Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

As a side note, because I'm planning to have mouse interaction with the HUD, and the mouse can easily leave the window and lose input in Flash, I don't want to tie facing to your mouse position. If you can't click "inventory" without your character looking at the south wall and getting helplessly chopped up by the zombies coming from the north, the game has a serious problem.

Well there goes my "do what Smash TV did" suggestion. On the other hand, with the right keyboard shortcuts (space to fire, 1 for slot 1, 2 for slot 2), it could be accommodated. I've played a couple games with position detection in the main game window for facing, but also using the mouse for UI input commands. I won't say it was great, but it worked. To me the scarier problem is losing the mouse in Flash. But if you could get that solved I think I could deal. I understand though that's probably not what you're looking for. It's weird, on your last update I never would have thought this would end up as an issue, before the jump to real-time. For me, when it comes to games like this, I sort of desire a certain level of interference. What made Smash TV hard was the incredible amount of enemies. With fewer enemies, I would think there's more time to move first, fiddle with the inventory second. Consider that it might actually be sort of a realism element for you to have to take your mouse off the main screen to manipulate your inventory, just like you might have to set your shotgun down to go into your backpack to find more ammo.

Alternatively, you could do exactly what Smash TV did instead of just sorta doing it. And have 4 keys for movement, and 4 keys for directional fire. That would be a significant departure from how most games of this type handle though.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

As you say, interrupting shooting to go into inventory is pretty tolerable. I don't mind mouse to aim so much if it's not also controlling your ability to look around and watch the far door. I might experiment with mouse shooting, though it'll take a bit of work to fundamentally alter the combat model. Right now, the gunshots are just a visualization; the enemy takes damage before they even appear. If there's mouse shooting, I'll have to collision detect based on the shot. That isn't too difficult (I'm already doing that for glass breaking from gunshots), but it's still an inversion of the current system. (I don't like "two-fisted keyboard" control for shooting and moving.)

On the topic of animations, I'm trying to avoid having to do them. I'm doing all the art myself and the volume of it increases dramatically when animating. The "chits" were an attempt to avoid them appearing to need it. I whipped up some alternate character art in the style of the David E. Gervais Angband tiles, shown below.

[nenjin]

Well, if you put out the call to Deon or other forum members for some simple bit art, I'm sure they'll oblige. If that doesn't intrude on your total ownership of the content.

I'm also not a fan of two-fisted shooting, at all, just throwing out options.

[EuchreJack]

In UnReal World, for example, I can be standing next to my campfire, but need to actively think about how to move my character in order to step away from it and build something while still keeping the campfire in my field of view. It's very awkward and really doesn't serve a purpose most of the time. I actually think URW would be a better game without facing -- it would lose a fancy feature, but that fancy feature is rarely adding to the fun and constantly in the way.

Good point, the facing in URW tends to lead to walking into campfires, then to dying.  Stupid deaths are no fun to the player.  And to be honest, I sort of hate the fact that I'm always getting stabbed in the back in Mount & Blade.

[nenjin]

Again, having seen this in Project Zomboid, I've become a fan. But it's doing it in a fairly refined way (sprites fade to black silhouettes when you can only "sense" them) and they don't completely remove your rear-ward vision. It's just enough to make you paranoically check your 6 every 30 seconds, and scares the hell out of you when you turn around and see a HORDE materialize out of the shadows.

[Montague]

Seems to me that your squad should shoot in any direction without penality and don't need to have facing. If the token represents a half dozen people, they don't all need to rigidly face the same direction like spearmen in a phalanx or something. Abstract it a little, for game purposes it makes more sense. The gameplay can abstract some things as "squad tactics". Moving away from zombies while firing can be representive of a tactical frog-leap, with some individuals firing and some sprinting away and then switching roles. An individual can probably run and shoot wily-nily without having to worry about shooting their team mates.

I'd suggest a larger squad simply moves somewhat slower then an individual. It seems to me that a group of people in a combat survival situation will move more delibrately to keep the group coherant.

Perhaps larger or smaller groups could determine the attributes or abilities of the squad. A smaller squad is quieter or more efficient, a larger squad could boost morale or confidence of the individuals, better protection against zombies in melee, ect. A skill like "tactics" or "leadership" might enhance the bonuses and dampen the penalties of large groups, which might stack.

Also, I think keyboard for movement and mouse for targeting/shooting/menu would be dandy.

[CriticallyAshamed]

All this mention of squads is surprising, although I'll admit I zoned out and didn't read the full thread. This doesn't mean we don't have the -option- to play as a single character right? I mean some of us are so socially incompetent that we like to imagine the lone-wolf situation.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

All this mention of squads is surprising, although I'll admit I zoned out and didn't read the full thread. This doesn't mean we don't have the -option- to play as a single character right? I mean some of us are so socially incompetent that we like to imagine the lone-wolf situation.

At first "lone wolf" is going to be the only way you're allowed to play -- I want to add support for gathering more people and acting in squads at some point in the future though.

[Yannanth]

.

[Rumrusher]

All this mention of squads is surprising, although I'll admit I zoned out and didn't read the full thread. This doesn't mean we don't have the -option- to play as a single character right? I mean some of us are so socially incompetent that we like to imagine the lone-wolf situation.

At first "lone wolf" is going to be the only way you're allowed to play -- I want to add support for gathering more people and acting in squads at some point in the future though.

That reply made me brimm up with nostalgia! My favourite game of all time (if you excuse the bugs and insane difficulty due to the unpredictability of the AI), Hidden & Dangerous 2, called these modes exactly the same!

I have an idea; along with the standard campaign mode (that's what it was called in that game), in H&D2 fashion, you should have a "lone wolf" mode in which perhaps you have to fight other survivors in boss-like battles and live on your own like some crazy bastard. Obviously, the difficulty would be higher but because you're just one poor sod among myriads of zombies and a few well-armed irritable survivors--their strength should be toned down a bit as well so not to make the game impossible.

Mind you, H&D2 was a tactical shooter in which you infiltrate enemy camps and stuff to steal plans (and kill numerous Nazis and Italians along the way) so don't take any inspiration from that, it's just an idea!

Completely unrelated, I'd recommend the book "The Road" for some inspiration as far the environment and stuff goes. It's post-apocalyptic, not zombie, but still very powerful and it's an easy read with rather simplistic language. Glad I picked it up. The focus is always on the environment--you don't even learn the protagonists' names! That's why I think it would be brilliant for you to check out, I'm sure others can vouch for me if you remain unconvinced.

Toning down other survivors just because someone wants to play hermit seems like a buzz kill.
Kinda like finding out the dwarf mode gives you easier enemies if you happen to kill every one but one guy and try to maintain a fort that way.

[Yannanth]

.

[Deon]

Well, if you put out the call to Deon or other forum members for some simple bit art, I'm sure they'll oblige. If that doesn't intrude on your total ownership of the content.

I'm also not a fan of two-fisted shooting, at all, just throwing out options.

Sup!

[Jonathan S. Fox]

Happy New Year!

One resolution from me is to publicly update ZSS each week, with a development update and a playable release. That starts today -- even though the game is totally broken right now. Rain or shine, I'll be releasing updates each Friday.

I'm in the middle of extending the new engine to support the large open world of the previous engine and integrate the city-generator for the first time. The game is partially disassembled and I'm going through it slowly putting features back in -- I've done this twice now, because my inexperience with engine architecture keeps catching up with me. Many things, such as enemy AI, combat, and opening doors, are currently inoperable, but can be re-added fairly easily. The city generator is now integrated for the first time, and one sample building is being loaded in. I'm not satisfied with the way the buildings are interacting with the street layout, and have been thinking of different ways to arrange buildings around streets.

You can play the current build of the game here:

www.jonathansfox.com/ZSS/Z_Alpha.swf

WASD or number pad to move. F to toggle flashlight. Almost everything else is broken -- I'll have things in a somewhat more playable state next week.

[nenjin]

Hey Jonathon, I thought I'd just mention there's a typo in your Hawking quote, unless you're trying to be clever.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

Hey Jonathon, I thought I'd just mention there's a typo in your Hawking quote, unless you're trying to be clever.

Well that sure takes away from the seriousness of it. Thanks.