Suggestion: Make Zombies Zombies.

[mcdosy 2]

There infected persons NOT zombies.... case closed.

Er...yeah...what you've done there is successfully identified what they are. (Go you)

What you've missed is that the debate is over what they should be.

Anyone who thinks zombies aren't dangerous or exciting or a threat just because they don't run like Usain Bolt has very little imagination.

The danger comes from the slightest slip - the tiniest scratch or bite - costing you your life.

The excitement comes from the level of threat having multiple stages. One zombie isn't much of a threat' date=' but fighting it might attract more. The threat comes from being cornered or mobbed, so the situation from spotting one zombie can develop. Sometimes it'll be no problem, sometimes the beginning of an escalating major event.

With 'infected' the first moment I get spotted by the first enemy, that's it, I'm Benny Hilling around the landscape. It's samey and dull instead of varied and exciting. Every encounter immediately reaches the same point and the same response.

Fewer guns, slower zombies, more of them.

Someone [i']please make a zombie survivalism game instead of an 'infected' FPS. We already have Left 4 Dead. Day Z has a long way to go before matching it.

---

"make them slower: Zombies in lore are undead and usually not very fast on their feet but in DayZ they are"

make sure to do your homework before posting "suggestions" like this' date=' they are alive people with good physical state, but they are infected with the virus

[/quote']

Just for 5 minutes, countenance the possibility that some people making these "suggestions" are aware of what is in the game currently, but believe that "suggestions" might encompass things that are not in the game.

Something that's already in the game isn't really a "suggestion", is it?

[TimesLLJK 2]

I'm reposting this from a thread on somethingawful where I was speculating about how I might like to see zombies handled in a future version of DayZ and whatever engine it uses. This seemed like the thread best suited for this.

Inventory and interface stuff is pretty boring though.

Let's talk about something fun in our hypothetical musings about what we'd like to see in a redone/new-engine day z.

First off, I would love to see a proper art team take a crack at making zombies that would make Tom Savini proud. Zombies rotting in various states of decay. Zombies with outfits or injuries that might occasionally tell a wee 'story' about what they were in life or how they died. Zombies missing parts and so on.

Anyway, I would definitely like to see some far superior zombie AI in general, where they start behaving a hell of a lot more like their horror movie counterparts.

Here are also some examples for varieties of zombies you might encounter (whose various traits could be mixed and matched together in combos)

-fast zombies. The recently dead or zombies who haven't yet rotted enough to not be physically imposing. If a survivor dies, they will get back up as a npc fast zombie, meaning that if a friend dies they may become a major threat to the group. Fast zombies carry low risk of spreading disease, but are very hard to outrun and cause a lot of damage. They are fortunately very noisy and will alert you if they are after you. This also means they will alert other zombies in the area. A scary sight in the game should be a small crowd of fast zombies howling and racing towards you.

-Romero zombies. This ought to be the most common undead encountered and are your classic slow moving large herding zombies. They are relatively easy to outrun, but carry a strong risk of infection if they manage to bite you. Just like in horror movies.

-ankle biters -zombies missing the use of their legs or simply missing their legs that crawl slowly about. A lot of them can be inert until stood near, like traps.

-Inert - zombies that seem dead until you get near them.

-quiet - occasional zombies that barely make a sound, until they are on you.

-roamers - zombies that wander about 'searching' for prey. As opposed to mostly standing around.

-herders - zombies reacting in chain reaction to the activity of other zombies, moving as a group. Often occurs when one thinks it has found prey.

-routine zombie - a zombie engaged in some compulsive behavior - such as typing on a keyboard, trying to sweep a grocery floor, or some other ghostly version of their behavior in life. Will be mostly distracted from players unless they make enough of a din to alert it.

-harmless or comedy zombie - the rare zombie that doesn't want to eat flesh. Instead it wants to engage in some other strange behavior. (such as the zombie who loved guns in dawn of the dead) There should be achievements in a scavenger hunt of sorts for taking screenshots of them.

-friendly zombie - super rare zombie that somehow has enough intelligence left to actually attempt to protect the survivors. Identified by making friendly waving gestures rather than attacking. Will follow survivors it encounters around until destroyed.

