View Poll Results: Which do think is most exciting for future mods (both are coming for A17)

Voters
131. You may not vote on this poll
  • POI Editor and huge block id limit increase

    86 65.65%
  • Moddable dialog trees and quest objectives

    45 34.35%
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 72

Thread: Which is the more important main feature of the game VI

  1. #46
    Guppycurian Forum Whore Guppycur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Enemy for life
    Posts
    19,163
    Rep Power
    1
    Yeh some people use the in game editor, I guess they like the flat world, but I can put a large build together much faster in pilles.

    The ultimate method is to build in game on a dedi, then just export what you need using the badco api... Trim in pilles as needed, then publish. I think you do need the in game for creating the meshes though? Not sure, I don't bother with that.

  2. #47
    Community Moderator SylenThunder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    SE Michigan, out in the sticks.
    Posts
    7,251
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Guppycur View Post
    Yeh some people use the in game editor, I guess they like the flat world, but I can put a large build together much faster in pilles.

    The ultimate method is to build in game on a dedi, then just export what you need using the badco api... Trim in pilles as needed, then publish. I think you do need the in game for creating the meshes though? Not sure, I don't bother with that.
    Yeah, this is the method I use.

  3. #48
    Colony Founder
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,370
    Rep Power
    1
    I have changed very few things in the files so I'm basically playing vanilla version. I bought a pc for this game. Last I had a gaming pc swat 4 was a hit game lol (by the way would fall over dead if who ever bought the rights to that would make a swat 5 just sayin) So that was what idk 10 plus years ago. So I'm a little rusty on what to go in and change what to do. One day I will try a mod and when that day comes I will most likely reach out for some help. Until then I really don't have a preference I kinda like the quest part.

  4. #49
    Reconstructionist sinda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    arcadia
    Posts
    615
    Rep Power
    1
    seems to me like the quest stuff will be largely ready to go as long as it makes it in game.

    being able to do prefabbing and sleepers without 3 additional programs of mix and match your flavor (tho thank bejebus they exist ty),
    AND sometimes needing a server to do so would be amazing.

  5. #50
    Community Moderator Crater Creator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    3,335
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Tin View Post
    I think you'll find a lot of ppl are using Pille's prefab editor over the one that requires the .dll hack. Since you already need to go the extra step anyhow. Might as well get and use the better one atm.
    I can't speak to which editor is better. I assumed the one the developers use would be preferred, so that's what I've used (plus it works on Mac).

    What do we actually know, officially, about the first choice? I looked through everything in the top post of the Dev Diary, short of re-watching all the videos, and there was nothing about the POI editor.

    Roland: if the POI editor is an important main feature, shouldn't it be on the list?

  6. #51
    Colony Founder
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,370
    Rep Power
    1
    Has it been covered if quest are going to be only single player or will it be in multiplayer maps also? The reason I ask is if it is going to be in multiplayer will the game register that another player took over an area where the quest might lead you. If another player occupied that area wouldn't that interfere with the quest? Assuming the quest will be available in multiplayer that is.

  7. #52
    Super Moderator Roland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    On a Zipline
    Posts
    13,054
    Rep Power
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by crazywildfire View Post
    Has it been covered if quest are going to be only single player or will it be in multiplayer maps also? The reason I ask is if it is going to be in multiplayer will the game register that another player took over an area where the quest might lead you. If another player occupied that area wouldn't that interfere with the quest? Assuming the quest will be available in multiplayer that is.
    This isn't exactly known yet. I've seen them discussing "parties" and having multiple players take a quest so I its on their radar. There is a mechanic that hijacks a POI to insert all the quest components into it. Not sure how they will differentiate POI's that are pristine vs player modified.

  8. #53
    Reconstructionist A Nice Cup of Tea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    537
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Roland View Post
    I'm not sure why you feel that a survival game can only be so one-dimensional that there can only ever be hostile lifeforms alive. You truly feel that in such an apocalyptic world there wouldn't be any other human being who could have survived that might want some help or would interact with you in any other way other than kill kill kill? For sake of conversation, I'd like to hear your reasoning that not one single other human sentient could possibly survive as you did but all they want to do is be a bandit because if they did want to be something other than that we would not be playing a survival game.
    Actually, my feeling is the opposite. I feel that the majority of people would work together and not be hostile.

    But I also feel that - given the hints we've had - the game won't handle this in a believable manner, and therefore I think that not including it is better than including a version of it that's jarringly unrealistic.

