Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead - Official Forums

Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead => The Drawing Board - Suggestions, Comments, and Future Plans => Topic started by: KA101 on March 03, 2014, 06:00:26 AM

Title: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: KA101 on March 03, 2014, 06:00:26 AM
Here's a place to discuss, opine, and generally talk about the design outline (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LhNpXGXmkPOxp_cp0-c9G7xqnihwApq-eZSa99exfcU/edit?pli=1).  If you've got any questions or comments, feel free to ask and/or opine here.

(Nothing in here alters the design outline, until and unless we add it to the outline.)

[Edited to add link-KA101]
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: John Candlebury on March 03, 2014, 04:06:42 PM
Its good to know this is finally online.

After a quick read think a valid point could be made to permit the existence of some centralized US government along with a still somewhat functioning FEMA and army, even if its only to permit  the existence  the classic zombie movie plot of running to the still functioning evac zones before they fall; which I think would be great thing to have in game either as a possible "victory" condition for the normal game or as the "victory" condition of either an independent scenario or of the rush to the west scenario. 

I think its mentioned that the army has almost completely pulled of from New englan and is fortifying the west coast, but perhaps if you manage to get to the Logan International Airport in time you may catch the last plane to "safety", or perhaps you can still catch a boat to Newfoundland... 

Attention: read "victory" as you are dropped a year later as zombies finally overwhelm your "safe community" located somewhere in the Alaskan wilderness, not as the game ended, you won and the credits play.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: i2amroy on March 03, 2014, 09:14:38 PM
Keep in mind it's also fully possible that the reports you've been hearing that the government is still working are all just hearsay, with no real truth behind them.

That said I'm pretty opposed to having any sort of straight out "win" condition. Cataclysm has been, and in my opinion should remain, a survival type rouge like as opposed to a more directed "race to the airport" style one.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: HunterAlpha1 on March 03, 2014, 09:21:48 PM
Keep in mind it's also fully possible that the reports you've been hearing that the government is still working are all just hearsay, with no real truth behind them.

That said I'm pretty opposed to having any sort of straight out "win" condition. Cataclysm has been, and in my opinion should remain, a survival type rouge like as opposed to a more directed "race to the airport" style one.
Isn't the theme of every zombie movie based on the main characters getting killed trying to find government protection? 
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Binky on March 03, 2014, 11:32:49 PM
Keep in mind it's also fully possible that the reports you've been hearing that the government is still working are all just hearsay, with no real truth behind them.

That said I'm pretty opposed to having any sort of straight out "win" condition. Cataclysm has been, and in my opinion should remain, a survival type rouge like as opposed to a more directed "race to the airport" style one.
Isn't the theme of every zombie movie based on the main characters getting killed trying to find government protection?

Yeah, but catadda isn't based on a zombie movie at all.

I really, really hate the idea of a victory condition, although a 'eradicate the goo/fungaloids/nethers' style end mission, which leaves the world practically harmless would be great, especially if/when some really nifty faction based stuff comes along. Really though, much like DF there isn't a need for an actual end game, although end-game content certainly is interesting.


As I said in the other topic, I think the outline is fantastic.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: John Candlebury on March 04, 2014, 06:15:53 AM
Yeah placing win conditions on the normal game is probably a no go. Still I think it that running to the evac zones would make for a very fun scenario.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Binky on March 04, 2014, 12:38:55 PM
Yeah placing win conditions on the normal game is probably a no go. Still I think it that running to the evac zones would make for a very fun scenario.
]

I do like the idea of a race against the clock as a separate game mode or a triggered event. However it's sort of difficult with RL/turn based games, as it'd get tedious making every turn count, and many things could get in your way (having to sleep/eat) which would just be plain annoying.

Still, I think the design document in general lends itself to some interesting end game opportunities, especially considering that crafting everything is a no.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: KA101 on March 04, 2014, 11:42:58 PM
Yeah, we have Defend (the Generator!) mode so I imagine a "reach point P by time T" isn't out of the question.  It would, however, be a separate mode and not the main idea.

Pretty much because DDA is at base an open-ended game, where not every turn has to matter and there's no one optimal path.

(When I learned that people made bots to play Nethack, that pretty much killed any enthusiasm I had for the game.  Bots = optimized play, IME.)
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: ArgusTheCat on March 06, 2014, 12:28:57 AM
I like the idea of missions that make the game safer for the players.  But I'm in agreement with the design doc that the cataclysm itself is irreparable.  Sure, you can take out a fungal spire and the spores won't spread in that region for a while.  Maybe upwards of a year or so.  But eventually, they will come back, and you lack the resources as a single person to take them all on.

Or maybe it's a case of "pick your poison".  Do you nuke the creepy portal, cutting off the supply of shoggoths and burning eyes?  Because if you do, the triffids in that area are gonna have an easier time growing their new crop of vinebeasts.  Do you infiltrate and sabotage the robot factory?  Well, guess there's no warbots keeping the goo in check anymore; expect to see some more advanced zombies coming soon.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: ArkonRawl on March 06, 2014, 12:33:21 AM
Honestly I would love to see the factions get implemented/further developed and the trading system refined a bit more, I think it would be really satisfactory to loot say like a lab or something to sell supplies to a particular faction. I just really love the interactions with NPCs . Also first post on the forums after lurking around for the past year.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Binky on March 06, 2014, 01:25:15 AM
After reading it through again, I would ask that a bit more clarity be put into the realism/sci-fi bit, as it's a bit jarring/difficult to know what is actually meant by this bit:

(click to show/hide)

There's two issues with this; firstly the 'laser-slinging assualts on superscience labs' is followed by the heading 'reality-based' - I know this is very much just an expressive way of 'lots of shooting and violence', but at the same time it's kinda jarring.

Secondly, I think the Reality-based section could do with a bit more of a fleshing out with what is ok and what isn't (as could the whole design document). I know we don't want to box people in creativity wise, but when we have in game teleporters (which are craftable to an extent), it's difficult to match that up with something being reality based (unless they're getting taken out).

I'd suggest to just make it clearer that there may be some 'superscience items' but they're extremely rare and not something the player can build/do much with other than the intended function.

TL;DR: I realise this is implied by the document as a whole, but I think it's worth drawing the line more clearly over what is allowed and what isn't, even if it's just a list of no-go areas.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Kevin Granade on March 06, 2014, 02:22:38 AM
I'll see what I can do about making that clearer.  you definitely got the gist of it, which is that while super-science things exist, they aren't something the player can make, repair, etc (though cobbling them into contraptions is highly encouraged).

Another aspect of it is a rebuttal to, "it's the future, so things work better".  We want fantastical things in the game, but making them too common and accessable robs them of their special-ness.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: KA101 on March 06, 2014, 03:19:45 AM
I like the idea of missions that make the game safer for the players.  But I'm in agreement with the design doc that the cataclysm itself is irreparable.  Sure, you can take out a fungal spire and the spores won't spread in that region for a while.  Maybe upwards of a year or so.  But eventually, they will come back, and you lack the resources as a single person to take them all on.

Or maybe it's a case of "pick your poison".  Do you nuke the creepy portal, cutting off the supply of shoggoths and burning eyes?  Because if you do, the triffids in that area are gonna have an easier time growing their new crop of vinebeasts.  Do you infiltrate and sabotage the robot factory?  Well, guess there's no warbots keeping the goo in check anymore; expect to see some more advanced zombies coming soon.

