Author Topic: [Discussion Thread] Changing the official Canon  (Read 18713 times)

Offline Tawarochir

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 288
  • Cyborg Gumball Machine
    • View Profile
Re: [Discussion Thread] Changing the official Canon
« Reply #60 on: August 07, 2016, 03:23:51 AM »
factions are unlikely to ever resemble fallout level factions.
they recieve little work these days.

Faction code is an unworkable mess, it needs to be removed and rewritten from scratch before it can be worked on.
I figured something like this would be necessary. I still get a chuckle out of the faction entries in the [#] menu; they read like something out of DF. "Your followers are primarily interested in defeating the zombies, they like hoarding stuff and assassinating people and are famous for their robots", to paraphrase, is amusing, especially when my character is a woodsman with no resources who doesn't interact with zombies, NPCs, or the Electronics skill.

Also, erm, reading this thread, I'm getting somewhat contradictory information. Wasn't canon that New England was sort of partitioned off from the rest of the U.S. and just sorta left for dead, and the government considered it to be too valuable in some manner to destroy? Did that get changed in the past six months or so? Did I accidentally mistake some sort of fanfic for canonical information?

Offline ApatheticExcuse

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
  • Waiting for the tide to get low
    • View Profile
Re: [Discussion Thread] Changing the official Canon
« Reply #61 on: August 07, 2016, 07:37:46 AM »
factions are unlikely to ever resemble fallout level factions.
they recieve little work these days.

Faction code is an unworkable mess, it needs to be removed and rewritten from scratch before it can be worked on.
I figured something like this would be necessary. I still get a chuckle out of the faction entries in the [#] menu; they read like something out of DF. "Your followers are primarily interested in defeating the zombies, they like hoarding stuff and assassinating people and are famous for their robots", to paraphrase, is amusing, especially when my character is a woodsman with no resources who doesn't interact with zombies, NPCs, or the Electronics skill.

Also, erm, reading this thread, I'm getting somewhat contradictory information. Wasn't canon that New England was sort of partitioned off from the rest of the U.S. and just sorta left for dead, and the government considered it to be too valuable in some manner to destroy? Did that get changed in the past six months or so? Did I accidentally mistake some sort of fanfic for canonical information?

The canon is a bit contradictory here, IIRC. It says New England was ditched, but also says the rest of the world is having the same problem. It's also implied that the US in general gets nuked, and the robots experience the same issues everywhere. So in theory, the 99% death is implied to apply everywhere, though that's simply my interpretation and may be incorrect.

I personally think it makes more sense for everything to be dead. It's hard to cut off a chunk of land that's not an island effectively, even without inter-dimensional portals opening everywhere.
Sometimes I think I'd have an easier time surviving Cataclysm IRL than in game.

Offline iceball3

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 671
    • View Profile
Re: [Discussion Thread] Changing the official Canon
« Reply #62 on: August 07, 2016, 09:52:43 AM »
factions are unlikely to ever resemble fallout level factions.
they recieve little work these days.

Faction code is an unworkable mess, it needs to be removed and rewritten from scratch before it can be worked on.
I figured something like this would be necessary. I still get a chuckle out of the faction entries in the [#] menu; they read like something out of DF. "Your followers are primarily interested in defeating the zombies, they like hoarding stuff and assassinating people and are famous for their robots", to paraphrase, is amusing, especially when my character is a woodsman with no resources who doesn't interact with zombies, NPCs, or the Electronics skill.

Also, erm, reading this thread, I'm getting somewhat contradictory information. Wasn't canon that New England was sort of partitioned off from the rest of the U.S. and just sorta left for dead, and the government considered it to be too valuable in some manner to destroy? Did that get changed in the past six months or so? Did I accidentally mistake some sort of fanfic for canonical information?

The canon is a bit contradictory here, IIRC. It says New England was ditched, but also says the rest of the world is having the same problem. It's also implied that the US in general gets nuked, and the robots experience the same issues everywhere. So in theory, the 99% death is implied to apply everywhere, though that's simply my interpretation and may be incorrect.

I personally think it makes more sense for everything to be dead. It's hard to cut off a chunk of land that's not an island effectively, even without inter-dimensional portals opening everywhere.
I'd imagine it's less of a cut off and more of a "continuous retreat front", if we consider New England to be a growing sphere of influence for all sorts of things.

That said, the reason why I'm confused about the 99% figure is because that, while non trivial, isn't far-fetched to duck out in a forest or et cetera and go unnoticed by any zombies, abominations, etc for seasons at a time, even, ingame that is.
Sure they would muck up any significant population centers, and not everyone can just run away and survive, but something tells me that more than 1% people would be alive, if scattered and starving. At least as soon as the first 5 days.