    For a more detailed (but long!) explanation, see the spoiler block below...

    Spoiler: 
    The reason I'd only want bandits isn't because I'm some misanthrope that thinks that everyone would be implacably hostile in a post-apocalypse. It's actually because I think that the minority of people who would be like that are the only ones that can be realistically portrayed. In fact, it's not so much wanting bandits as conceding that, unlike the majority of people, the bandits could be done in an acceptable manner.

    The thing is, people build communities and work together. When I play a co-op game with my friends, we build a base together and live in it together and share duties such as base repair, resource gathering, scavenging, and so on. It's what people do.

    But for some reason, whenever the future systems for NPCs are hinted about there's never any concept of that sort community bullding. There's never any talk of the player being part of (or preferably - since you're the protagonist in the game, after all - leading) a community.

    Instead, the talk is always that there are pre-existing communities ("factions"), but that you as a player are excluded from them. Instead of living with a bunch of other people and working together in communal defense and survival, you're not allowed to be part of these communities and have to live on your own. There's talk of being able to "stay the night" occasionally for an exhorbitant cost, but without that cost they'll happily kick you out and watch the zombies eat you.

    But it's all totally - and immersion breakingly - unbelievable. If these communities exist, why aren't you part of one of them? Why are you forced to live outside on your own and fend for yourself against the hordes?

    And if you are excluded from these communities and not allowed to be part of them, why are you trying to gain "reputation" with them and why are you doing "quests" for them?

    It doesn't make any sense. A community benefits just as much by having an extra member as you do for being part of it, so why do they throw you out every night to survive on your own and why do you put up with that behaviour yet keep going back to interact with them?

    I realise that the whole "faction" and "quest" system is a staple of the CRPG game, but that doesn't mean it's the ideal set-up in all scenarios; and it just doesn't fit this scenario. It's a set-up that works for the heroic-adventure genre, but the devs are trying to shoehorn it into the survival genre.

    If there are going to be NPCs in a survival game - and don't get me wrong; I'd rather there were - they shouldn't be following the CRPG-esque faction-and-quest mould. It just doesn't fit.

    Instead they should join with you (or you with them, but as I say; you're the protagonist so it makes sense if you're the leader or work your way up to being the leader). You shouldn't be visiting communities to trade and then being kicked out before nightfall to survive or die on your own. You should be living with them and surviving or dying together.

    And I'm not chasing pie-in-the-sky unrealistic scenarios here. For example (and this is just off the top of my head, and would need refining), here's an NPC system that I'd find far more realistic than the hinted-at faction-and-quest system:

    Occasionally (about once a week or so) an NPC would come in your direction - in the same way the wandering hordes do. The NPC would randomly be either (a) hostile, (b) neutral, or (c) friendly.

    Hostile NPCs would be the rarest, but they would attack you on sight. They might attack you individually, or they might call in a bandit ambush (like a screamer calling in zombies). As I say, these would be the rarest type of person; but they would exist often enough to make you wary of just enthusiastically running up to any wandering person you met.

    Neutral NPCs would work like the traders currently do, and would replace the fixed taders. If attacked they'd fight back, but if approached and spoken to they'd give you a chance to trade before they move on.

    Friendly NPCs would want to join your community. By interacting with them you would be able to give them a role. The default would be "posse", in which role they'd follow you around and fight zombies with you, generally acting as bodyguards. They'd go with you when you went scavenging or gathering resources, and would watch your back while you performed those actions. You would also be able to lead them back to your base while in "posse" mode and then once you got there give them other roles, such as "farmer" (they'd stay in the vicinity of where you gave them that role; planting crops, harvesting them, and cooking food), "guard" (similar to "posse" but instead of following you around they'd patrol the vicinity of where you gave them the role), "gatherer" (they'd stay in the vicinity of where you gave them the role, chopping down (and re-planting) trees for wood, digging stone, metal and clay), or "engineer" (they wouldn't build new structures, but they'd wander the vicinity of where you gave them that role and repair any damaged structures or traps they found using resources they found in containers in the area).

    You might even want to extend it to things like a "smith" who would make weapons, armour, and ammunition.

    Of course, all the NPCs would need to eat, and all would defend themselves from zombies (but only the guards would be pro-active about it).