-alpha zombie - a zombie with a kind of 'charisma' that causes others to follow it around in large numbers. The alpha zombies are tougher and stronger than normal, and also have much keener eyesight and hearing. They can alert a whole herd to an otherwise well hidden player. Identified by much more 'alert' body language. (for snipers to identify and destroy)

-weapon/tool-user - rare zombies with a melee weapon are dangerous due to longer reach and better ability to smash barricades. An extremely rare zombie with a gun can't aim well but should be a potentially deadly threat.

Anyway, yeah. I think that covers most of the horrors movie staples of zombies.

Ideally I'd like an experience with zombies that is visceral and thrilling at times. Other times a sense of slowly building dread as their numbers of slower moving walkers keep increasing in the area from all the noise.

---

Also a key concept with making the zombies a dangerous well-crafted threat is forcing the players to have to rely on one another more for survival. If you don't have a friend with you, a silent zed might grapple you when you are unawares, for example. IMO every zombie should be a serious threat, if you are not on guard. Closer to how it is in zombie films.

The real meat of zombie films is not the zombies but how the survivors interact. It's been that way since night of the living dead, and day z is already an interesting social experiment about human behavior and misbehavior. I would like to see the game make the zombies a far greater threat than the players, to the point that pkers will be wanting to save ammo for zeds rather than other players. Right now the zombies are buggy and not very threatening once you gear up, and then it is all about the player killing. I want a much more driven experience - where murdering a random gent for his rifle might have just called down a whole herd on you, and now there is nobody with you to stave them off. And so on.

[Sentinal (DayZ) 20]

They are infected humans rather than the undead, Rocket said so. He will not make them walkers. Also, a 'Zombie' is not undead in the first place. Zombie is a term used to describe humans that were brainwashed by a Witch Doctor after using puffer-fish venom to put them in a death-like state.

[gosgosgosu@hotmail.com 7]

+1

I'm just going to disregard the utterly pointless debate of the difference between "zombie" and "infected" (guys, it literally doesn't matter - what does matter is tuning them to give the best possible gameplay)

As the OP said the way Survivors are forced to deal with zombies is to abuse their terrible AI and nonsensical changes in speed limits.

Make zombies consistent - make them faster indoors and make slower outdoors.

Zombies running faster than players is stupid and causes a plethora of both game-breaking glitches and glitch-abusing player tactics and there is no way to defend their current design.

[mcdosy 2]

I want a much more driven experience - where murdering a random gent for his rifle might have just called down a whole herd on you' date=' and now there is nobody with you to stave them off. And so on.

[/quote']

That pretty much sums up what I'm after. By making the individual zombies slower, but more sensitive to noise, you would get a much more balanced experienced.

New players wouldn't be forced to spend so much time Benny Hill-ing around the countryside, and geared up players wouldn't be so all-powerful because firing a gun would be such a dangerous thing to do.

One of my favourite things in a classic zombie scenario is that firing a gun should be a final act of desperation, as it will attract the attention of every zombie for a quarter mile.

It might seem odd for a mod for an FPS, but I want less gunplay. I certainly want more considered gunplay. At the moment, the only consideration is ammunition. There's no downside to the guns.

[vesmo 21]

If you would actually read the posts rocket has made on the subject, you would know he WILL NOT make the zombies slow. He has said there will be zombies with varying speeds (e.g. malnourished ones) but only headshots kill/all zeds slow etc. is not going to happen. One big reason for this was that having slow zombies would mean greatly increased numbers for them to be a threat, and the current engine just can't handle that.

Also, it is not splitting hairs mentioning that they are infected people, not zombies. There's a huge difference, since it makes no sense only headshots would kill living human beings.

[mcdosy 2]

I've read the posts rocket made on the subject. For me, that doesn't remove the subject as a point for debate. If you don't want to debate it, stop clicking on threads entitled "make zombies zombies". So far, I haven't seen anyone make a case for 'infected' being better, only them being there.

Starting your game design from a point of massive compromise isn't a good foundation. Neither is stating that you "WILL NOT" consider any alternatives to a decision.

