PC Which is the more important main feature of the game II

[Bubo]

It's all about me.
...but voxels.

=)

 

[DeadMole]

Look at Guppycur's post count and then look at yours and you'll see that I wasn't talking about you. It was Guppycur that called my last poll the dumbest one ever. It's not all about you, Deadmole.

Yeah, I picked up you were messing around with him afterwards and facepalmed then haha.

I voted zombies based on the current state of the game. If they make the underworld more interesting so that it actually utilizes voxels to their full potential then I'm all for voxel landscape but right now it isn't nearly as cool to dig as it would be to fight hordes of 300 zombies.

But voxel is very much about building structures that are made of blocks as well, correct? Besides, where "the ground" is can actually be anywhere in the environement as well. In other words, you can build your own ground with dirt blocks so zombies can reach where you are.

Yeah, it's all about who has the most posts, you're way at the bottom.

Well, I think I had the most posts lately spamming the Diary Thread with my deadly walls of text hehe.

 

[KanedaSyndrome]

@CC: I’m just glad I was quick enough to “Part Two” one of my polls before you did.
@Rest: yes. Assuming 64 zombies is the limit with voxel terrain what if 300 were the limit with static terrain. Would you trade voxels for significantly larger numbers that definitely couldn’t be done (as far as we know) with voxels standing in the way.

That's the thing though, I don't get why voxels stand in the way of larger numbers of zombies. How do you calculate the world? Use the voxels to define the mesh and then coat a polygonial mesh (traditional graphics), and only access the voxel array when changes to the environment occurs.

Make the changes to environment run on a heartbeat, where the immediate effects are stored in memory (RAM), utilize a typical physics engine, rasterize the result and write that to the voxel geometry on the heartbeat. Re-mesh the new result (which would be 99.9% identical to the physics engine result, some rounding errors is the only divergence).

 

[Maharin]

For this game? The voxels are FAR more important. For 7DTD2? I'd vote for mega zombie hordes.

 

[DeadMole]

For 7DTD2? I'd vote for mega zombie hordes.

I'd vote for the game running on Unreal 4 which supports voxels now. That would look mindblowing.

 

[lil_joha]

How about the game asking "How deep to make the ground and how high the sky?" Then using the rest of the Memory to up the zombie count? That way Builders, Diggers and explorers can have their fun (that group includes me) And the Zombie Master killers can have their fun too!

Its just figuring out how to get that pie of memory usage divided up. Only so much pie to go around.

And for those who love super numbers of folk on the server those pie slices have to divide smaller as more players mean more memory usage.

 

[bishopsbourne]

The Entire point of the game, is the fully destructable world in which it sits. To remove it would be not only undermine the kickstarter goals, but take away the uniqueness of the game itself. Simply adding more zombies and removing these types of features is making it yet another boring FPS. There are other games that can do this better and are more suited to that style of play. If TFP can add more zombies then nice, otherwise best be kept as is.

 

[Aldranon]

I think some people are not sure what would be fun for them.

Would clicking 300+ times to kill each wandering horde be fun? For anyone? Anyone at all?

I heard there are "free to play" mouse clicking games where you click a LOT on your mouse to play. But being free tells just what people think of them.

 

[Crater Creator]

Being free does not tell you what people think of them. Not anymore at least, in an age of free to play games. Adventure Capitalist, to name one, has 89% positive user reviews on Steam.

Anyway, loads of zombies could mean loads more challenge and/or loads more fighting, but it doesn't have to. One zombie with 10,000 hit points takes the same amount of damage to kill as one hundred zombies each with 100 hit points. I'm not advocating for the former, but my point is how tough the zombies are to kill, or how many clicks it takes, can be adjusted separately from how many of them there are. More emphasis on killing zombies doesn't require more zombies, and vice versa, and in fact many people asking for more zombies want them to be individually weaker.

 

[Crater Creator]

Replies inline...

Those ambient zombies would provide much more gameplay value then you're suggesting.
*Shooting your gun has serious consequences, atm it doesn't.

If you're picturing that every time you fire your gun an average of X zombies spawn, to simulate zombies in the world being attracted to your gunfire, the game could just as easily spawn one zombie that's X times as tough as a baseline zombie.


*Kiting the "8 zombies you can pay attention to" is very easy, having "ambient" zombies means you'll draw much more in by running around.

In my experience they cluster pretty easily, day and night, regardless of how many there are. So drawing in many weaker zombies would be analogous to drawing in fewer stronger zombies.