    That's the sort of thing I'd find realistic. You building a community with other NPCs that you come across, and working together with them for the common good. I'd absolutely love it if a system similar to that were in the game.

    But the system where you're on your own - and all the NPCs are out there building a community without you, keeping you out and making you fend for yourself like some kind of pariah, yet you're expected to keep going to them cap-in-hand to do quests for them in exchange for hand-outs and you're supposed to care about your "reputation" with them despite there being no prospect of you ever actually joining them and moving in with them (and, God forbid, rising to a leadership position within them). That I find believability-breakingly unrealistic.

    And the current implementation of traders is a microcosm of that, which is why I dislke them and avoid them. The fact that you're struggling to survive against the hordes, and they've set up a shop seemingly without a care in the world; yet they won't join you for mutual protection and you can't join them for mutual protection stretches believability to breaking point, and then when you add that their shops are 100% zombie-proof (and you-proof) and will automatically teleport you out at night, that's even worse. Yes, I know it's for gameplay purposes, but the fact that those things need to be in for gameplay purposes is a symptom of how the traders don't "fit" in a survival game.

    So it's not that I don't want there to be any NPCs other than hostile ones on principle. It's that I think that the current plans for implementing non-hostile NPCs - based on the hints we've had about those plans - are terrible. And I'd rather have no non-hostile NPCs than terribly implemented non-hostile NPCs.

    This is why I'm often vocal about hoping that the faction/quest system will be limited to Navezgane, so I can continue to play on random maps and ignore it.


    Hopefully there's plenty of conversation-fodder there!

  9. #54
    Reconstructionist
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    In the corner of your eye when you look into a mirror; every mirror.
    Posts
    711
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by A Nice Cup of Tea View Post
    Actually, my feeling is the opposite. I feel that the majority of people would work together and not be hostile.

    But I also feel that - given the hints we've had - the game won't handle this in a believable manner, and therefore I think that not including it is better than including a version of it that's jarringly unrealistic.

    For a more detailed (but long!) explanation, see the spoiler block below...

    Spoiler: 
    The reason I'd only want bandits isn't because I'm some misanthrope that thinks that everyone would be implacably hostile in a post-apocalypse. It's actually because I think that the minority of people who would be like that are the only ones that can be realistically portrayed. In fact, it's not so much wanting bandits as conceding that, unlike the majority of people, the bandits could be done in an acceptable manner.

    The thing is, people build communities and work together. When I play a co-op game with my friends, we build a base together and live in it together and share duties such as base repair, resource gathering, scavenging, and so on. It's what people do.

    But for some reason, whenever the future systems for NPCs are hinted about there's never any concept of that sort community bullding. There's never any talk of the player being part of (or preferably - since you're the protagonist in the game, after all - leading) a community.

    Instead, the talk is always that there are pre-existing communities ("factions"), but that you as a player are excluded from them. Instead of living with a bunch of other people and working together in communal defense and survival, you're not allowed to be part of these communities and have to live on your own. There's talk of being able to "stay the night" occasionally for an exhorbitant cost, but without that cost they'll happily kick you out and watch the zombies eat you.

    But it's all totally - and immersion breakingly - unbelievable. If these communities exist, why aren't you part of one of them? Why are you forced to live outside on your own and fend for yourself against the hordes?

    And if you are excluded from these communities and not allowed to be part of them, why are you trying to gain "reputation" with them and why are you doing "quests" for them?

    It doesn't make any sense. A community benefits just as much by having an extra member as you do for being part of it, so why do they throw you out every night to survive on your own and why do you put up with that behaviour yet keep going back to interact with them?

    I realise that the whole "faction" and "quest" system is a staple of the CRPG game, but that doesn't mean it's the ideal set-up in all scenarios; and it just doesn't fit this scenario. It's a set-up that works for the heroic-adventure genre, but the devs are trying to shoehorn it into the survival genre.

    If there are going to be NPCs in a survival game - and don't get me wrong; I'd rather there were - they shouldn't be following the CRPG-esque faction-and-quest mould. It just doesn't fit.

    Instead they should join with you (or you with them, but as I say; you're the protagonist so it makes sense if you're the leader or work your way up to being the leader). You shouldn't be visiting communities to trade and then being kicked out before nightfall to survive or die on your own. You should be living with them and surviving or dying together.