Right now, this feels like a massive compromise. It doesn't fit with the survivalism fantasy, and making fast zombies just means they're hard to shoot, and melee becomes a battle of attrition - neither of which are actually very fun.

If rocket starts with a compromised engine and environment and then just makes further compromises from there, exactly at what point do you think a great game is suddenly going to emerge from it?

I don't entirely agree that slow zombies require hundreds of them to become a threat. That is balanced against a single touch being potentially fatal, so going into any confined space should be scary.

If fast zombies was the gameplay experience he'd always wanted to create, then fair enough. This doesn't sound like that's the case though.

There's clearly a huge amount of interest in this project right now. If the engine can't currently do what's required to fulfill the vision, that would not be impossible to change.

[TimesLLJK 2]

A lot of what we want out of day z is stuff the clunky arms 2 engine simply can't deliver anyway. I think it's more valuable to think beyond the scope of the engine as the reason dayZ is popular is no one has tried to make anything like it before. It's very crude in its current form but that is to be expected. So I'd prefer to speculate about what could be done with a game engine built to handle stuff for a real authentic zombie survival experience. If we can get to something along 'dead rising' meets left 4 dead crowds of zombies, that would be ideal.

[moofactory 62]

What there has been a major lack of is clarification on What these are, how they became this way and any kind of plot.

Any great game, like any great movie needs a story.. or at least a back story to immerse the viewer/Player.

People wonder why everyone is confused about them being zombies and how they should act and look. Personally I dont really blame the confusion.

There is no sticky thread from rocket on this topic about any back story. (not that stands out)

Almost like he decided "hey lets make a zombie mod... but they will run fast so wont be called zombies". Of course this is an assumption, everyone's making assumptions on them. Because the general community has not been told in game, and everything in game points toward them being zombies. The mod title, the infected skins, the way they animate, the fact that they eat us, even their sounds.

Its confusing to a new player.

So here you all go:

ZOMBIES VS INFECTED... knowing the difference:

More reading:

http://www.undeadreport.com/2009/08/undead-or-infected-zombies/

SO, How about an in game Intro or Homepage Youtube video giving us a back story?

Give people a basic plot.

Why have we washed up on a beach, Why are we here, How did we get here, What are these things walking around that want to kill us, how did they get like this?

If you want to Clear up the Zombie/Infected confusion.. make the appropriate changes.

Use 28 Days later as a basic model or another source if they're infected.

Their head skin shouldn't look dead, just sick

(perhaps with their dark blue veins showing and blood coming out ears,nose,mouth,eyes)

Dead skin = dead people

Should they be eating people?

Infected eat people? or Just mindlessly kill people?

Is their drive Rage or the need to eat?

Are they on Bath salts?

What is their motive to kill on sight?

Why don't they attack each other?

There is conflicting things about the current way they are and the impression people are given.

A Game like CS or BF3 doesnt have a back story because it doesnt need one.

This however is not a FPS PVP game, At least its not meant to be.

Perhaps at this stage Rocket doesn't know exactly what its meant to be?

PVP/ PVE/ MMO/ MMORPG/ SANDBOX/ it doesn't exactly fit any of the game types.

Story immersion is something sorely lacking at the moment, And while I realise its alpha, Its still good to point out that story would be good to get fleshed out before it gets developed beyond its current state as a "proof of concept".

Even if it was something as simple as 3 screens of text like the intro to a movie or the back of a novel.

Kinda like this:

or this

or this

or

Give us a story

[vesmo 21]

I've read the posts rocket made on the subject. For me' date=' that doesn't remove the subject as a point for debate. If you don't want to debate it, stop clicking on threads entitled "make zombies zombies". So far, I haven't seen anyone make a case for 'infected' being better, only them being there.

Starting your game design from a point of massive compromise isn't a good foundation. Neither is stating that you "WILL NOT" consider any alternatives to a decision.

Right now, this feels like a massive compromise. It doesn't fit with the survivalism fantasy, and making fast zombies just means they're hard to shoot, and melee becomes a battle of attrition - neither of which are actually very fun.

