Suggestion talk:20071123 Weather with Effects on Game Actions

Discussion From Talk:Suggestions

Kick Ruin Effects Up Another Notch with BAD WEATHER

Timestamp:	Swiers 17:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Type:	balance change / improvement
Scope:	Ruins
Description:	Per Jon's suggestion below- Ruin's aren't currently worth a zombie's efforts. Here's my (fairly radical) suggestions that give "Ransack" a bit more punch. These suggestions, while radical, have one mitigating effect- they would be would not be constant effects, but would instead come and go depending on the games "weather". Rainy: Moving into or out of a Ruin costs 2 AP. Zombies who lack Lurching Gait pay the same 2 AP as normal- there is no further cost for them, because they aren't trying to move fast across slippery ruins. This means scouting ruins in the rain would be fairly AP intensive work, and using a ruin as an entry point would cost more AP if it was raining. This is ONLY a problem when the "Rainy" weather condition is in effect. Windy: Exiting a Ruin cancels Free Running. In other words, you can't use a Ruin as an entry point to another building if it is windy. Normally you CAN Free Run out of a ruins, but (as currently stands when trying to enter a ruins using Free Running) the footing is to unstable to do so when it is windy. This is ONLY a problem when the "Windy" weather condition is in effect. Weather conditions would vary every hour (or every 5 hours, or 17 hours, whatever). There would be a 50% chance of each type of each type of weather changing at that point. In other words, if it was both rainy and windy, there would be a 50% chance of the rain ceasing and an independantly determined 50% chance of the wind letting up. These may seem like really nasty changes, but they are unpredictable and temporayr0 Zombies can't count ont the weather helping them consistently (unless Kevan intentionally tweekes the weather to affect game balance). As I see it, it is no coincidence that the Zombie population dropped sharply just after Ruin was introduced; a fair portion of zombie AP that is now being used to Ruin buildings, and this portion comes entirely from the zombie's "golden hours" - IE, the AP a zombie spends inside a building. The movement cost partly re-dresses that. I also fully expect that survivors can adapt to the siege tactics that would result from the (temporary) changes to free running- they would have to tough it out until the weather changed, or fight to reclaim an entry building, or abandon a Mall that became an "island", or organize to keep one corner of the mall at VSB (and kill any zombies that got in). This is actually quite genre appropriate- can you imagine survivor huddled inside a mall during storm, waiting for the weather to let up so they can get re-inforcements? Heck, you might even see malls that are NOT under seige having (will gaurded) VSB corners just in case the weather turns nasty, which would be a HUGE boon to the Consumer class, and newbies in general.

Discussion (Kick Ruin Effects Up Another Notch with BAD WEATHER)

The figures for how often weather would change (how many hours between checks and the % chance of change) are still "in progress". It might also be good to have the "Rainy" check and the "Windy" check come at different times. For example, there could be a potential change in the Wind every day at 12:00, and a potential change in the Rain every day at 0:00 What do folks figure would make the most sense / be the most fun?  Swiers 18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I dig this... really dig it. However, changing the weather every hour is too much. 2-3 times a day is plenty, maybe too much. I think that regular, normal weather should occur at least 50% of the time. I am lowballing all my numbers, too. Most of the time, weather should be normal. But when bad weather comes, it has a higher chance of remaining for consecutive, i.e. longer, periods. Also, we should have Fog and maybe even Snow. In Snowy/Icy conditions, you would have normal rain effects and maybe more, and for sure an effect would be faster fuel depletion in generators -- keeping warm. --WanYao 18:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree - hourly is to much. One (chance of) change per 24 hours seems about right, given the games pace; the figures I gave directly above would result in a given condition changing every 48 hours, on average, which is long enough to have a tactical impact, but not so long as to seem unending.
In no way did I mean for the given weather conditions to be the only possible ones- once a weather system such as this was implemented, it would be logical to add MANY conditions. However, I would like for all (or at least most) conditions to be mutually compatible. For example, in the above case it can be both Windy AND Rainy. Obviously the current Fog effect (as used on Halloween) could also be added separately or along with either or both of those. Instead of "Snowy / Icey", I'd suggest just having "Bitter Cold", which would maybe use generator fuel faster plus some other small effect. I'd also like to see a less drastic fog effect (Light Fog) that simply made it so that you couldn't see (on the mini map) who (or what) was in the blocks outdoors; instead, it would just say "N figures", or even not have that info and just say "Light Fog".  Swiers 19:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I like this. I'd suggest both checks every six hours, but not synched, ie. windy check at 12:00, rainy check at 15:00, windy check at 18:00, rainy check at 21:00 and so on. Maybe with a reduced chance for the change happening (25%?), so "fast" weather changes could still happen, but wouldn't be likely. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 19:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The light (or heavy) fog (or both) could also give a slight penalty (5%?) to using firearms outside because you can't see the target well. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 19:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Midianian. 6 hours seems just right. --Darth Lumis^{T! A! E!} 19:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You are giving me a hard time deciding which ruin update I'd like to see. But I can vote keep on both so no problem. Yes, like WanYao I "dig" this. I have wanted to see weather implemented for some time. It opens up interesting changes. Also I would like to see night and day implemented, or just a Malton Clock, with descriptions of nighttime and daytime (no effects necessary. Back on topic, good idea, I like it, maybe make the time between weather changes a little randomized. So, something like once between every 5-8 hours. - Whitehouse 19:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I like it! Plus, the weather could be used for further suggestions. It is a bit radical, but I think that it makes sense. Also, changing weather once a day is plenty. There should be regular weather 45% of the time, and the rest of the percent should be partitioned evenly among the rest of the conditions. The weather should be visible from inside also. --The Trichloroethane Potato ^{SGP E! RQ! Winner 1!} 19:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

i like this. make it change a couple times a day at random times. also, the weather should be different in different parts of malton. i only wish that we could get a day/night suggestion through, then this would get REALLY interesting.--Themonkeyman11 00:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

i had an idea to add to this. the cold should affect zombies, just like the rain and wind would affect the survivors. --Themonkeyman11 00:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I would vote keep. Means there's a point to ruining besides being mildly more inconvenient to repair, adds a lot of tactical flavour. And I like weather affecting things in general. --Pestilent Bob 01:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Discussion on Suggestion Voting

General Response to some Kill Votes

Why are the weather changes potentially so radical an unseasonal, potentially allowing direct change from Opressive Heat to Bitter Cold, with no regard for season? Well, the dead are walking the Earth- I think its safe to assume the climate might be a bit fucked up, so I didn't worry about "unrealistic" combos, or weather that is harsher than "reality". I went for a good game effects that are (I'd hope) not to difficult to code. I could certainly see not allowing "Opressive Heat" to happen during winter months, and not allowing "Bitter Cold" during the summer- that would make sense, and is easy to code.
Truth told, in the interest of brevity, I left such minor tweaks up to Kevan / post implementation suggestions. I also expect Kevan might tweak the changes in weather "behind the scenes" to alter game balance and to be seasonally appropriate; the percents given in the suggestion are (as with search rates in item suggestions and so on) only nominal.
As for effects being harsh- yes, they are, which is why they are effects that occur part-time (and can be implemented / canceled at Kevan's whim without anybody knowing it wasn't random chance). They have to be potent effects to have a real plot impact, IMO- the game is amazingly resistant to actual balance changes at this point, especially once players adapt to a new situation (as they would with all these weather effects, once they experienced them). Most effects amount to the loss of skills in specific situations; the game generally worked OK before those skills were introduced, so it should be an endurable challenge to mange without them for a time. Crucial skills are not affected- Zombies still get scent skills indoors, which is where they need them to pick targets (lacking Diagnoses); I think other scent skill uses are luxuries Zombie players can (un)live without for 1/3 of the time. And think of the fun Lab Assistants will have when it rains!  Swiers 17:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Net deductions force balance change, an example of this is ruin which has, as you noted, reduced zombie numbers and ability simply because as a whole they have lost a significant amount of AP efficiency due to something nonmeta zombies are extremely likely to do.--Karek^maps?! 05:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to Ryiis