    And I'm not chasing pie-in-the-sky unrealistic scenarios here. For example (and this is just off the top of my head, and would need refining), here's an NPC system that I'd find far more realistic than the hinted-at faction-and-quest system:

    Occasionally (about once a week or so) an NPC would come in your direction - in the same way the wandering hordes do. The NPC would randomly be either (a) hostile, (b) neutral, or (c) friendly.

    Hostile NPCs would be the rarest, but they would attack you on sight. They might attack you individually, or they might call in a bandit ambush (like a screamer calling in zombies). As I say, these would be the rarest type of person; but they would exist often enough to make you wary of just enthusiastically running up to any wandering person you met.

    Neutral NPCs would work like the traders currently do, and would replace the fixed taders. If attacked they'd fight back, but if approached and spoken to they'd give you a chance to trade before they move on.

    Friendly NPCs would want to join your community. By interacting with them you would be able to give them a role. The default would be "posse", in which role they'd follow you around and fight zombies with you, generally acting as bodyguards. They'd go with you when you went scavenging or gathering resources, and would watch your back while you performed those actions. You would also be able to lead them back to your base while in "posse" mode and then once you got there give them other roles, such as "farmer" (they'd stay in the vicinity of where you gave them that role; planting crops, harvesting them, and cooking food), "guard" (similar to "posse" but instead of following you around they'd patrol the vicinity of where you gave them the role), "gatherer" (they'd stay in the vicinity of where you gave them the role, chopping down (and re-planting) trees for wood, digging stone, metal and clay), or "engineer" (they wouldn't build new structures, but they'd wander the vicinity of where you gave them that role and repair any damaged structures or traps they found using resources they found in containers in the area).

    You might even want to extend it to things like a "smith" who would make weapons, armour, and ammunition.

    Of course, all the NPCs would need to eat, and all would defend themselves from zombies (but only the guards would be pro-active about it).

    That's the sort of thing I'd find realistic. You building a community with other NPCs that you come across, and working together with them for the common good. I'd absolutely love it if a system similar to that were in the game.

    But the system where you're on your own - and all the NPCs are out there building a community without you, keeping you out and making you fend for yourself like some kind of pariah, yet you're expected to keep going to them cap-in-hand to do quests for them in exchange for hand-outs and you're supposed to care about your "reputation" with them despite there being no prospect of you ever actually joining them and moving in with them (and, God forbid, rising to a leadership position within them). That I find believability-breakingly unrealistic.

    And the current implementation of traders is a microcosm of that, which is why I dislke them and avoid them. The fact that you're struggling to survive against the hordes, and they've set up a shop seemingly without a care in the world; yet they won't join you for mutual protection and you can't join them for mutual protection stretches believability to breaking point, and then when you add that their shops are 100% zombie-proof (and you-proof) and will automatically teleport you out at night, that's even worse. Yes, I know it's for gameplay purposes, but the fact that those things need to be in for gameplay purposes is a symptom of how the traders don't "fit" in a survival game.

    So it's not that I don't want there to be any NPCs other than hostile ones on principle. It's that I think that the current plans for implementing non-hostile NPCs - based on the hints we've had about those plans - are terrible. And I'd rather have no non-hostile NPCs than terribly implemented non-hostile NPCs.

    This is why I'm often vocal about hoping that the faction/quest system will be limited to Navezgane, so I can continue to play on random maps and ignore it.


    Hopefully there's plenty of conversation-fodder there!
    That system that you are proposing is similar to the community system in State of Decay, which will be expanded even more in State of Decay 2. Granted in that community system you are de facto the leader and don't have to rise the rank. But you can invite new people or kick people out. Give people jobs and have to care about the general wellbeing of your community.

    i do really like the system thatyou proposed. Wasn't that what TFP wanted to do, or at least proposed a similar system during A16 development? that is at least what i remember vaguely.

    Maybe having a hybrid of that would be awesome. By that i mean where you can make your own communities but ther is also factions which will not let you lead them, or maybe with high enough reputation join together with you as sort of outposts.

  10. #55
    Colony Founder
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,442
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by A Nice Cup of Tea View Post
    Actually, my feeling is the opposite. I feel that the majority of people would work together and not be hostile.

    But I also feel that - given the hints we've had - the game won't handle this in a believable manner, and therefore I think that not including it is better than including a version of it that's jarringly unrealistic.

    For a more detailed (but long!) explanation, see the spoiler block below...