*Stealth gets a totally new perspective, it would actually be easier at times.

When would stealth be easier?


*You would have to plan and work hard to reach some POIs instead of just walking there.

Only in the sense that more zombies have more eyes & ears to detect the player. If the player is detected, one zombie hanging around 'guarding' the PoI will cause as much trouble as X zombies, if the one zombie is X times tougher than a baseline zombie. Moreso, in fact, since in the many zombies scenario you might still avoid detection from some zombies after being detected by others.


*Real challenge and reward for bigger cities. Lots of zombies and lots of loot.

You could also scale up the challenge and the reward of each individual zombie, instead.


*Manipulating with a horde would become a thing. Can't kill them all, lure them away!

Can't kill all of a smaller number of zombies because they're individually stronger, lure them away.


*Using high ground to move around has advantages. Moving from rooftop to rooftop.

It makes no difference whether you're evading a smaller or larger number of zombies this way.

Again, I'm not advocating for fewer, stronger zombies. But it's wrong to think scaling up the zombie count will change the gameplay in radical new ways. If that happens, it'll be more because the overall challenge has been re-balanced as a side effect. This is switching from gallons to liters: the numbers get bigger, but the underlying quantities need not change.

 

[OneArmedBandit]

Replies inline...


Again, I'm not advocating for fewer, stronger zombies. But it's wrong to think scaling up the zombie count will change the gameplay in radical new ways. If that happens, it'll be more because the overall challenge has been re-balanced as a side effect. This is switching from gallons to liters: the numbers get bigger, but the underlying quantities need not change.

You are right with what you say, I think - but for me it wouldn't be a matter of "different gameplay" in the first place. many weaker Z's just seem more in line with *my personal* imagination of a zombie apocalypse than fewer stronger ones (which of course doesn't exclude the occasional boss!).

So for me it would more be a matter of immersion (as far as one could call it so ) as of gameplay :smile-new:

 

[clethby]

Thoughts from a new player.

I think that the number of zombies is only relevant if they learn how to reach you i.e climb stairs etc. i only say this because me and my brother just started playing last week and are really enjoying it, but the 1 thing that ruins the experience of base building and survival is how zombies just cannot get to you and instead try destroying the foundation.

We are currently in the higashi skyscraper building and we are near the top floor, the main path to reach us would be the stairs.

we have built a cool trap entrance on our floor next to the stairs........ zombies have NEVER found a way up (they wont even try going up the 1st floor lobby stairs unless we herd them up lol).

so i would prefer more zombies but only when the AI is improved.

P.S THIS is what being in a tower building should be like lol

i love 28 days later
EDIT: just thought id add i voted for more zombies

 

[toores]

If you're picturing that every time you fire your gun an average of X zombies spawn, to simulate zombies in the world being attracted to your gunfire, the game could just as easily spawn one zombie that's X times as tough as a baseline zombie.

I don't want gunfire to spawn more zombies, i want more zombies that are there to become aware of you. Spawning additional zombies to simulate that is a bad solution. Firstly because firing a gun becomes just undesirable when it just keeps spawning in zombies. (or an exploit depending on what you desire) Secondly, it already is a bit immersion breaking when screamers spawn in zombies in places you know to be empty. I'd expect this to be similarly true with spawning zombies from gunfire. They will literally spawn to places you just walked through.

In my experience they cluster pretty easily, day and night, regardless of how many there are. So drawing in many weaker zombies would be analogous to drawing in fewer stronger zombies.

Having fewer zombies makes kiting easier no matter how you put it. Of course varying their movement speed more would make it harder but even more so with more zombies.

You know when you kite a bunch of zombies and you get hit from behind from a zombie you did not notice? Only it happens rarely because usually you can just get all of their attention and back up some to get them aligned and walking towards you. With distant zombies it'd be much harder because the more you kite (and walk away from your original position) the more you have chance of being noticed by the "ambient" zombies. They'd be coming in form all sides...

When would stealth be easier?

When there is enough zombies that killing them one by one (stealth) is easier then aggravating all of them. ATM when you have lvl300 club you can just walk through city and kill everything you see. When the zombies would be tougher, it would just take more time and i personally would be pissed about "spongy" enemies. But never would i have to think twice about entering a crowded place because i might not be able to have clear escape path because the crowd is like 10 zombies or so.