You've got the idea.  "Missions" in this sense would be a player-defined thing: the fungal bloom will overrun the region if left unchecked, so we're gonna go blast & torch it.  If there's another "faction", be it triffid, Goo, (bots)*, or humans, then yeah, that faction's not gonna have to fight the fungus, so that frees up their resources, but there's nothing preventing you from targeting them as well.  (Or celebrating with them, depending on your perspective.)

*Currently the bots are the least-developed of any major critter-type.  NPCs are marginally in front of 'em because we have folks targeting NPC work.  ;-)

The bloom itself might need support from some other location to regrow, incidentally.  Perhaps you might check underneath the surface too?
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Gideon on March 08, 2014, 06:25:22 AM
Victory is surviving one more day.
...and maybe finding a frigging Katana.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: KA101 on March 08, 2014, 06:34:52 AM
Victory is surviving one more day.
...and maybe finding a frigging Katana.

You'll need to be playing with the Medieval Weapons pack enabled, AFAIK; if it wasn't present in the worldgen menu then Katanas are still in your mainline.  Either way, try pawnshops, gang fights, and Mansions.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Gideon on March 12, 2014, 02:59:28 PM

You'll need to be playing with the Medieval Weapons pack enabled, AFAIK; if it wasn't present in the worldgen menu then Katanas are still in your mainline.  Either way, try pawnshops, gang fights, and Mansions.

Yeah, I know. I just seem to have terrible luck finding it.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: halberdsturgeon on March 14, 2014, 01:37:14 AM
I found a katana in an upper class suburban house in 0.A, medieval weapons pack disabled.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: JohnieRWilkins on March 20, 2014, 04:59:39 PM
This document repeats the "high-end items are impossible to replicate artisan-style" theme on every page. Wouldn't the massive science labs have the equipment to make at least some of this stuff?  Is all of the science equipment irreparable? New England (Mass) is a place with a lot of biotech companies so surely there must be a partially automated bionics factory somewhere in the game world.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: KA101 on March 21, 2014, 01:53:50 AM
This document repeats the "high-end items are impossible to replicate artisan-style" theme on every page. Wouldn't the massive science labs have the equipment to make at least some of this stuff?  Is all of the science equipment irreparable? New England (Mass) is a place with a lot of biotech companies so surely there must be a partially automated bionics factory somewhere in the game world.

Depends and would need power, time, skill, and high-tech machinery/ingredients.  Frankly the CVD machine (1/7 Lab finale) is rather a stretch and may get revisited, but that's about the extent of high-end manufacturing equipment.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 21, 2014, 02:56:33 AM
Note that I don't think it mentions being opposed to the player acquiring stuff through industrial processes.

I remember there being a proposal for a robot-based "factory" that allowed the player to essentially get a huge amount of some random good by re-activating the factory, which would then make it, and a skilled "computer"-user could change the settings to make something else instead, conceivably anything they have the plans for on a USB.

I think that's a great idea, factory might not last forever before breaking down but gives a use for computer-skill characters and allows another character to make 2,000 flashlights in addition to the 2,000 already in the factory store-room because why the hell not, right? :)

But it still wouldn't be the sort of "artisan crafting" the doc refers to, and would have to be it's own limited system is the key.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Kevin Granade on March 21, 2014, 06:46:17 PM
I think the clearest way to put it is this is a limitation of the crafting system.  New industrially produced items might be acquirable in some limited fashion via a robot factory, replicator, biotech device, but they would be special cases as opposed to simply adding a crafting recipe with the requisite tools and components.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: ArgusTheCat on March 23, 2014, 07:54:21 PM
I think that's a great idea, factory might not last forever before breaking down but gives a use for computer-skill characters and allows another character to make 2,000 flashlights in addition to the 2,000 already in the factory store-room because why the hell not, right? :)

The 'artisan crafting' thing kicks in afterward, when you build a vehicle-mounted flashlight cannon.

Oh, holy shit!  Maybe there could be some kind of enemy that only comes out at night and is damaged by light, and you could actually build a gun that shoots flashlights!  The more 'practical' (he says, with complete sincerity) version could be a machine gun that shoots glowsticks, so you don't have to use batteries!  Okay, I'll be right back, I need to go learn how to make a mod.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: vultures on April 01, 2014, 07:38:59 PM
A gazillion thumbs up for this effort, and the discussion topic too. (!) I'll be reading the fine googel-prynt long, long into the nite so expect me soon; bearing ideas of course.
Where do I squeeze in 0.A playtime? Oh Lord, it's a curse! :P
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: vultures on April 06, 2014, 05:11:23 PM
Well, I can say I'm also up-to-pace regarding just about anything wrapped to look like the Outline that's been agreed upon.
Also, I must add it's contents are admirable at least, moreso I'm pleased - if not more than that; the in-depth perspective on CataDDA_world, very well thought-of and reasonable goes as a must-read for any and everyone looking to get involved with RLs in development. It's also good material coverage for those who suggest Lovecraftian mythos should feel (may sound wrong when spoken, but it's not) "imposing" on current efforts that concern fiction in general.

I do have some opinions overall that I'm about to share with all'y'alls. :)

I'ma leave mutations and their conseqences to the process-thinker of it all, for starters. It feels the included info in Design_Outline is to serve as a pointer and not experience, primarily because inside information (player feedback) is still being gathered to a point when it reaches a certain level needed for feature expansion. However, I must state these two (general) points of self-perspective:
1) "The Blob" is searching suitable hosts in order to adapt them, and the debris of its path of dominance are CataDDA mutations. It's not hard to imagine the lineage of horror/nightmare-ish fantasy dwells on ancient scriptures and works of art combined, consisting of but not inclusive of religious experiences and lore, if you wish. In order to relief the stress of compromising with recognized social measures of such canons - with them being "evil" or not - and common demonology, even though when knowing they're compromised with works of Tolkien and alike, one must also turn to nature's mechanics upon trying to score something unique in the progress of making a fantasy piece. It's not hard to perceive why the the first of those nature's creatures to fall under influence of that which is "nether" are, in basis, nocturnal and parasitical in a manner. Evolving a creature of a bat's nature perhaps is one of the finer examples for a starting point of design; it's a firm ground basis for both habitat and "ether-disease" spreading modes of operation. Don't feel derailed with certain bad examples in literature and cinema - and The Blob isn't a daytime infestation that preys on the strongest (bears, for ex.).
2) Reading through the Raptor's mutation outline I've noticed there's no predatorial equality in the "tiny world" of bugs. I can agree that wasps are a very dangerous entity that balance out spider mutations. It's the ants that are unmatched when we discuss their mandibles and protection. They easily find their nemesis (being they're so numerous) amongst more solitary types of insects that don't lack tools of war; moreso such bugs make up their lack in numbers with size and sheer power.