    Spoiler: 
    The reason I'd only want bandits isn't because I'm some misanthrope that thinks that everyone would be implacably hostile in a post-apocalypse. It's actually because I think that the minority of people who would be like that are the only ones that can be realistically portrayed. In fact, it's not so much wanting bandits as conceding that, unlike the majority of people, the bandits could be done in an acceptable manner.

    The thing is, people build communities and work together. When I play a co-op game with my friends, we build a base together and live in it together and share duties such as base repair, resource gathering, scavenging, and so on. It's what people do.

    But for some reason, whenever the future systems for NPCs are hinted about there's never any concept of that sort community bullding. There's never any talk of the player being part of (or preferably - since you're the protagonist in the game, after all - leading) a community.

    Instead, the talk is always that there are pre-existing communities ("factions"), but that you as a player are excluded from them. Instead of living with a bunch of other people and working together in communal defense and survival, you're not allowed to be part of these communities and have to live on your own. There's talk of being able to "stay the night" occasionally for an exhorbitant cost, but without that cost they'll happily kick you out and watch the zombies eat you.

    But it's all totally - and immersion breakingly - unbelievable. If these communities exist, why aren't you part of one of them? Why are you forced to live outside on your own and fend for yourself against the hordes?

    And if you are excluded from these communities and not allowed to be part of them, why are you trying to gain "reputation" with them and why are you doing "quests" for them?

    It doesn't make any sense. A community benefits just as much by having an extra member as you do for being part of it, so why do they throw you out every night to survive on your own and why do you put up with that behaviour yet keep going back to interact with them?

    I realise that the whole "faction" and "quest" system is a staple of the CRPG game, but that doesn't mean it's the ideal set-up in all scenarios; and it just doesn't fit this scenario. It's a set-up that works for the heroic-adventure genre, but the devs are trying to shoehorn it into the survival genre.

    If there are going to be NPCs in a survival game - and don't get me wrong; I'd rather there were - they shouldn't be following the CRPG-esque faction-and-quest mould. It just doesn't fit.

    Instead they should join with you (or you with them, but as I say; you're the protagonist so it makes sense if you're the leader or work your way up to being the leader). You shouldn't be visiting communities to trade and then being kicked out before nightfall to survive or die on your own. You should be living with them and surviving or dying together.

    And I'm not chasing pie-in-the-sky unrealistic scenarios here. For example (and this is just off the top of my head, and would need refining), here's an NPC system that I'd find far more realistic than the hinted-at faction-and-quest system:

    Occasionally (about once a week or so) an NPC would come in your direction - in the same way the wandering hordes do. The NPC would randomly be either (a) hostile, (b) neutral, or (c) friendly.

    Hostile NPCs would be the rarest, but they would attack you on sight. They might attack you individually, or they might call in a bandit ambush (like a screamer calling in zombies). As I say, these would be the rarest type of person; but they would exist often enough to make you wary of just enthusiastically running up to any wandering person you met.

    Neutral NPCs would work like the traders currently do, and would replace the fixed taders. If attacked they'd fight back, but if approached and spoken to they'd give you a chance to trade before they move on.

    Friendly NPCs would want to join your community. By interacting with them you would be able to give them a role. The default would be "posse", in which role they'd follow you around and fight zombies with you, generally acting as bodyguards. They'd go with you when you went scavenging or gathering resources, and would watch your back while you performed those actions. You would also be able to lead them back to your base while in "posse" mode and then once you got there give them other roles, such as "farmer" (they'd stay in the vicinity of where you gave them that role; planting crops, harvesting them, and cooking food), "guard" (similar to "posse" but instead of following you around they'd patrol the vicinity of where you gave them the role), "gatherer" (they'd stay in the vicinity of where you gave them the role, chopping down (and re-planting) trees for wood, digging stone, metal and clay), or "engineer" (they wouldn't build new structures, but they'd wander the vicinity of where you gave them that role and repair any damaged structures or traps they found using resources they found in containers in the area).

    You might even want to extend it to things like a "smith" who would make weapons, armour, and ammunition.

    Of course, all the NPCs would need to eat, and all would defend themselves from zombies (but only the guards would be pro-active about it).

    That's the sort of thing I'd find realistic. You building a community with other NPCs that you come across, and working together with them for the common good. I'd absolutely love it if a system similar to that were in the game.