If the game were a "one year later scenario", the figure would be a lot easier to digest, I think. We could also soften the number up a bit for the 5 day later scenario.
...using protection and letting a bunch of weak mobs pound you all night long

Offline ApatheticExcuse

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
  • Waiting for the tide to get low
    • View Profile
Re: [Discussion Thread] Changing the official Canon
« Reply #63 on: August 07, 2016, 11:26:54 AM »
I think the idea is that the acid rain killed anyone the nukes, zombies, robots, early dimensional raiders, etc. etc. didn't. You're right,  it doesn't make a ton of sense either given that only five days have gone by, but for some reason I have an easier time suspending disbelief over that than some of this other stuff.

I'd make a bit of a guess that the 99% number existed in non-DDA Cata and was carried over - I don't think  (but really don't know) there was much for NPCs there, and it was likely a way to explain the lack of other people.

On the other hand, I'm not sure how much the math makes sense either, but in the opposite direction - maybe MORE people should have been killed. One percent of say a million people is still 10,000, which is quite a few more survivors than you run into, and in terms of global population doesn't really make this much of a potential extinction event, which is what I think they were going for. Science says humanity (or human precursors) have likely survived worse in terms of how many people were left alive.
Sometimes I think I'd have an easier time surviving Cataclysm IRL than in game.

Offline iceball3

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 671
    • View Profile
Re: [Discussion Thread] Changing the official Canon
« Reply #64 on: August 07, 2016, 06:16:47 PM »
I think the idea is that the acid rain killed anyone the nukes, zombies, robots, early dimensional raiders, etc. etc. didn't. You're right,  it doesn't make a ton of sense either given that only five days have gone by, but for some reason I have an easier time suspending disbelief over that than some of this other stuff.

I'd make a bit of a guess that the 99% number existed in non-DDA Cata and was carried over - I don't think  (but really don't know) there was much for NPCs there, and it was likely a way to explain the lack of other people.

On the other hand, I'm not sure how much the math makes sense either, but in the opposite direction - maybe MORE people should have been killed. One percent of say a million people is still 10,000, which is quite a few more survivors than you run into, and in terms of global population doesn't really make this much of a potential extinction event, which is what I think they were going for. Science says humanity (or human precursors) have likely survived worse in terms of how many people were left alive.
Well, consider this: 10,000 people in the world isn't much to be scattered across the surface of the planet.

My consideration is that far more than 10,000 people in the world live in relatively isolated rural communities, outside of the notice of a vast majority of those invading folks, and given that said communities would have a chance to maintain their local infrastructure (up to but excluding the power grid, though local gov't may still exist), it wouldn't be impossible for said communities to come around to learning they should probably disassemble their dead, and move out and bees/fungal shit/zombies/etc get a bit too populous near them.
Let's not forget the people living on islands, deep in the wilderness, or in the urban-bastions which bear so many "almost unbreakable" locations to hide in for a while, underground infrastructure helping getting from place to place without getting blocked in by piles of bodies.

A majority of people will die with the collapse of agriculture, sure, but 10,000 seems to be lowballing it for the short duration that the apocalypse had been going on: there's just too many people who would go unnoticed in that time.
...using protection and letting a bunch of weak mobs pound you all night long

Offline Valpo

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2858
    • View Profile
Re: [Discussion Thread] Changing the official Canon
« Reply #65 on: August 07, 2016, 06:22:33 PM »
Why 10000 people scattered across the planet when 1% is more along the lines of 50-80 million.

Offline ApatheticExcuse

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
  • Waiting for the tide to get low
    • View Profile
Re: [Discussion Thread] Changing the official Canon
« Reply #66 on: August 07, 2016, 07:12:37 PM »
Oh, I was meaning let's assume there's a million people in New England, not the earth. Now that I google it, it says there's about 15 million. So there should still be quite a few people around there even if 99% died.

As Valpo says, worldwide, there would hypothetically be something like 70 million people left alive if 99% died. If you were to spread them out, then humanity might be in trouble, but if you take population density into account, it's likely that most of the survivors would be close enough together to rebuild eventually. It's been theorized (and I don't know enough about it to question how valid the theory is) that around 50,000 years ago, a supervolcano eruption reduced the human population to 1,000-10,000 breeding pairs (so 2,000 to 20,000 people), and we recovered ok from that. So, that's why I say that only killing 99% of us off still makes for a pretty lousy extinction event. That's still about the number of people in pre-plague Europe or post plague China, and considerably more than what existed in north america at any point before colonization.