Kill - Most of it I like, and would add some flavor to a world that currently has no meteorological conditions (which is, in and of itself, unrealistic). However, the one part that I don't like and the reason I am voting kill is the High Winds condition. Rather than taking free running out of the equation for ruined buildings during High Wind, make it cost more AP or something. I can see a great deal of problems during High Wind weather conditions, by limiting survivor movement substantially in some suburbs, or during certain events such as the "Big Bash". I will not be changing my vote, regardless of comment, unless there is a revision to the High Wind portion of this suggestion. --Ryiis 17:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough- I expected many more kill votes to focus on that one issue, and have come to embrace such democracy in action. Still, it makes response on the suggestion page pointless, as I can not make such a functional change without re-submitting the suggestion. Also, the suggestion essentially grew out of this idea - I just added balancing factors, extended it in logically suggested directions, and polished the mechanics a bit before submitting it to vote. The potential for (randomly and unpredictably) "limiting survivor movement substantially in some suburbs or during certain events such as the Big Bash" is the CORE of the suggestion, and won't be changed. If implemented, I'd fully expect and hope that at some point, a major battle might be won or lost due to weather conditions; that is indeed the sign of "realistic" weather, given the conditions of battle in Malton. However, it seems likely that those battles would be very local events; the current "Big Bash" is essentially a (mobile) one suburb event, for example. Its also worth noting that the Big Bash (and its current version) were / are heavily dependent on Feeding Groan to operate. That is precisely the reason I had "High Winds" cut the range of said groans. Metgame zombie groups tend to be rather small compared to the "feral cloud" they draw in with groans.  Swiers 18:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As local as those events maybe, the effects linger in those suburbs for an extended period of time. For the most part, I am going Murphy's Law on this one after seeing the repercussions of the suggestion that brought Ruin into play. If there were to be several major zombie attacks (coordinated or not by metagaming), then we could see a real turnover when survivor movement would be hindered. While that may not be a bad thing, as there isn't a 'total balance' between survivor and zombies numbers currently, I could see it possibly shifting too far to one side. Again, I feel it would be better to make it cost more AP or something to that effect, rather than restricting the ability to Free Run all together from a ruined building. If you need to make a revision, you always can withdraw the suggestion, revise it, and resubmit it. Though, by looking at it, it seems to have garnered a good deal of support despite my vote. As I said, I like most of the suggestion that you put through, however I cannot come to terms with restricting Free Run in such a fashion. --Ryiis 19:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The net repercussion of Ransack seems to have been a DECREASE in zombie numbers, largely because of the AP they spend wrecking buildings rather than attacking 'cades and survivors. I expect that if survivors had a way to free run by spending 5 AP, they would use it, and survivor numbers could thus suffer more than they would from adopting tactics (migration, active defense of VSB cades) that don't require free running from ruined buildings. I think survivors (and the players) are robust and adaptable enough to deal with it, especially as Kevan can tweak the actual amount of time "High Wind" (and such) is in effect without anybody knowing the difference.
But again, such differences of opinion are the stuff of which democracy is made! Swiers 19:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Very true, and it would be interesting to see what the cause and effects are for the whole ransack/ruin issue. I mean, if by costing more AP to ruin a building is indirectly causing a loss in numbers (or an increase for survivors thereof) of zombies, that would be something to take into account. Of course, I do agree that new tactics and such have to be created when such changes are implemented. As for my character, not being able to use some free running lanes has made me change the way I have my character move about in Malton. That is beside the point however, as forcing the evolution of a playstyle is something I'd rather not touch. As always, your position is very well thought out, and I thank you for that. All too often, on the suggestions pages, I find a distinct lack of thought prior to the submission of a suggestion. You, are quite the opposite. --Ryiis 19:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

To Kevan- Author's Note on Potential Implementation

Its worth noting that this suggestion is designed to allow implementation in stages; Precipitation effects can be coded for independently, for example, without any worry about wind, temperature, or visibility effects.  Swiers 18:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)