    But the system where you're on your own - and all the NPCs are out there building a community without you, keeping you out and making you fend for yourself like some kind of pariah, yet you're expected to keep going to them cap-in-hand to do quests for them in exchange for hand-outs and you're supposed to care about your "reputation" with them despite there being no prospect of you ever actually joining them and moving in with them (and, God forbid, rising to a leadership position within them). That I find believability-breakingly unrealistic.

    And the current implementation of traders is a microcosm of that, which is why I dislke them and avoid them. The fact that you're struggling to survive against the hordes, and they've set up a shop seemingly without a care in the world; yet they won't join you for mutual protection and you can't join them for mutual protection stretches believability to breaking point, and then when you add that their shops are 100% zombie-proof (and you-proof) and will automatically teleport you out at night, that's even worse. Yes, I know it's for gameplay purposes, but the fact that those things need to be in for gameplay purposes is a symptom of how the traders don't "fit" in a survival game.

    So it's not that I don't want there to be any NPCs other than hostile ones on principle. It's that I think that the current plans for implementing non-hostile NPCs - based on the hints we've had about those plans - are terrible. And I'd rather have no non-hostile NPCs than terribly implemented non-hostile NPCs.

    This is why I'm often vocal about hoping that the faction/quest system will be limited to Navezgane, so I can continue to play on random maps and ignore it.


    Hopefully there's plenty of conversation-fodder there!
    You have a point. But there are ways around the dilemma. Here some ideas for rationalizing the pariah:

    a) You may have a very bad reputation because of things you did (to them?) before your blackout.

    b) You may have a very bad reputation because people only suspect you for being someone that did lots of bad stuff in this area. They think not, but better safe than sorry.

    c) Since both factions confirmed for Navezgane are at each others throat, both factions might suspect you to be a spy/saboteur for the other side.

  11. #56
    Reconstructionist A Nice Cup of Tea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    537
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by meganoth View Post
    You have a point. But there are ways around the dilemma. Here some ideas for rationalizing the pariah:

    a) You may have a very bad reputation because of things you did (to them?) before your blackout.

    b) You may have a very bad reputation because people only suspect you for being someone that did lots of bad stuff in this area. They think not, but better safe than sorry.

    c) Since both factions confirmed for Navezgane are at each others throat, both factions might suspect you to be a spy/saboteur for the other side.
    Ok, but that only rationalises a small part of it. It gives them all a reason to hate me, but since both sides do hate me and are happy to kick me out when it gets dark and stand by watching the zombies eat me, what's my motivation for wanting to suck up to them and do quests in order to improve my "reputation" with them?

    If I am such a pariah, why should I interact with them at all, when every time I do it just reminds me that neither will ever accept me and I'll never be able to join either group?

    At which point, you're back to "they might as well not be in the game".

    If the player is supposed to want to interact with the factions, there needs to be something to motivate that behaviour. "You have to interact with them, because many useful items are locked behind trading and can't be looted, not even by stealing from or killing the traders" - the current motivation for wanting to interact with traders - is an awful one.

    At best, it makes the player grudgingly interact with the NPCs because they have to. It does nothing to make the player want to interact with the NPCs.

    And making the player grudgingly intreract with an un-fun game element because they have to is terrible game design.

  12. #57
    Super Moderator Roland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    On a Zipline
    Posts
    13,054
    Rep Power
    2
    I absolutely like your ideas Cup. The problem that I see is that of limitation. Madmole said that we could have a pet or a follower but said that having more than one might not be possible since they wouldn't be restricting things to single vs multiplayer. Each player on a server has four followers and a pet and now there are no zombies...

    All of this was back when they were hoping for UMA zombies which really put a limitation on number of entities alive. So maybe the number limits will not be an issue. But if it is an issue and they can't do what you are envisioning as your ideal, I would still want them to implement the game with non-follower NPCs and communities of NPCs that you can't fully join other than going to get quests and trade because I still think that would add a measure of fun to the game.

    I'm just not an all or nothing guy.

  13. #58
    Colony Founder Maharin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,725
    Rep Power
    1
    As with all things in this game so far, every step leads to more to build with later. Add NPCs and factions... then see what doors that opens up. Maybe passive followers are next (as in someone to maintain the fort, feed the forges, etc.) and the active, combat ready ones come later (post release even). Point is that once the NPCs are in there and are able to interact with the engine then the sky is the limit.

  14. #59
    Refugee
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    20
    Rep Power
    0
    I agree with a lot of stuff Cup said.

