. Do they feel pain? No. Can they heal themselves? No. Do they have supernatural abilities (except being walking dead bodies)? No. How intelligent are they? At best the level of insects, more like bacteria, driven to light, sound, smell, can't use tools, can't reason and know no logic. Who would say "hey, it's that guy from Warm Bodies" or the exploding cop from 7dtd. No1. All these variations are aberrations, and when they occur, they are usually presented in a context that makes sure to explain these irregularities.

Again: If you want a game with intelligent zombies, that's fine. Do you? Is that the intention of the devs? To me, it looks much like some sort of unavoidable necessity.