I wish to make an extra round-up on Gear_Up and Noncraftables sections.
Besides utmost understanding of the rare-war-gear decline, mainly because it opens up a "grande" discussion over other types of rarities that "could be found in New England, but won't be found" - I also have some sympathy for those who misunderstand "coolness" of in-game items and a self-centered wish to evolve from a decaying world, be it with a shiny ole' gun. There's been much, much discussion about books/knowledge and CataDDA so I'll just cut to the chase: If the player finds some crazy's notes on a WW1 Gatling manually operated gun, he/she should not be deprived of choice towards playing a little iron soldier in the world of Cataclysm. Knowing that, all those ticked-off concepts could have some place within the "extra" content this project's aiming for.
Now, regarding those hard-to-obtain, top-of-the-line hardware coded BLUE for NONE; I've been doing some research on my own (as you might've well suspected), and I feel you have to know two major facts:
1) Endless supply of anything in a game means that the particular game's orientation shifts slightly in that direction. Power armors, for example, are obtained by the US army of the time in STOCK numbers. This means that the resources for scrapping/repairing some are limited, yet obtainable. I feel these, and some chemical products that've bounced off prohibited use towards general population must have had some sort of a supply line before cataclysm. Same goes for solar panels, end-tier engines etc. that depend on uncommon resources and product/service lines. Must I note that small enterprizes offer product-line upgrades and services of the same, even today? It mustn't be hard to imagine a basement crammed with batches for such a specific purpose, if you know that access to such places of business is restricted to majority of regular users.
2) Hoarding and line-production have a common thing in particular, that is known as Industrial Power Outlet. Nearly every metropolitan area has one today, but tomorrow when it's defunct - a fresh stockpile of high-end tools and products is next to impossible. But as we all progress in this world, some things eventually give in - like microbrews in the last two or three decades, or industrial-grade precision lasers 5 years ago, today and absolutely - tomorrow. Therefore, if a player goes to such great lengths to obtain the means to generate enough power, and surplus, to operate a small yet efficient workshop, he/she should be able do repair and upgrade on the existing equipment. It is not an opinion based on the suspicion of current (future) techs that could be utilized to the full extent (nanotechnology, molecular biology), but the exploit of accessible and spot-evident machines and tools that, without sufficient power input, lack any operational value ATM.

May I also add that before this, survival genre, there was an adventure genre. It offered loads of ideas along with its traits; concepts forgotten or left to be, it's echo still lingers: "To venture into the unknown, and accomplish the unachievable." Let us all ignite our brainstorming circuits on that one. :)
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Patto on April 07, 2014, 12:43:58 PM
I agree with what Vulture is saying.

But there needs to be more options for sustainable players. e.g. Slowly re-spawning creatures in static spawn. E.g. Rabbits and squirrels reproduce relatively quickly, whilst wolves reproduce relatively slowly. I have run out of food in some areas.

Farming NEEDS to be improved.

Areas with high amounts of near useless rubbish would be good. Recycling centres would be a good place for human refuse, or landfill sites.

More sustainable vehicles, fuel will run out. So we either need the option of creating fuel (bio generator, add raw crops, get fuel out), or the addition of pack animals, e.g. Ridable horses (which will need to be fed, e.g. grass, hay), along with carts.
 
It just seems that if you want to play the game you need to become a military equipped mutant Rambo. I myself would rather play as Joe Bloggs, who has been left deep in a shit-filled world and needs to survive. Just think about it, the average person would be running away from zombies every time they saw one. Where's that more 'realistic' side of people and the means to live that way.

Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Binky on April 10, 2014, 07:04:51 PM
I agree with what Vulture is saying.

But there needs to be more options for sustainable players. e.g. Slowly re-spawning creatures in static spawn. E.g. Rabbits and squirrels reproduce relatively quickly, whilst wolves reproduce relatively slowly. I have run out of food in some areas.

Farming NEEDS to be improved.

Areas with high amounts of near useless rubbish would be good. Recycling centres would be a good place for human refuse, or landfill sites.

More sustainable vehicles, fuel will run out. So we either need the option of creating fuel (bio generator, add raw crops, get fuel out), or the addition of pack animals, e.g. Ridable horses (which will need to be fed, e.g. grass, hay), along with carts.
 
It just seems that if you want to play the game you need to become a military equipped mutant Rambo. I myself would rather play as Joe Bloggs, who has been left deep in a shit-filled world and needs to survive. Just think about it, the average person would be running away from zombies every time they saw one. Where's that more 'realistic' side of people and the means to live that way.

While I too really want DDA to expand the survival/realism side more, I think that (without having a very complex DF like system) creating completely self-sustainable environments would lead to the game becoming pretty boring fast. The player needs to have something to risk themselves for (gas, food, so on) or it'd become stale after an hour or two as they can just get everything they need whilst they level up to infinity and beyond. Even with roving hordes/raiding npcs, it'd still become way to easy for the player to build a fortress and never need to come out (or you'd have to make the attackers mega strong, which would unbalance things for non-fortress type players)

I think we just need to tone everything down a bit, so less of the mutant rambo (until much later on) and more of the survival type stuff.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: CIB on April 10, 2014, 07:38:11 PM
Even with roving hordes/raiding npcs, it'd still become way to easy for the player to build a fortress and never need to come out (or you'd have to make the attackers mega strong, which would unbalance things for non-fortress type players)

I agree with you in general, but I think it should actually be possible to "settle down" and gain a lot of benefits. The one important disadvantage is that you can't just up and run whenever something beyond your skills to kill appears. I think this balances things out.

If NPCs ever start working properly, I believe we could also have a system where a faction has both people tending to the fortress, and people going out on scavenging missions/raids. In such a setup, the player would have a lot of freedom in which activity to focus on.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: argast on April 11, 2014, 11:03:02 PM
I think a goal should be an option. There should be a forever mode, where there is no goal, which is already implemented, and a goal mode where the user chooses a goal or is assigned one.

Why ? Because the game gets boring fast without a goal, and is not as memorable as it would be with a goal, IMO. This would also keep people that don't want a goal happy because they can use the forever mode. I think this single change will increase the popularity of the game. Also, all rogue-likes I've ever played (except this one) have had a goal ... kill the boss on level 99, bring his heart up, get an item at level 99, bring it up, etc.

EDIT:
Possible goals:
Collect parts to build a space ship and fly to the secret gov't base on the moon.
Discover a cure for the zombie affliction, by collecting / researching ingredients.
Make it to the secret gov't bunker deep underground.
Make a secure, fortified city with human inhabitants that you'll have to find.

Technically, instead of a goal, these could be made into achievements and the game could just continue forever as it currently does.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: KA101 on April 11, 2014, 11:26:25 PM
I think a goal should be an option. There should be a forever mode, where there is no goal, which is already implemented, and a goal mode where the user chooses a goal or is assigned one.

Why ? Because the game gets boring fast without a goal, and is not as memorable as it would be with a goal, IMO. This would also keep people that don't want a goal happy because they can use the forever mode. I think this single change will increase the popularity of the game. Also, all rogue-likes I've ever played (except this one) have had a goal ... kill the boss on level 99, bring his heart up, get an item at level 99, bring it up, etc.

EDIT:
Possible goals:
Collect parts to build a space ship and fly to the secret gov't base on the moon.
Discover a cure for the zombie affliction, by collecting / researching ingredients.
Make it to the secret gov't bunker deep underground.
Make a secure, fortified city with human inhabitants that you'll have to find.

Technically, instead of a goal, these could be made into achievements and the game could just continue forever as it currently does.

OK, so by "goal" you're mostly meaning "successful end condition".  Those have come up from time to time.