If rocket starts with a compromised engine and environment and then just makes further compromises from there, exactly at what point do you think a great game is suddenly going to emerge from it?

I don't entirely agree that slow zombies require hundreds of them to become a threat. That is balanced against a single touch being potentially fatal, so going into any confined space should be scary.

If fast zombies was the gameplay experience he'd always wanted to create, then fair enough. This doesn't sound like that's the case though.

There's clearly a huge amount of interest in this project right now. If the engine can't currently do what's required to fulfill the vision, that would not be impossible to change.

[/quote']

"

I never said i'm not changing them.

I said the premise of them won't change.

They are not classic zombies, they are infected people. I have new animations, a whole bunch of stuff to add. But that will come later. "

"The zombies in this aren't zombies. They are infected people.

Personally I prefer 28 days/months later as I find this more terrifying and believable, hence why it is like this in game.

As I said in an interview, I have a lifecycle developed for the infected people that will result in some of them being slower than others (malnutritioned) but that would be the exception rather than rule. "

I would say that pretty much sums up fast zombies are the setting he has always wanted to craete. But you want a case for the infected? They are fucking more scary. They run fast, and can catch you. I'd take that over slowly moving hordes any day. Not to say they shouldn't be tweaked, obviously the jittery movements and darting through walls will be fixed eventually, and I do want to see more zeds in numbers with different aggro mechanics i.e. when they see you they start approaching, and only full-on aggro when you get up and start to run, fire a gun etc. Also different speeds on the zeds, but mostly still fast (maybe you should be able to outrun the majority, but the idea of just plain walkers isn't very appealing to me at all).

At least for me the threat of infected people instead of magically resurrecting zombies is way more scary and fits my survivalist fantasy better than dead people. Always when they try to explain the "zombie-virus" in movies/TV-shows I cringe at the impossibility of it. Can't help it, I study life sciences and I just can't swallow the thought of people coming back to life. Infected all the way imo.

[mcdosy 2]

Cheers vesmo! That's a much more satisfying reply.

I guess I'll have to keep waiting for my ultimate first person zombie survivalist game.

Personally, I like that all-or-nothingness you can have with zombies. With infected, you always end up being immune with a life bar and attritional gameplay. I love the idea of it being one careless instant that leads to your death, rather than a counter grinding down to zero. That's tension. I think that plus rage infected would just be too hardcore.

I'm sure they'll be more to follow. This is going ballistic, Project Zomboid is already huge, and there's still Dead State to come. There must be a game coming to go along with World War Z too?

All the zombie films have been so lousy recently, I'm not surprised people have lost the point of what makes them so good.

IMHO, "Day Z" is incredibly misleading if you're going to make an 'infected' game.

[TimesLLJK 2]

As far as zombie infection goes, I think that it should be tempered by a few factors:

1 - a proper grappling system based on a combination of the players reflexes in how fast they react, how fatigued they are, and how tough the zombie is. In most instances a zombie can't land a bite on you straight away unless it caught you when you don't react by guarding for it. From there you need to button mash like crazy to shove them off you, and your fatigue is severely taxed in doing so. So repeated grapples will result in your death soon enough just from being worn down. Anyway, this all means that you have a fighting chance in most incidents barring being attacked unawares from behind of avoiding a bite.

2 - bites are treatable/curable of infection, but require antibiotics and/or some pretty solid medical supplies. You can slow the infection with certain things and there is always the chance of finding the drugs you need to cure yourself -and the cure is not instant & requires multiple treatments. This means that players always have a fighting chance after bitten and will keep playing instead of suiciding because a bite means inevitable death.

3 - bite infections take a few hours to kick in and start killing you, giving you time to treat the wound and search for medicine for it.

On an unrelated note, here is an idea regarding players with low karma: Pepole who are bandits are slightly more detectable by zombies, and tend to be the preferred target when zombies aggro into people in an area. Playing as a bandit should IMO turn the game into a sort of 'hard mode' where you may even take more damage from zombies and you tend to fail at tasks more often. It's sort of like a karma effect. Murder a player and the game gets a lot harder.