Sorry, I have to prune your post and comment only on those parts I have comments too. Too many topics at once.
Can get confusing.
But their intelligence is in the pathfinding, I don't see how you can seperate that when discussing their Intelligence.
I don't see how I'm doing that when I point out that it's the same thing. Enlighten me plz. If it's the fact that everybody likes good pathfinding - good pathfinding does not mean x-ray vision and omniscience. It means not getting stuck, not spinning in one spot. Good pathfinding is realistic pathfinding. So actually, we currently have - in my opinion - bad pathfinding. There is also another issue.. Lemme actually fire up that graphic software:
Zombies move on this grid. So instead of taking the direct path to their target - green - they first move on their grid and only eventually go direct - red. Not only does this feel very odd, it also makes them harder to hit, because they are not coming at you in a straight line. You have to - blue - move over to their path if you want to line them up perfectly for a clear shot.
Their "pathfinding intelligence" is relatively high but could be explained away as highly tuned senses or fore-knowledge (sleepers in POIs) as well.
Sure. Stitching on lore is no problem. Here is a serious question, though:
Do you a) recognize as valid and maybe even b) understand, that some don't like the increased intelligence..? That it's not about definitions or things being logically impossible? Though we can also discuss that, as a seperate branch. But that some simply don't like this particular game mechanic? Like, say, some might not like flying enemies, or enemies with ranged attacks or fast moving enemies? I keep seeing ppl complaining about vultures - personally I have zero problems with em, but I understand whomever dislikes em.
Technically it costs a lot (in terms of FPS) to implement vision based sensing in a voxel world, so you get this compromise that zombies know to follow paths but they know too much (at least at the moment, I can imagine some heuristics to reduce that without simulating real vision).
How can it cost more to have a zombie only remember where it last saw a player instead of knowing where the player is at all times? There is already vision in the game, a zombie - if I'm not mistaken - has to actually see the player first, to, then, keep track of them. Outside hordenight, that is.
I think we differ on the definition of "tower defense" and I got wikipedia on my side.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_defense : "Tower defense is a subgenre of strategy video game where the goal is to defend a player's territories or possessions by obstructing the enemy attackers, usually achieved by placing defensive structures on or along their path of attack." and "What distinguishes tower defense base defending games from other base defending games (such as Space Invaders, or other games where bases are defended) is the player's ability to strategically place, construct or summon obstructive constructions and constructive obstructions in the path of attacking enemies."
A16 on the other hand was more like the game "Stronghold" where the emphasis was on building strong walls and attacking from behind them. The attacker can't be coerced to follow a path. If you look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong...993_video_game) or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong...001_video_game) , neither mentions Tower Defense at all. Stronghold is not a tower defense game even though it has towers and it is your job to defend them
You argue against the statement "7dtd is a tower defense game", but what I am saying is "tower defense was always in the game." It's an aspect of several. Before you counter argue, I suggest you read the game's self description. Spoiler alert: It's on my side.
On the topic of traps, zombies don't avoid the traps when they are level with the ground. But this is neither explained by the current game nor inferable from their shape. I agree with you that TFP needs to change either the trap handling, or their idiosyncracies must be explained to players. The current state is not fit for release.
I meant that they ignore it when along the path you have traps that kill em all. An intelligent person would not follow a path where 20 of their comrades were just shot dead. They are intelligent enough to understand where your base is weakest, but then they run straight into turret fire. It's just weird.
You directly asked the question and I gave an answer to that question. Quoting you: "And, which is the original point that lead to my original question, if they wanted intelligent zombies - why call em zombies? Why not call em "infected" or "mutants"?". I'm not implying anything, I'm answering your question
Admittedly, it's a bit of a "difficult" question, so I'm not blaming you for wrongfully believing you would've answered it with
"You are right, they could be renamed infected or even mutants if anyone inside TFP would put any importance into that. But in seemingly half the zombie movies nowadays there are infected with a tendency to rage. So even if 7D2D relabeled them as infected, I bet 99 of 100 people would still call this a game with zombies. So it would be work for TFP without really making something better. Oh, and the kickstarter promised zombies (not Romero zombies, zombies) so relabeling them to mutants might not be the best idea."