Only in the sense that more zombies have more eyes & ears to detect the player. If the player is detected, one zombie hanging around 'guarding' the PoI will cause as much trouble as X zombies, if the one zombie is X times tougher than a baseline zombie. Moreso, in fact, since in the many zombies scenario you might still avoid detection from some zombies after being detected by others.

I don't understand, you agree with me that one tough zombie is easier to avoid then 20 regular because they cover more area? Yes, that's what i'm thinking.

And fighting one "spongy" enemy is still easier then 20 regular. This one tough enemy is easier to pay attention to the a small crowd.

It's like having 20 zombies stand in a same spot and all attack at the same time vs having multiple zombies attacking from various directions at different times and you'd have to be more aware of your positioning because you'd have to consider multiple entities covering more space.

You could also scale up the challenge and the reward of each individual zombie, instead.

Agree! And it probably will with the new "boss zombies" in A17...

But i would not like to face Marvel supervillains instead of regular zombies all the time when my gamestage gets higher.

Also, at one point the weapon progression is lost when i get better weapons but enemies take more damage...

Can't kill all of a smaller number of zombies because they're individually stronger, lure them away.

not much to argue there...

It makes no difference whether you're evading a smaller or larger number of zombies this way.

Currently it is not very hard to find your way though a couple of zombies. The cities are barren, why would i climb a roof?

Again, Dying Light is a good example how to scale things.

You have ♥♥♥♥ty weapons and no abilities, regular zombie crowds are tough. You avoid most of them. You can't handle tougher enemies.

You get better weapons and more abilities, regular zombies become easier to fight and to avoid. You can start taking on some harder enemies and gain access harder spots/objectives.

In 7d2d it seems to become a dead circle. You level up, get more hp and higher DPS, but so do the enemies. Scaling both sides wont make the payer feel more powerful. And the special abilities won't help either if you consider that melee still has only one action. It will be 2 in A17 but it's still: step in reach, attack, step out. More zombie abilities means you will use your strafing keys more. Not much else available. Hopefully we get at least block or shove as well.

The feel of the combat wont progress at all...

F**C, who's gonna read that... #tl;tr

 

[Pille]

'Huge numbers of zombies' is to 'overwhelming the players' as rutabagas is to world peace. Roland, if you have too much free time, you should consider to join one of the many modding projects...

These leading question style polls are awful.

 

[Aldranon]

Being free does not tell you what people think of them. Not anymore at least, in an age of free to play games. Adventure Capitalist, to name one, has 89% positive user reviews on Steam.
Anyway, loads of zombies could mean loads more challenge and/or loads more fighting, but it doesn't have to. One zombie with 10,000 hit points takes the same amount of damage to kill as one hundred zombies each with 100 hit points. I'm not advocating for the former, but my point is how tough the zombies are to kill, or how many clicks it takes, can be adjusted separately from how many of them there are. More emphasis on killing zombies doesn't require more zombies, and vice versa, and in fact many people asking for more zombies want them to be individually weaker.

Its still just a lot of clicking the mouse...

but, like you said, some people like clicking the mouse a LOT, to each their own.

Mouse clicking without suspense or good reasons makes for a boring game IMO. You can not improve a game by increasing the number of mouse clicks needed, unless your audience is on the very young side.

 

[Hedge]

>snip<

<Edited to imbue some calmness - OzHawkeye>

 

[Maharin]

>snip< - See above - Oz.

If you seriously have that much bitterness over a game you should probably take a break. It's not worth the anxiety, it really isn't.

 

[DeadMole]

F**C, who's gonna read that... #tl;tr

Well... I did read some of it, but that was like having to skim cow milk to basically white water haha.

 

[Lonestarcanuck]

I want a destructible world that theoretically I could totally destroy down the bedrock, leaving my sleeping bag the only block in existence, save my tired out self.
I would like more zombies than there are now though.

So is it possible to destroy/remove every block in the game and only have you left?

How many blocks are there on a 10K radius default map?

 

[Lonestarcanuck]

Also I might add that I am FOR the destructible world. what brings me to 7DTD is more about the building with risk. what we need are smarter Zombies, yes I know that is probably an Oxymoron.

others stated, it with a lot of game play I have mastered the machete+beer+NVG on horde night. I just run in a line, the zombie line up, I turn, run into them hit hit hit jump and repeat.

we need to have zombies that are always able to lock on and focus on you. the running around in zigzag is silly. a feral Wight/Spider should be able to lock on and attack me non stop until it is dead or I am dead.

So give me a builders world with smart zombies not MORE zombies. for I am Bob the Builder.