We've even kicked around the possibility of the US having a space station off at a WAY FAR IN DEEP SPACE stable teleport point, which obviously would be the place to go when the Earth is messed up.  (Except that it isn't, what with the problem coming out of the portals and all.)

Idea was that the jump there would be one-way (power requirement, etc) and you're more screwed there than you were on Earth, so I didn't think much of it.

The lore already has a way to remove the Blob from corpses: teleporting has a small chance per teleport of leaving the Blob back in its home plane.  (Once we implement the Nether Cliff teleporting would have a chance of purging your "infection" entirely.)  Problem is, teleporting a lot in a short timeframe and small area tends to weaken the interdimensional boundaries, so you end up with more nether portals.  Cure's worse than the disease.  Securing a stable two-way portal and passing your faction through it or something might be workable, though.

Meeting up with powerful factions seems like a good gamechanger but not necessarily an ending condition.

So yeah: decent ideas.  I'm more fond of "significant game-changer" goals than "OK you're done start a new character I Said Good Day!" ending conditions.  Got a bit of RPer in me, I fear.  ;-)
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: i2amroy on April 12, 2014, 07:57:57 AM
So yeah: decent ideas.  I'm more fond of "significant game-changer" goals than "OK you're done start a new character I Said Good Day!" ending conditions.  Got a bit of RPer in me, I fear.  ;-)
Agreed. My vote would be firmly against any sort of true "finish this and the game ends" type of goal.

(As for the deep space thing, I had always imagined that if you managed to fully clear out the place you could potentially set up a return portal, after all the politicians and scientists who designed it may have wanted to escape the apocalypse, but they would also want a way back for when the apocalypse finally settled down.)
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Darkfirephoenix on April 12, 2014, 03:18:38 PM
No "HARD" goal for me too (game ending) unless in an Cenario or such stuff. And I share 90% of Vultures view. To be more exact: If you want to build an working factory with machines, needed resources, power and foremost TIME (and I don't mean the 5 hours in realtime, I talk about 10+ hours) you should be able too.

I mean, what would an normal person do? Answer: Search for all the stuff he/she needs to survive, wich includes hunting, planting and searching for an water-source. After that the next target is normally to improve your situation further, maybe by building an Shelter for yourself, get higher class equipment and so on. And finally: You will want to secure your (now) living standard and want to improve it even further, most ppl would search for possibilities to build/construct tools and other stuff wich could help them and I could imagine that an survivor with enough knowledge, intellect and skills would try to get to the level of tech wich was present before the Cataclysm happend (he would plunder/build machines needed to make better stuff, plunder Labs and maybe even find Blueprints for new stuff wich was only theoretical worked out... take a look into here to get the gist of my ideas and what I'm talking about http://smf.cataclysmdda.com/index.php?topic=6068.0 (http://smf.cataclysmdda.com/index.php?topic=6068.0)).

And here are some points the devs would have to take a further look at: Quantum Computing (Quantum Science in general. The quantum Computing is atm at the stage normal computing had 20-30 Years in the past), Organic Batteries/Accumulators (yes I have watched the Youtube video about the 30 sec charging phone. And 1 question: Why are there no Recharable batteries?), the plans for Space from the industry (yes america wants to get ppl on the moon again in at least 20 years or so. But don't underestimate the speed the Industry/Companies will show if they think that there is profit. And I would think that an Conservative America would still go after the prestige) and the resulting Tech-boom from it....

But I think the Devs have thought about most of them already, but I think the game should be update regulary with the newest inventions wich most likely will be an success, because nobody can predict the future with 100% (or imagine what the Mind of other Humans can come up with... Hrmm This is the reason this part of the forum was made, or? :D)
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: vultures on April 13, 2014, 01:25:48 PM
Yeah --- profit-worthy purely determines availability. But then, look at cellular phones @ ingame_present and you'll start putting more of your thoughts over satellite, or wireless (I'm still with the idea that the mobile base is a big thing, 'cuz as for now - your den can easily be overrun imho). There is, however, yet another point of you I wish to discuss here, though briefly.
I've spotted a bunch of indie/RL titles recently that dwell on the fact that gameplay could be shifted some decades ago. I suspect this is due to the nature of the spoiled gamer who wants to improve his session(s) with just about anything he finds on the internetZ or his whereabouts. Thus, the designers pull a hard one in terms of in-game availability, stating this is the date, and that's where you're at. NQA. This is a fantasy-gameplay legacy: show the players a world they can handle, and make a few exceptions to agree on end-game content. Even if you enjoy futuresque worlds for example, you'll wish for some, yet intelligent, improvements over the preset "pool" of skills and item behavior. I find this above all normal, though I will conclude.
If you draw a clear marker for top-achievers (in terms of content), you've gotta have a perfect one for bottom ones, too. Implying the commons, really - if the railroad is absolutely obsolete, you have to determine just how much of it is keepsaked, and make up some kind of useability treshold. Keeping that same whirlwind out of plasma weaponry with limited supply of fuel cells, for example, is fairly easy - you just make them non-craftable. The problem I see here is with some really dated electronics, methods of communication (and transport is already implied) and non-clean energy sources, that should find very, very limited use as it is, by a large number, discarded because it's beyond repair.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: CIB on April 13, 2014, 03:05:05 PM
I think such a goal system would be a really ineffective solution to the general problem of there not being much context to the game, except personal survival. The "proper" fix to that will be the scenario system, NPCs, factions, and generally a world that has more "life" put into it by keeping track of high-level events(compare: DF adventure mode).
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Darkfirephoenix on April 13, 2014, 08:04:36 PM
...Hrmmm it seems that some of my ideas are a bit overboard and even game-breaking if you have enough time and all the stuff implemented I thought off, an limitation to my ideas would be that you have to find components wich are needed to build most of the sutff. I mean building a fusion-reactor IS possible in real live with a ton of research-time, building time and some High-tech components (wich need raw materials from other parts of the world even [China etc. and I highly doubt the New-England has most of the raw materials needed]), so you would have to search in EXTREMLY dangerous locations to maybe find the parts needed or you even find an partially build Fusion-Generator. But Robots and such stuff are relatively easy to build if you have the knowledge and the components (a robot Hull made from Iron/Steel, something to power it [Robots operate on electricity after all], servos etc. and ofc the programming).

Most of my Nanite-Stuff has to be either found by you or made by you (but it would ofc require you finding OTHER Nanites first and a TON of power [a Plutonium Cell / an fully charged Accumulator in the size 10m x 10m [meters for our miles and such stuff using friends] or an running Fusion/Fission-Generator]) and did I mention all the calculation power needed? I can understand if the devs don't want to implement such stuff, but it would be an good idea for an mod or such! ;)

And don't forget the time factor.... So let's calculate the time needed to get this far for my high-tech stuff to come into play (and I will calculate the average player, not some lucky sob player): Trying to find a good place to stay + minimum supply on tools, food and skills = 10h Getting some more high end stuff: CBMs, Mutations, weapons = 5-10h And now we get to my stuff: Finding it 1-5h, getting the needed skills/knowledge on the needed level = 1-5h and time needed to get it all running smoothly: 1-5h (the time needed for my stuff would havily depend on how lucky you are and how you prepare to use it) So overall time usage = 18-35h without dying and you actively searching for the components. If you die... well you have to get at least all the needed skills/knowledge even if you have collected all the stuff, wich could lead to 10+ hours again (if your supplies don't run out / "Friends" want to visit you and you have to get outta there).