As I said, you do need to suspend disbelief to go with 99% of people dying that quickly, but that said, if it took a realistically long time for that many to die, then you'd still find yourself in a much better position as one of the people who hadn't then you do at the start of the current game.
Sometimes I think I'd have an easier time surviving Cataclysm IRL than in game.

Offline pisskop

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3418
  • So Noble he farts Helium
    • View Profile
Re: [Discussion Thread] Changing the official Canon
« Reply #67 on: August 08, 2016, 01:11:48 AM »
There is going to be an estimated 350-500 million in the us in 2050 if the current trend of birthrates (documented) immigration continues.  That means, likely, between 18 mill (conservatively) and 25 mill.  more or less.   And we can support more; we have boatloads of wilderness, forest, reserves, and simply extra unimproved or abandoned land.

Thats only my state too, which is one of the most urbanized in NE.

We'll have survivors.  I wish you could do quests that could change the state of NE.  Say you blow up evac centers and less people spawn.  Or something.

Offline pisskop

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3418
  • So Noble he farts Helium
    • View Profile
Re: [Discussion Thread] Changing the official Canon
« Reply #68 on: November 04, 2016, 05:08:35 PM »
to whom are you speaking to

Offline Kevin Granade

  • Administrator
  • Survivor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5453
  • I code dead people.
    • View Profile
Re: [Discussion Thread] Changing the official Canon
« Reply #69 on: December 29, 2016, 09:28:47 PM »
I think it might be worth dialing back the total-humanity-dead number a bit, lorewise, to give more elbow room than "everyone died in days but you're alive somehow still" vibe a bit, but still keep the whole lot of New England (and perhaps the whole portion of the US) a "this area is a lost cause zone" to any outside world militaries of any competencies.
Anything about the rest of the world being ok or the issue being limited to new england is in error and needs to be removed, as ApatheticExcuse points out, the entire scenario becomes nonsensical if civilization still exists elsewhere outside of isolated pockets.

To explain a bit about why factions don't make sense right at the start of the game, I have to point out that the infrastructure for factions only really suports defining factions at a specific point in time.  In other words, no matter how the faction is defined, it's going to be inaccurate to outright nonsensical at some point in time.  If we defined factions as they exist at the start of the game, they would more or less all be the same, a random group of panicked people with no real cohesion or plan for the future.  Obviously this would become strange as days, weeks, and months passed and the factions remained bewildered and ignorant about how things work now.  The same holds true for defining faction characteristics for the first week or even month, so the definitions assume the factions have had time to settle down, sort out governance, mke goals for themselves, etc.

The way we'd LIKE it to work is that as time progresses the factins transition from chaotic groups of ignorant and panicked people to loosely organized groups, probably led by some charismatic individual, to their final state where they've devised some form of governance and some goals for themselves.  Ufortunately we have roughly none of the infrastructure we need to make this happen.

To get an idea of how it can look though, there's a series of quests issued from the shelter to go help a "farm" community establish itself.  Ideally we'd have a large number of factions like this, that can issue quests to the survivor that tangibly help them develop into a stable community which can then be of benifit to the survivor.  This is also a lot more work per faction to define, you have to create a (potentially branching) set of outcomes, or at the least a sequence of events that grow the faction from its starting point to it's final state.
Its like a fun family cookout, except your family is burning in flames while trying to eat you. -secretfire
I'm more excited than a survivor on meth and toast'ems. -Nighthawk
The the giant wasp is slammed through the zombie brute!

Offline Kadian

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 354
  • ...the shadows cutting deeper...
    • View Profile
Re: [Discussion Thread] Changing the official Canon
« Reply #70 on: January 18, 2017, 12:13:51 AM »
To get an idea of how it can look though, there's a series of quests issued from the shelter to go help a "farm" community establish itself.  Ideally we'd have a large number of factions like this, that can issue quests to the survivor that tangibly help them develop into a stable community which can then be of benifit to the survivor.  This is also a lot more work per faction to define, you have to create a (potentially branching) set of outcomes, or at the least a sequence of events that grow the faction from its starting point to it's final state.

You would also need to account for potential relationships between factions. If Faction A dislikes Factioon B, then Faction A might be annoyed that you're helping Faction B and you might not be welcome anymore ; Or even better, you could get a quest where you actively have to destroy one of their outposts/communities, maybe even one which you helped building up. The other faction then could take over the ruins of the outpost/community, and so on.

Offline pisskop

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3418
  • So Noble he farts Helium
    • View Profile
Re: [Discussion Thread] Changing the official Canon
« Reply #71 on: January 18, 2017, 01:30:45 PM »
lets focus on npcs feeding themselves and proper faction level defense before branching quests yaa