That is a response to something like "I think they should rename them!" - which I never said and what I don't suggest. The question "if they wanted intelligent zombies - why call em zombies?" refers to the definition of what a zombie is. Cuz a zombie, unlike Roland actually said, exists, and has characteristics. If you want to create an enemy, that obviously goes against several of the core characteristics of the creature - then why would you decide to call it a zombie and make it look like a zombie?
The real response to this overall (and underlying) thought is that the intelligence is or might be more a kinda "currently accepted" byproduct of the AI's redesign, which was done to solve a bunch of problems that the old one used to have, and while there does not seem to be an actually official stance about it, things might seem like the devs intend to tone the x-ray vision and omniscience down anyway. At least that's what Roland, who has insider knowledge, seems to suggest frequently. But as always, I am discussing what I see and care little about rumours, that often have been proven to be false.
That conjecture is a logical fallacy. If you don't know why, it does not follow that "they don't want it". If you have to chooose between a gold ring and a fancy hat, choosing the fancy hat doesn't mean you don't like to have the gold ring, it just means you like the fancy hat **more** at that time. I gave you a (likely) explanation that they probably had to choose between clean, lean and maintainable code and keeping and adapting nearly untestable code only used by a few modders. I don't see an efficient way for their testers to test this unused code to keep it working.
Even Wube, the makers of Factorio and largely praised for their community support, prune code they themselves don't use, even when it makes modders unhappy (recent example was removing an axe and much code with it used by some prominent modders). Show me a game developer that doesn't do this, especially in EA.
Logic is nice, but once again, yours does not apply, cuz I said "the removal indicates that they don't want it". The word "indicates" indicates that I'm not sure. And yes, there are indications that they actually want it - cuz it once was in the game and makes a helluva lotta sense and indeed might they leave it out for now because the game is not optimized yet or beause they haven't come around coding it. Who knows. But at this point it's gone. "Looks like" they don't want it. They could also put sleepers outside of POIs (and yes, in rare cases they do) to make it harder to get in. But "it seems" they're really focused on making these POIs dungeons the main thing, cuz if you, on top of the sleepers, added a significant number of outside zombies, it might become too many, while having too few defeats the purpose.
Good point with the impression.
There is the iZombie/girl with all the gifts/ type intelligence and there is the simple pathfinding intelligence of a dog. There is the question what the 10 people would do if I were inside a cage with an open door on the side, would all 10 still come at me directly or some use the path? Or if I pretended to be the zombie and went for the door or ran, would they protest?
The number of people who portray a zombie exactly like a Romero-type would certainly decrease, while it would, then again, increase if you told them to take a moment and really think about how a zombie behaves, particularly when you present that setup with the cage and the door. If ppl think about wether a zombie is intelligent enough to go through the door instead straight for the sensory input's source - I'd say the majority will say it's not. Cuz zombies are "really really dumb", right?
I think you might be right that the romero zombie is still at the center of what a zombie is. But it is still safe to say that zombiness nowadays can't be pinned down to any stringent definition. Zombieness was modernised because romero zombies alone got old.
Sure. It's really a lot about differentiating the things I say. Yes, there are many different types of zombies. Yes, it's ok to to create variations. No, you do not just call the Romero-zombie a zombie, but yes, it is the core concept of the - modern, post-voodoo - zombie. And no, it's not reasonable to deny that zombies have certain characteristics, even, though, yes, you will find an example for every characteristic missing. One zombie might not be dead. One might not eat flesh. One might not attack the non-zombies. One might not infect the non-zombies and turn them into zombies. One might not be a slow walker. One might not be dumb. One might have multiple characteristics missing.
I was talking about you there, not "people".
C'mon, I'm people too. :,(
You don't put much importance on building for horde night. If I remember correctly you had the most fun combating zombies in the street. So (at least for horde night) I would not have thought you put much importance whether you need to make paths or some quadratic cubicle. You might protest on zombies not being your definition of zombies but the implications for horde night should be almost negligible to you.
I don't put much importance and it is almost negligible to me. It was bit more prominent in my A18 game, cuz I didn't spend skillpoints, so I stayed in my "base". I do, then again, always built a defendable base in long-term games. The plan this time, though, was to jump down and start the ole nose-to-nose style, but it never was necessary. A simple kill corridor was enough. Without any traps, btw. That's the great new AI some professional has been working on for well over a year now? Hm.