I'm not good at all this low-tech earlier to get stuff, if you haven't thought about it already! :P But I have some ideas regarding this matter ofc too... Why don't you post some ideas in my thread btw? Hrmm an mobile base could be relatively easy to do: An vehicle with some Solar panels, Kitchen Unit, an little "workshop" (all the tools needed) and an portable growing station (an little greenhouse, it isn't that hard really and could you supply [depending on the size ofc] with all the food you need).

And my viewpoint on the matter regarding Devs making EVERYTHING the players want (content etc.): I think that the devs should implement only the stuff they deem worthy and fitting of the game, they shouldn't try to implement ideas wich don't fit the setting etc. even if some of the "fans"/players REALLY want it, but the devs should give some reasons why they don't want to implement some stuff. If the fans/players REALLY want something: There are still possibilities to mod it in, but only after asking the devs first ofc. ;)
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: vultures on April 14, 2014, 07:28:38 PM
Quote from: Darkfirephoenix
nd my viewpoint on the matter regarding Devs making EVERYTHING the players want (content etc.): I think that the devs should implement only the stuff they deem worthy and fitting of the game, they shouldn't try to implement ideas wich don't fit the setting etc. even if some of the "fans"/players REALLY want it, but the devs should give some reasons why they don't want to implement some stuff. If the fans/players REALLY want something: There are still possibilities to mod it in, but only after asking the devs first ofc. ;)
I guess you misinterpreted the term "outline" as-is; a team of people or a community afterall can refit the suit of borderline exceptions as to make different, even better conclusions. In fact, CataDDA is very well maintained so it's prone to such a change one time or another... the thing is, this is DDA_interpretation_outline and it stands in a different place than the original (Whales' Cataclysm) did. As I once wrote, it would be a happy occurance if we modded CataDDA into a Warcraft2_Tides_of_Darkness simulator, with all the races and classes, scenery and dwellings - simply because this game is a perfect codebase for that. This also means the power_off switch for a good number of balancing presets throughout the game. I reckon this to be the case with various material that could supplement the game over the top, like high-grade military weapons or even safehouses/shelters built so tight they reminescence the vaults.
FYI, mobile bases are a long_beforeseen thing, and a milestone for determining just how much electric output should one have in game in order to keep things neat and balanced. And because we're slowly gliding towards working NPC classes, I want to comprehend and share the outline for just about anything that could and would use electric current supply, and to discuss just how much the communications systems are impaired in game time.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Kevin Granade on April 15, 2014, 08:10:39 AM
And my viewpoint on the matter regarding Devs making EVERYTHING the players want (content etc.): I think that the devs should implement only the stuff they deem worthy and fitting of the game, they shouldn't try to implement ideas wich don't fit the setting etc. even if some of the "fans"/players REALLY want it, but the devs should give some reasons why they don't want to implement some stuff. If the fans/players REALLY want something: There are still possibilities to mod it in, but only after asking the devs first ofc. ;)
That's pretty much what we do.  In the end, if you aren't fully behind something, if you don't "get it", it's not going to come out well. At the same time we try and explain why we're doing things the way we are too.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: RAM on April 16, 2014, 12:43:40 AM
I think the clearest way to put it is this is a limitation of the crafting system.  New industrially produced items might be acquirable in some limited fashion via a robot factory, replicator, biotech device, but they would be special cases as opposed to simply adding a crafting recipe with the requisite tools and components.
This makes me think on how far it should be possible to rebuild civilisation. It seems certain that at some point one will be able to recruit N.P.C.s and have them loiter at a base. Presumably they defend that base. Once you give them all strong but renewable armour, and let's say, pneumatic crossbows, they probably won't die from violence. But will they starve? Or run out of ammunition? Can you have runners butchering corpses and gathering fruit for a chef, and chopping wood for bolts? Can they operate a farm? Farm blobs for mutagen and purifier? Build walls? Can they go out on patrols in their pedal-powered armoured battering-ram and knock over encroaching Triffid groves? Can they plant forests for perpetual wood production? Could you build a completely self-sufficient and perpetually safe settlement? Can your faction then breed and multiply? And if you have a self-sufficient community of formerly civilised folk with access to a large supply of technical documentation, is it infeasible for them to start recreating lost technology? Should your faction be limited the crafting recipes and construction options or should they start building concrete walls and internal combustion engines?
 It seems to me that "How much civilisation is possible?" is an inevitable question if survivor factions become a reality. And it seems that it will be quite a divisive question as people start asking why a successful community of people who were presumably educated before the cataclysm cannot do something, or why an individual survivor cannot do what a community can do, and will be further complicated by suggestions like raiding government bunkers for technical experts advanced military designs...
 For myself... I would probably prefer to be able to eventually reconstruct the society we had before, but I could be content with loading my base' guards with gear that I crafted...
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Kevin Granade on April 16, 2014, 07:02:05 AM
If/when we get the point of having a dedicated NPC workforce, we can revisit the "no manufactured goods" concept, but for now the focus is on the lone survivor , and the limitations that scenario imposes.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: vultures on April 16, 2014, 11:52:55 AM
To the point of NPC, or colony outline - I do have some doubts. As far as I can remember, we had only several attempts to agree on facts, and from wide angles, too. The official timeline pours little in the same pool of discussion treads, so not much to disclose, really:
- you're pushed out to survive in a deadly New England setting, only to find a few of those still alive being just as miserable as you are;
- by the look of things (labs, military facilities) even the best of the organized groups were forced to dissolve into the newfound world;
- beacons of signal do happen, but there is no indication whatsoever as to what actually happened in those desolate outposts.

The border I can see here could check in again for the same reality bubble within the 9/18/36 months span.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Zireael on April 19, 2014, 08:25:08 AM
If/when we get the point of having a dedicated NPC workforce, we can revisit the "no manufactured goods" concept, but for now the focus is on the lone survivor , and the limitations that scenario imposes.

Great to know.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Ebon Kitsune on May 30, 2014, 12:53:41 PM
Along the lines of the balked at "race to the airport" idea... Cataclysm is a freeform roguelike, and in that vein, wouldn't the same principles apply?... This idea, from a purely coding standpoint, could get horrifically complex, but could work well with the future faction system, should static factions like the government or military exist in some manner (ala, Fallout)

You could race to the airport to try and find sanctuary of sorts, residing there, taking orders from the camp leader, doing quests for ranking members and other survivors, perhaps even working up through the ranks to become the leader yourself.

You could merely treat them as neighbors or trading partners, utilizing them as another resource, trading foods, medicines, ammo, and whatever else you need with them.

Alternatively, you could kill them all for the loot and supplies, or perhaps even assassinate the leader and declare your authority over the rest.

Cataclysm is, at heart, a post-apocalypse survival roguelike... and as such, there's no reason to assume that people wouldn't do such things to 'survive'
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: RAM on May 31, 2014, 02:58:19 AM
If they were just 'there' then it would detract a lot from the 'total cataclysm'ness of the scenario. Perhaps if they were obviously struggling it would be more attuned to the prevailing vibe... Suppose that they would exile or execute people as their food supplies dwindled. That they would start burning through defenders as their ammunition supplies were exhausted. That over time their armour corrodes into worthlessness and they all sacrifice the shirts off of their backs to repair what they could. Sort of a sense that short of a horde that they couldn't lure away, or a grove moving in next door, that they could basically survive any trauma, but that their are burning through their proportional supplies much faster than a lone survivor would, and will perish if they exhaust those supplies...
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Kevin Granade on May 31, 2014, 04:20:23 AM
I'm totally on board with having quests and even story arcs and such, and interacting with a faction that changes over time and has to manage its resources would be simply AMAZING.  the distinction is these would all be a choice rather than imposed on the player.
by default anyway, starting scenarios are also something we'd love to do.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Ebon Kitsune on June 10, 2014, 06:13:46 AM
Why not simply have options such as static factions/cities/whatever else as a module option that can be loaded in through the "Mods to use" panel that pops up when creating a new world, similar to how we have weapons and content packs currently? The beauty of a game like this is the freedom of choice that can potentially given to the player, so why not capitalize on it?
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Stretop on January 08, 2015, 10:17:32 PM
Quote
You would have to build the tools to build the tools, and that’s likely to take generations.

I would like to know rationale behind this statement. It seems to bee at odds with what is seen in game.

Let's look at it from historical point of view. For this statement to be true two conditions must be fulfilled:

1) This statement is applied to (local) civilization as whole. On personal level it does not work: inventors throughout recorded history create new tools, sometimes far ahead of their time. Example: widespread use of steam engines began in XVIII century. But the first one to create such engine was Hero of Alexandria in I century.

2) (More important) System, to which this statement is applied, must have no contact with technology more advanced than its own. Otherwise its technological progress would be greatly sped up. For example look at Japan during Meiji Restoration.

Neither of these is true for Cataclysm's survivor:

1) He is one person, which means that he is not slowed down by need to mass-implement technology for it to be usable by him.

2) He is literally surrounded by pre-Cataclysm material culture (including technology).

Some would say that it is implicit that most of the remaining technology is completely destroyed and unusable. To such statement I must answer that it is factually wrong: all that technology is unpowered and severely undersupplied, some of it suffered external damage from local XE037-influenced lifeforms; but I do not see anything indicating that there was any major damaging factors that would affect inorganic entities and inert matter.

XE037 seems to be targeting only animals; fungus-like denizens alter plant life - neither of them (nor other denizens) seems to be interested in destrution of human technology. As for external threats: as most of technology (specifically - different electronics) found even in undefended surface structures are in working order, New England could not be subjected to any kind of technology-destructive influence (like wide area EMP or some side-effect of sub-prime influence).

As it stands now, with
1) Reliable sources of power avaiable (specifically - from solar-powered vehicles),
2) Sufficient skill (which can be acquired via books and practice),
3) Knowledge (which can be acquired via books, surviving consoles, practice and field research)
4) Supplies (which can be acquired via scavenging and recycling)
much of technology can be restored to some degree on small (personal) scale.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: TheFlame52 on January 08, 2015, 10:22:52 PM
That's true, but you probably shouldn't have necroed a 6 month old topic to say it.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Stretop on January 08, 2015, 10:26:12 PM
*Shrugs* It is still sticked. Also, where else am I supposed to comment on this?
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: KA101 on January 09, 2015, 12:54:14 AM
Yeah, sticky topics are OK to post in.

More to the issue is lack of maintenance and operating staff: systems that weren't shut down properly may have damaged themselves when left running.  Further, it's impossible to get the old stuff running on your own (you can't be everywhere at once) and though there's a nontrivial amount of survivors projected alive at game start, even with the extreme casualty rate, how many of them survive and can be located/recruited/marshaled to accomplish anything is another question.

(Especially when "Don't get killed and assimilated by the 99%" is the first priority.)

Zeds tend to destroy vehicles when they bump into 'em; same might go for other infrastructure.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: TheFlame52 on January 09, 2015, 12:46:33 PM
Zeds tend to destroy vehicles when they bump into 'em; same might go for other infrastructure.
Yup. I've seen the new working-together zombies destroy whole houses just because there was a car with a running engine on the other side.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Stretop on January 09, 2015, 04:40:21 PM
More to the issue is lack of maintenance and operating staff: systems that weren't shut down properly may have damaged themselves when left running.

It is true but only for unstable, self-deteriorating systems, like nuclear fission reactors (and other technology that uses unstable elements) or systems using unstable materials, like most organics (sorry, Jimmy, all those zoo animals are dead... I hope). Other systems, that do not incorporate such elements (and this is absolute majority of human technology of that time), can remain relatively fine for decades if not centuries. And all systems that are used by scientists and military are equipped with emergency breakers - it is pretty much the basics of safety measures. Even your personal computer can be suddenly unpowered, left for 10 years, then powered up - and it will be mostly fine. What can we say, then, about military and scientific equipment, that is meant to have several times greater margin of safety?

Further, it's impossible to get the old stuff running on your own (you can't be everywhere at once)

But it is possible. You simply need to scale it down to personal level. You cannot run old steelworks industry on your own, sure. But did that stop you from metalworking projects like deathmobile?

Zeds tend to destroy vehicles when they bump into 'em; same might go for other infrastructure.

For this to be true, two other statements must also be true: that zeds are willing to tear it down and that they are capable to do this.

As for "zeds are capable to tear down infractructure":
Seriously? =) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYJCdiIAXCg) According to lore, whole country lived in expectation of war. Do you imply that several reanimated human bodies is enough to tear down something that is designed to withstand strategic bombardment and (most probably) tactical nukes?

Well, what you are saying of course may be true for civil infrastructure, but this is not an issue - for current civil population this structure is massively redundant, so much of it potentially can be cannibalized to restore other parts of it with little problem.

As for "zeds are willing to tear down infractructure"
Let's think about zeds motivations. The only motivation they seem to have is to attack the living. So there is important question: what dynamics Cataclysm actualy had?

And judging by state of cities Cataclysm was widespread and instant or near-instant. One moment - everyone is alive. Another moment - everyone is dead. Yet another moment - everyone is zombie. No time window for struggle. It is indicated by comlete absence of any traces of struggle: furniture in intact, firearms are not fired, windows are intact as well (and this indicates that there was no zeds trying to get in or out of buildings).

And as there was no struggle in cities - I see no evidence that there were struggle in labs and military installments: there are no casings around turrets, no broken furniture, no lost or discarded weapons, no broken doors and so on.

And without actual struggle between the living and zeds it does not seem that zeds have any incentive to break apart anything around them, including high-tech equipment.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: RAM on January 09, 2015, 07:40:12 PM
Given the obvious reluctance to go all-in with crafting, it seems reasonable that this matter would most easily be resolved with a crafting extension mod...

In the long-run, it would be nice if your could rebuild civilisation, at least on a small scale, by getting enough survivors together to get a viable community happening, and then proceed to do your best to advance to pre-cata technology with all available haste. I mean, sure, some minor tricks and conveniences will not be recorded in books, and some devices will be very hazardous until the operators are familiar with them, but I really don't see why a precision metal-lathe, smelter, or computer would require generations to build, especially with a slight touch of game-logic to make things easier than they would be in reality. I mean, yes, the hand-made computer would be very low efficiency and exceedingly large, but once it was built then it would be capable of automatic a device to build a much more conventional one, which would then have the reaction time to make it about as small as you would care to...
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Stretop on January 09, 2015, 11:16:40 PM
the hand-made computer would be very low efficiency and exceedingly large

Actually - no. It would be just fine. As I said, all electronics seems to be intact, so you can easily grab needed parts (motherboard, video card, HDD, RAMs and so on) and assemble modern (for last pre-Cataclysm days) personal computer. You do not have to begin with something like Atlas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_%28computer%29).
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: KA101 on January 10, 2015, 01:07:22 AM
Keep the DDA canon (http://smf.cataclysmdda.com/index.php?topic=4160.0) in mind when speculating about what's remaining.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Stretop on January 10, 2015, 01:38:12 AM
Keep the DDA canon (http://smf.cataclysmdda.com/index.php?topic=4160.0) in mind when speculating about what's remaining.
Enlightening reading. However biological weaponry and dirty bombs do not destroy technology, they are population-targeted weapons. And labs that survivor encounters certanly do not look like something that has been hit with high explosives.

So it still seems that on these territories humanity failed, technology - not so much.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: KA101 on January 10, 2015, 02:01:47 AM
Places that have been nuked/bombed tend to be "crater", not "science lab".  ;-)  Not every lab was nailed.  Mundane lack-of-maintenance is what kills most tech in DDA.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Stretop on January 10, 2015, 04:10:43 PM
Mundane lack-of-maintenance is what kills most tech in DDA.

"Lack-of-maintenance kills most tech" in five days? I find it highly unlikely. It is not like Fallout, where world was a-bombed and decades have passed.

Lack of maintenance can render tech unusable without repairs (but not irrevocably destroyed) if it goes on for like a year in aggresive environment (like machinery in antarctic scientific bases), but five days in temperate underground is not going to do any noticeable harm to it.

 Again, even your tabletop computer can be left running for five days and nothing bad would happen to it. It may slow down a bit and require reset, but there will be no permanent damage.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: iceball3 on January 10, 2015, 04:43:20 PM
Places that have been nuked/bombed tend to be "crater", not "science lab".  ;-)  Not every lab was nailed.  Mundane lack-of-maintenance is what kills most tech in DDA.
You mean besides security systems, computer consoles, turrets, tank bots, security bots, manhacks, all lab finale machines, etc? Considering we can already build generators out of spare parts, most anything that uses electricity and wasn't explicitly destroyed outright should probably be usable.
Considering we can craft manhacks or turrets, it wouldn't be unreasonable to craft a collection of programmable machines to automatically operate parts of a machine that would manually require a workforce? Sure it would be less productive and safe, but we aren't looking to put out resources for an entire country ahile remaining OSHA compliant.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: KA101 on January 10, 2015, 10:13:58 PM
Labs: backup power, probably the same generator they use at miloutposts

Bots: autonomous power supply, probably should die in a year or two, if not running on plutonium or solar?

Consoles not in labs/milbunkers: let's see, one in a mine finale, a couple in a hospital (which might well have the same backup generator), and one for an NPC quest, which if given at game start might have had a serious UPS charge or perhaps solar on the roof.

I assure you that we've plans to apply "trashed" processing of various sorts in mapgen, so the current situation is not guaranteed to remain as intact as it is now.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Stretop on January 11, 2015, 12:13:05 AM
Labs: backup power, probably the same generator they use at miloutposts

Bots: autonomous power supply, probably should die in a year or two, if not running on plutonium or solar?

Consoles not in labs/milbunkers: let's see, one in a mine finale, a couple in a hospital (which might well have the same backup generator), and one for an NPC quest, which if given at game start might have had a serious UPS charge or perhaps solar on the roof.
But the question is not about how powered they are, but about how intact they are. And they are completely intact (even police-bots that were most probaly on surface and completely undefended during Cataclysm, and also actively used and comletely unmaitaned ever since), so why should all other technology be universally broken beyond repair?

I assure you that we've plans to apply "trashed" processing of various sorts in mapgen, so the current situation is not guaranteed to remain as intact as it is now.

But that still would be illogical. Okay, so surface is gripped in riots, dirty-bombed, bio-attacked and all that jazz, but why should laboratiories be wrecked (aside the ones reduced to craters =)?
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: i2amroy on January 11, 2015, 05:41:07 AM
Laboratories were one of the places with the highest portal densities. As noted in the lore (though I'm not sure if it's in the design outline) there was a rather large surge of nether critters to kick the whole Cataclysm off before most of them eventually melted away/left. This would result in rather trashed labs after a DOOM-esque scenario happened in them.

That said I could totally see programmable machines being salvaged from parts of other robots (though not built from scratch, obviously), but sucha  thing seems like a long, long way off code-wise to me.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Stretop on January 11, 2015, 02:23:21 PM
Laboratories were one of the places with the highest portal densities.

True, but not all labs were portal facilities. And many of portal facilities were nuked. And judging by still present and undisturbed security systems many labs had no guests from sub-prime whatsoever. There was labs for human augmentation (the ones with "rare bionics" finale), engineering labs (with quantum solar panels and fussion rifles) and so on.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: RAM on January 11, 2015, 08:54:10 PM
Well if this thread is being necroed, lets make it a full resurrection!

How aggressive do we want the cataclysms to be, and should there be any clear winners in any circumstances? Should every world be pretty much doomed to eventually be completely blanketed with invaders and two nests will spawn in the time it takes to clear one? with the survivor desperately trying to fortify their tiny little greenhouse against spore-drifts and trifid explosions? Unless they manage to build a small army of bionic super-soldiers capable of wrestling with hulks and digging directly into ant nests with their bare hands and immolating the contents with more ordinance than a tank...

Maybe blobs always spread into ant territory, trifids and ants randomly become subservient to one or the other in a mockery of symbiosis, fungus spreads against anything but is never concentrated enough to push too close to a nest itself, trifids destroy blobs...
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Stretop on January 11, 2015, 09:11:09 PM
There is also a question about where would all factions get new recruits (considering high level of casualities in the Cataclysm Zone)? Well it is more or less clear with Old Guard which can get support from outside CZ (I offer to call the cordoned region of New England were survivor act CZ - Cataclysm Zone), and as infighting in CZ intensifies - Blob would have plenty of material, but what about Shaolin, Cultists and all others?
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Rivet on January 11, 2015, 09:15:48 PM
the cordoned region of New England were survivor act CZ - Cataclysm Zone

The Cataclysm wasn't limited to New England; the whole world has been affected, and there are no more safe places.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Stretop on January 11, 2015, 09:28:41 PM
The Cataclysm wasn't limited to New England; the whole world has been affected, and there are no more safe places.

True, but New England had the worst of it: it housed more portal-researching facilities that any other territory.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Kevin Granade on January 11, 2015, 09:52:12 PM
Really? where's that stated?  My reading is that New England isn't particularly special, it's just where you are.
If we implemented very long-range (in terms of geography) changes, it would vary the climate and possibly vary the mixture of the cataclysmic events, but not the severity.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Stretop on January 11, 2015, 09:56:09 PM
Really? where's that stated?  My reading is that New England isn't particularly special, it's just where you are.
If we implemented very long-range (in terms of geography) changes, it would vary the climate and possibly vary the mixture of the cataclysmic events, but not the severity.

Well maybe it was about original Cataclysm. Anyway, that actually makes my question even more important. Where all those faction-people are going to come from?
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Lorknis on January 13, 2015, 03:34:32 PM
Really? where's that stated?  My reading is that New England isn't particularly special, it's just where you are.
If we implemented very long-range (in terms of geography) changes, it would vary the climate and possibly vary the mixture of the cataclysmic events, but not the severity.

Well maybe it was about original Cataclysm. Anyway, that actually makes my question even more important. Where all those faction-people are going to come from?
Out of state maybe or from
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: RAM on January 13, 2015, 07:36:00 PM
How self-sufficient should survivors be? Should camping out in the woods with a small farm and not a care in the world be a viable objective?
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Stretop on January 13, 2015, 09:58:41 PM
Out of state maybe

If 99% of humanity is dead everywhere - not very likely.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: KA101 on January 14, 2015, 02:12:04 AM
Out of state maybe

If 99% of humanity is dead everywhere - not very likely.

As of game start, there are probably (at least) some 17,695 living humans throughout the New England region (http://smf.cataclysmdda.com/index.php?topic=4161.msg166793#msg166793).  Given time and communication, 10-100 member factions are entirely reasonable.

And camping in the woods is currently pretty reasonable: there's a profession specifically designed to do that, if you pick the "out in the woods" start.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Stretop on January 14, 2015, 02:19:01 PM
As of game start, there are probably (at least) some 17,695 living humans throughout the New England region (http://smf.cataclysmdda.com/index.php?topic=4161.msg166793#msg166793).  Given time and communication, 10-100 member factions are entirely reasonable.

And camping in the woods is currently pretty reasonable: there's a profession specifically designed to do that, if you pick the "out in the woods" start.

But how about estimates for mortality rates in post-Cataclysm world? Wouldn't most of those 17,695 humans die out in the following 2-3 years? Also, how many of those 17,695 are actually able humans? As far as I understand your calculations - many of them are elderly (we should also factor in common tendency for modern human populations towards increasing of average age), many of them are physically or psychically unfit (and some are reliant upon complex medications and will quickly die without it). And some of them are even underaged children.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: iceball3 on January 14, 2015, 04:25:02 PM
As of game start, there are probably (at least) some 17,695 living humans throughout the New England region (http://smf.cataclysmdda.com/index.php?topic=4161.msg166793#msg166793).  Given time and communication, 10-100 member factions are entirely reasonable.

And camping in the woods is currently pretty reasonable: there's a profession specifically designed to do that, if you pick the "out in the woods" start.

But how about estimates for mortality rates in post-Cataclysm world? Wouldn't most of those 17,695 humans die out in the following 2-3 years? Also, how many of those 17,695 are actually able humans? As far as I understand your calculations - many of them are elderly (we should also factor in common tendency for modern human populations towards increasing of average age), many of them are physically or psychically unfit (and some are reliant upon complex medications and will quickly die without it). And some of them are even underaged children.
Those survivors aren't chosen randomly. Only the ones lucky or adept or coordinated enough will be part of that surviving population to begin with. The frail, disorganized, and unlucky folks are already zombies.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Stretop on January 14, 2015, 04:44:23 PM
Those survivors aren't chosen randomly. Only the ones lucky or adept or coordinated enough will be part of that surviving population to begin with. The frail, disorganized, and unlucky folks are already zombies.

Good point. But that depends on how exactly that 1% survived. If they survived in evac-shelters - there would be plenty of "the frail, disorganized, and unlucky folks" - they simply must be close enough to that shelter at the starting moment of the Cataclysm.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: KA101 on January 15, 2015, 12:06:23 AM
I didn't much bother with precision and checking on who would be most likely to survive, because enough demographics can change between 2010 and 2042/8 that it might well not matter.  The point was to demonstrate that significant amounts of NPCs would live to game start and therefore *could* live to encounter the PC, not that any particular one would.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Stretop on January 15, 2015, 07:59:31 PM
Okay then. Can a list of currently planned factions and their agendas be added to design document?
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: skavenswarm on January 29, 2015, 02:47:02 PM
Could you make animals like coyotes eat none infected corpses please.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Kevin Granade on January 29, 2015, 04:54:01 PM
This isn't a feature suggestion thread.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Derpular on March 18, 2015, 02:29:49 PM
Just one thought: near the bottom of page 6, change
Quote
is xemself
to
Quote
are themselves

This isn't the mid-nineties, we don't need to prove how edgy we are by inventing new gender-neutral pronouns that sound like we're gargling Lovecraftian summoning rituals.  "They" has served just fine for this purpose since the middle ages.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: John Candlebury on March 25, 2015, 06:41:53 PM
In general I would support the use of "they" or null subjects over "xe", both in the wiki and in documentation.

Just seems more adequate.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: MormonPartyboat on March 25, 2015, 08:02:44 PM
Just one thought: near the bottom of page 6, change
Quote
is xemself
to
Quote
are themselves

It'd be better English to just eliminate the phrase entirely, as it's redundant.  As a bonus, it'd shift the sentence's focus from the player to the world: "Transcendence involves actively modifying parts of the world… bearing in mind that the player character is part of the world."

This isn't the mid-nineties, we don't need to prove how edgy we are by inventing new gender-neutral pronouns that sound like we're gargling Lovecraftian summoning rituals.  "They" has served just fine for this purpose since the middle ages.

just lol
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: FatherTed on July 02, 2015, 01:49:37 AM
How strict is the "eschewing of fancy graphics"? I'm trying to get into making or editing tilesets and have thought of a few ideas in regards to the visuals/graphics. I'm guessing this is something that would be best made into a mod of some sort? My biggest problem is I have no idea what I'm doing.

Heres a link to the post that explains my ideas (and a link to another post that explains my ideas).

http://smf.cataclysmdda.com/index.php?topic=10695.0 (http://smf.cataclysmdda.com/index.php?topic=10695.0)

Edit: Well I've thought about my own question for a bit and I'm not sure it's really necessary to post it here. If prompted I'll remove it but otherwise ill just leave it here. (Honestly I'm just trying to funnel as many people as possible to my original post, with the hopes that some poor soul will actually read all of it and decide to help me.)
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Pthalocy on July 02, 2015, 07:27:05 AM
Mmn, last post here was on March 25 of this year. This thread is a very open-ended one so I'm not calling anybody out for thread necro (we have no official rules against it at time of this post's writing). Your post here's primary intent seems to be promoting your other thread, which is not really a bad thing, but I don't see how it will help your intended goal.

Don't worry man. We'll find and post in your desired thread if we have something to contribute! Sometimes we're a little slow. If the thread is a flop for whatever reason and gets buried behind new topics, it is perfectly okay to start a new thread and try again sometime later.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: FatherTed on July 02, 2015, 03:58:57 PM
OK so I'll stop relpying to old threads and leave them alone. I think I got a little carried away. I hope I didn't do anything foolish.
Title: Re: [Discussion Thread] Thoughts on the C:DDA Design Outline
Post by: Pthalocy on July 02, 2015, 05:42:46 PM
Nah, you'd have to be trying a lot harder to dredge so many old threads up that it buries genuinely new ones. You'll do just fine here!