PC Zombie bill of rights (anit-cheese act)

[bobrpggamer]

Well I was thinking about using cheese to survive in the game, so I was thinking of a zombie bill of right to be more fair to them.

1. Too many traps. I think a minimum of 8 traps, this would give the zombies a much better chance of winning and it is really only fair.

2. Not using junk turrets.

3.Not using walls. Well just because the zombies have a degree in engineering to detect the slightest 50HP damage in a wall doesn't mean you should take advantage of this, again its just unfair to them.

4. Try and have a talk with the screamer before using violence. Well maybe she just want to have a conversation, perhaps make her some hot coco and some finger sandwiches to make her feel more welcome would be a better solution.

More to come later.

I say lets be more fair to our enemy, I know that they just want to eat you alive, but that does really make them bad? So lets vote upon the premise that using the tools the game gives you to survive does not necessarily make it right to use them and having restraint means a better , brighter future for the zombies.

 I recently upgraded my base with a 3rd outer wall and I have come to see the error in my ways. I think I will cut down from 8 junk turrets to two and make hole in the wall so they will not have to harm their hands when they pound at it it so violently. I may even make a special ladder that will allow them greater access to my base, a sort of good neighbor policy and maybe we can come to an agreement that they only attack my my base and try to eat me alive to maybe only 2 week at a time.

 

[theFlu]

While yours is comically pretty decent , I'll throw my actual Zombie Bill of Rights here, so far it only has two steps.

1. The player shall not infringe upon the ability of the AI to decide a path to the player.

2. The player shall not intentionally create a path where the AI thinks it can do something, yet in actuality will permanently or significantly fail at it.

 

[The_Great_Sephiroth]

I do NOT abide by any conventions of war. My enemies won't so neither will I. If The Pimps give me a Redeemer from UT99 I will abuse the ever-loving heck out of it. I will eradicate my enemy!

Now, I currently use a deep pit filled with vertical and horizontal blade traps to make zombie-soup. Around the edge of said pit is electrical fence, then a spike wall (they get shocked AND spiked), then another fence (zombies still being shocked can die when falling five or six stories). I do NOT block the path or lure them to a wall. I just drink red tea and watch them crawl towards me while being murdered in an excessive manner. Fair?

 

[bobrpggamer]

I do NOT abide by any conventions of war. My enemies won't so neither will I. If The Pimps give me a Redeemer from UT99 I will abuse the ever-loving heck out of it. I will eradicate my enemy!

Now, I currently use a deep pit filled with vertical and horizontal blade traps to make zombie-soup. Around the edge of said pit is electrical fence, then a spike wall (they get shocked AND spiked), then another fence (zombies still being shocked can die when falling five or six stories). I do NOT block the path or lure them to a wall. I just drink red tea and watch them crawl towards me while being murdered in an excessive manner. Fair?

It may be convenient to sip red tea while shredding zombies. However this method will more than likely be frowned apron.

 

[eXSe]

I say all is fair in love and war. Well, in zombie apocalypse also. So, because they have the numbers, we have to use our wits... or excessive force

 

[Boidster]

While yours is comically pretty decent , I'll throw my actual Zombie Bill of Rights here, so far it only has two steps.

1. The player shall not infringe upon the ability of the AI to decide a path to the player.

2. The player shall not intentionally create a path where the AI thinks it can do something, yet in actuality will permanently or significantly fail at it.

Wat.

I say again unto thee, wat.

The opposite of those two things are like my entire strategy for survival! I mean, I guess for #1 sure they're free to decide on whatever path they want who am I to judge. It may be that all of the paths involve massive destruction of very thick foundations, but hey that's why they have their Demolisher friends!

But #2...man, that's a kneecapper. I intentionally create paths all the time where, presumably, the AI thinks "I can shamble-run to the player" when in actuality I have carefully engineered the path to completely shred the zombies with electricity, darts, and bullets causing them to fail again, and again in their shamble-run efforts. Or they may think "I can walk across that" when "that" is actually sunken iron spikes which at first sever their legs and then gently perforate them into a nutritious amendment to the soil. My entire base is designed to make the AI fail in what it thinks it can do!

Y U HARSH MY GROOVE, BRO?

 

[th3s0n1c]

This reminded me of a tweet I've seen a couple of days ago.. a guy (I think he's a comedian?) asked followers to "Name someone who is universally agreed to be evil (genocidal dictator, serial killer etc) and I'll defend them and their actions using conservative logic.". It was hilarious.

 

[theFlu]

Wat.

I say again unto thee, wat.

The opposite of those two things are like my entire strategy for survival! I mean, I guess for #1 sure they're free to decide on whatever path they want who am I to judge. It may be that all of the paths involve massive destruction of very thick foundations, but hey that's why they have their Demolisher friends!

But #2...man, that's a kneecapper. I intentionally create paths all the time where, presumably, the AI thinks "I can shamble-run to the player" when in actuality I have carefully engineered the path to completely shred the zombies with electricity, darts, and bullets causing them to fail again, and again in their shamble-run efforts. Or they may think "I can walk across that" when "that" is actually sunken iron spikes which at first sever their legs and then gently perforate them into a nutritious amendment to the soil. My entire base is designed to make the AI fail in what it thinks it can do!

Y U HARSH MY GROOVE, BRO?

Ah, I see your fear, friend, but rest assured, it is in vain; the shamblers, while willingly throwing themselves at any and all of the carefully laid traps, will make progress towards their goal by slowly dulling the steel of the more intricate contraptions with their bones; they will exhaust any supply of munitions by having them rain on themselves; and they will slowly melt apart the coppers of the shock-strings that short circuit on their supple flesh; in the process paving a clear - if a little puss-slippery - path for the generations to come. Thus, for the simple act of deploying even ALL the traps, I can witness no fault in the actions of the survivor with regards to #2.

 

[alanea]

not sure if its joke or he trolls /prepare for  some  whine  ..

but  for now its funny

 

[Morloc]

1. The player shall not infringe upon the ability of the AI to decide a path to the player.

2. The player shall not intentionally create a path where the AI thinks it can do something, yet in actuality will permanently or significantly fail at it.

Fair enough...

...so long as the brainless dead shall not have elite engineering skills and knowledge of dynamic structural integrity or omniscient knowledge of pathing.

-Morloc

 

[Boidster]

Several years ago I wrote a school paper about cooperative multi-agent systems. The idea being that a computing system contained many agents cooperating (though not with 100% trust in each other; that was the part I explored) to achieve some goal. In this case the goal was to appraise a piece of art. So agent A sends specs of the art to Agents B, C, and D and gets back some appraisals and keeps track of which agents were accurate or not and also what the other agents knew about still other agents.

I regret now that that class took place before 7D2D, because it would be fascinating and much more fun to write the paper about cooperating zombies attempting to reach a player in a 3D space. Anyway I was thinking about that paper because I wonder...do the zombies in 7D2D communicate to each other at all? I'm talking in the technical AI sense, but of course if we want we can go off on a tangent about what they tell themselves in the minutes before it's time to spawn in for horde night. If we determine they are sentient it gives bob's bill of rights more meaning...

But really I'm wondering if TFP has coded in any inter-zombie feedback system. So zombie A attempts path X and fails, can zombie A communicate info to zombies B, C, and D about that, to adjust their behavior? I don't think so, but man would that be fun to build. For certain narrow definitions of "fun". Of course minimum system requirements might jump to 16 cores and 128GB RAM, but when you see zombies learn to build their own ladders, hoo boy the look on your face...

 

[bobrpggamer]

Several years ago I wrote a school paper about cooperative multi-agent systems. The idea being that a computing system contained many agents cooperating (though not with 100% trust in each other; that was the part I explored) to achieve some goal. In this case the goal was to appraise a piece of art. So agent A sends specs of the art to Agents B, C, and D and gets back some appraisals and keeps track of which agents were accurate or not and also what the other agents knew about still other agents.

I regret now that that class took place before 7D2D, because it would be fascinating and much more fun to write the paper about cooperating zombies attempting to reach a player in a 3D space. Anyway I was thinking about that paper because I wonder...do the zombies in 7D2D communicate to each other at all? I'm talking in the technical AI sense, but of course if we want we can go off on a tangent about what they tell themselves in the minutes before it's time to spawn in for horde night. If we determine they are sentient it gives bob's bill of rights more meaning...

But really I'm wondering if TFP has coded in any inter-zombie feedback system. So zombie A attempts path X and fails, can zombie A communicate info to zombies B, C, and D about that, to adjust their behavior? I don't think so, but man would that be fun to build. For certain narrow definitions of "fun". Of course minimum system requirements might jump to 16 cores and 128GB RAM, but when you see zombies learn to build their own ladders, hoo boy the look on your face...

I think the really complicated AI behavior is hard coded into the engine and unless you have the source code you may never know. I was thinking last night about the hit detection and what random % you have to cause a critical based on your skill progression and the critical mod and buff and whatever else and I am sure its very complicated code that goes beyond my BASIC programming on my C64 for a couple of weeks.

I think it is just each zombie has the code to reach the player and the fastest ways in which to reach the player based on any obstacle they come across. The latest thing I see that was added is them climbing on each other to scale a wall which is kind of funny to see but then you see that each one is independent of each other and not even aware of the other one as more than another obstacle to reach the player, I guess like a cold blooded homicidal maniac only interested in reaching you and killing you.

not sure if its joke or he trolls /prepare for  some  whine  ..

but  for now its funny

To answer your question. I'm just joking about a matter that has always bugged me about taking advantage of the AI in ways that you would always do in real life unless you want to be eaten alive.

Its the idea of zombies, if it was a battle in a war or something with humans then the AI should be human-like, if they are mindless zombies that have the inability to do anything other than eat you though nothing but instinct then they are not going to be expected to be tactical geniuses on the battlefield.

 

[Liesel Weppen]

But really I'm wondering if TFP has coded in any inter-zombie feedback system. So zombie A attempts path X and fails, can zombie A communicate info to zombies B, C, and D about that, to adjust their behavior? I don't think so, but man would that be fun to build. For certain narrow definitions of "fun". Of course minimum system requirements might jump to 16 cores and 128GB RAM, but when you see zombies learn to build their own ladders, hoo boy the look on your face...

I don't think they have, too. But it would be very interesting if they do more or less random pathing at first for each Z like in earlier alphas, but let the Zs communicate/learn (via telepathy). So they would not magically know the path with the least resistance, but need to really discover it first. Finally they won't head for the weak door from the start, but once a Z found the door, the others will also come to the door. And they won't find that one spot of your wall where it is only one block thick, except they do it by accident.

Imho that wouldn't require that much cpu performance or memory. Maybe even less, since you don't need to do a whole pathing from the beginning, and pathing is very difficult. Once they've "learned" a path, the path is static and doesn't need to be recalculated (maybe there is bunch of learned paths). Just add some noise to vary the exact way each Z walks and so they can still discover new paths.

 

[Boidster]

The latest thing I see that was added is them climbing on each other to scale a wall

I do know that the XML lists a specific set of AI tasks for each zombie. Or rather there is a set of default tasks and then a few zombies have some special tweaks to the list. So for example here's the default "ZombieTemplateMale" list:

<property name="AITask-1" value="BreakBlock"/>
<property name="AITask-2" value="DestroyArea"/>
<property name="AITask-3" value="Territorial"/>
<property name="AITask-4" value="ApproachDistraction"/>
<property name="AITask-5" value="ApproachAndAttackTarget" data="class=EntityNPC,0,EntityEnemyAnimal,0,EntityPlayer,0"/> <!-- class,maxChaseTime (return home) -->
<property name="AITask-6" value="ApproachSpot"/>
<property name="AITask-7" value="Look"/>
<property name="AITask-8" value="Wander"/>




It would be neat if they added a task, "ScaleWall" which would cause the zombies to intentionally walk up to a wall and stand there to allow another zombie to climb them. Then that zombie stands there while a 3rd zombie climbs the first two. I think right now they can detect that they can jump up onto each other and they try to use that to gain elevation (to get closer to you), but I don't think it's actually an attempt to "climb the wall". It just happens to work that way some times; they're really pretty clumsy about it.

If they had a discrete task for it, you'd see them going World War Z on your walls with purposeful intent, and you'd have a place to concentrate your fire while unburdening your bladder into your pant leg. Hope the iron bar ledge holds out!

 

[Reckis]

@bobrpggamer Thanks for the laugh!

Can't help but think that this thread is tongue-in-cheek response to all of the "woke" nonsense we have been seeing on the forums lately.

Are we allowed to say "tongue-in-cheek" these days?

 

[Jonah33]

@Reckis You can say "Tongue in Cheek," (TiC) however you must first designate which cheek said tongue is entering and the precise depth of the tongue.

Also, under no circumstances is the tongue to have come into contact with any hazardous substances due to health and safety reasons. You must not sway from carrying out the TiC to anyone regardless of absolutely anything if it is deserved as under the equality act.

Finally, the TiC must only be carried out when no other options are available. 

Note: This statement is most assuredly NOT Tongue in Cheek.

 

[katarynna]

I feel like you should only say "tongue in my own cheek in a completely non-sexual manner".

Just saying "tongue in cheek" is WAAAYYY too sexualized for this particular forum nowdays. It could mean you were putting your tongue into ANYBODY'S cheek, and without a signed document agreeing beforehand to said activity, you are also entering into whether or not consent was truly obtained.

All in all, just way to big of a hornet's nest to poke at.

 

[Jonah33]

I feel like you should only say "tongue in my own cheek in a completely non-sexual manner".

Just saying "tongue in cheek" is WAAAYYY too sexualized for this particular forum nowdays. It could mean you were putting your tongue into ANYBODY'S cheek, and without a signed document agreeing beforehand to said activity, you are also entering into whether or not consent was truly obtained.

All in all, just way to big of a hornet's nest to poke at.

I concur and withdraw my above statement. Or perhaps I shall edit it to say "Tongue in my own Cheek," or Timoc as it shall now be referred to. 

Under no circumstances shall TiC be used unless it is preceded by an Adult only warning at least three sentences prior to it's use. If possible, if it could be blanked out by a warning stating the said "Adult content proceed with caution" censor that can be view by scrolling to the bottom, can I say "bottom?" And clicking on at least three disclaimers along with the viewers phone number and bank account.

No cheeks were harmed in this production. 

 

[Samcharles]

Zombies have but one right...to die painfully.