    My version of perfect implementation of friendly NPCs, bearing in mind AI and engine limitations would be: simply said using them as an engine, fueled by food and water, for workstations (workbench, forge, fireplace, guard places (instead of turrets), cement mixer, maybe even farm).
    You could find friendly NPCs crawled and scared in POIs, or they could come to you, like Cup said, as a wandering horde, and you could lead them, one at a time, to your base. In default mode they would be passive. Just staying there with a little bars on their dull faces showing hunger, thirst, tiredness, whatever (ok, maybe only when you look at them). You could click on them and put them to a workstation, to bed, or place them anywhere as a passive block.
    Now the catch - without NPC-operator, a workstation could work only if opened by a player. Or maybe a less drastic solution – it would produce stuff slower or at bigger cost. That means you would not be able to feed the workbench and let it produce stuff while being away, before you get yourself a friendly NPC. Even then you would have to stay near and protect the operator NPC until you get yourself another one for the guard station.
    This would give you a sense of leading a settlement, a reason to produce a lot of food etc. Maybe you’d need to have an additional bed in order to adopt a NPC in the first place. That would give us a reason to build big bases.

    Just my thought on the matter and something that would be easily implemented, but certainly something a lot of people would have problems with. Nevertheless I would like to see what other people think of that. Maybe it gets to live at least in a form of some mod one day.

    Edit:
    ... and I just saw that Maharin pretty much wrote the same thing.
    Last edited by zakinam; 03-13-2018 at 12:01 PM.

  15. #60
    Colony Founder
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,442
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by A Nice Cup of Tea View Post
    Ok, but that only rationalises a small part of it. It gives them all a reason to hate me, but since both sides do hate me and are happy to kick me out when it gets dark and stand by watching the zombies eat me, what's my motivation for wanting to suck up to them and do quests in order to improve my "reputation" with them?

    If I am such a pariah, why should I interact with them at all, when every time I do it just reminds me that neither will ever accept me and I'll never be able to join either group?
    One possibility is that your acceptance is one of the win conditions of the Navezgane scenario. Because for them to accept you you have to kill the leader of the other faction which makes you the undisputed "hero" (for white river) or "right hand of the boss" (for the Duke). The End. So you ARE able to join the group but 7D2D doesn't really need to simulate that condition. You would interact with them because you really want to join them, whitewash your name, make amends for past sins...

    There are also ways to simulate your joining a group (for example on probation) without too much change to the game: White river could be a guerilla organisation without any fixed base that is only able to survive as a secret organisation. You joining them is simply because they are the enemy of your enemy but doesn't lead to followers (secret organisations are a paranoid bunch), just you getting access to information and equipment at the moment.

    Joining the duke on the other hand might really be implemented as you making a base inside a Duke stronghold. That would mean the end of the tower defense part of the game, but on the other hand you would have to accept henchmen status and pay 30% of everything you scrounge to the duke. You won't be the hero of the game, you decided to bow to the warlord. Promotion in the ranks of the duke would not be possible (except as a win condition) because he doesn't trust you enough yet. Your reward for quests done well is that you get a better and bigger space inside his camp.

    Another possibility is that the mystery of the blood moon is directly linked to you. Why is it possible that traders and isolated settlements exist without being overrun on blood moon? Because on blood moon only YOU are attacked so ferouciously. You might or might not have the key to ending the apocalypse because you are part of why it broke out. The factions would be wary of you and definitely couldn't afford to invite you to their camps because that would be the end of the camp.


    Quote Originally Posted by A Nice Cup of Tea View Post
    If the player is supposed to want to interact with the factions, there needs to be something to motivate that behaviour. "You have to interact with them, because many useful items are locked behind trading and can't be looted, not even by stealing from or killing the traders" - the current motivation for wanting to interact with traders - is an awful one.
    The Navezgane story could and should have a third way that you don't join any faction. Both would eventually conclude that you are an enemy and shoot on sight. Perfectly possible, reasonable.

    What the factions might offer you: The Duke would allow you to use the traders and would have the best conventional weapons, armor and tech.

    Motivation to join the white river faction would simply be "helping the good guys". But they could offer knowledge (only they might know who you really are) and weapons that are especially effective against boss zombies. Because they know a lot more about the zombies, they have the chief scientist from the tower with the lab. They KNOW, or think they know.
    Last edited by meganoth; 03-13-2018 at 01:31 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •