Print

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

[Max White]

A player zombie is a bit better than an NPC zombie, and NPC zombies naturally gravitate to them and form hordes.  I can also see zombification being put to strategic use in the PvP element.  For example, one faction of survivors is starving out another.  The losing faction can sacrifice a member who goes out and gets bit, then leads a horde into the enemy.  You could say that some zombies aren't completely robbed of their memories or intellect.  They're just dominated by a terrible hunger.  They fade away if they go too long without consuming living flesh, though they can last longer than a human can without food/water.  There's also more subtle things you can do, such as speed penalties when moving away from a nearby survivor, but a boost when moving towards one.  Or an automatic bite attack if close contact is made.

The point is though, that for a lot of players (Although not all) the temptation to skip the zombie part, and take the option to try again in a new city in hope of getting perks as a surviver, is too great. Therefor there will be a lot less player zombies then you might like, and let's face it, from what you just said player zombies have a lot of potential for fun situations.

Therefor, if there were a some perks you could only get as a zombie, people will still play as a zombie, while better perks shoud be open to survivers to encorage people to survive.

[SalmonGod]

The point is though, that for a lot of players (Although not all) the temptation to skip the zombie part, and take the option to try again in a new city in hope of getting perks as a surviver, is too great. Therefor there will be a lot less player zombies then you might like, and let's face it, from what you just said player zombies have a lot of potential for fun situations.

Therefor, if there were a some perks you could only get as a zombie, people will still play as a zombie, while better perks shoud be open to survivers to encorage people to survive.

Well, there is the inherent perk that it's officially sanctioned griefing, and lots of people like to take on monster roles in a game when given the option anyway.  I would be surprised not many people went for it, especially if it the game asks you to pay per character rather than subscription.  I bet a large portion of people who die early in the round would opt to play as zombie, which is kind of neat since the older monsters would be the deadliest as it always should be.

I can't actually think of any reason having zombie survivors earn perks and graduate from city to city would be a bad idea, but it makes me uneasy somehow.  Although it would be neat if zombie veterans could be summoned by GMs to be placed in a fresh city.

One thing I think would be really special about this game, is it would enrich itself over time unlike most MMOs which seem to stagnate because people reach level limits/crunch the math on best character builds/beat all the instanced dungeons/etc.

[Max White]

Well, there is the inherent perk that it's officially sanctioned griefing, and lots of people like to take on monster roles in a game when given the option anyway.  I would be surprised not many people went for it, especially if it the game asks you to pay per character rather than subscription.  I bet a large portion of people who die early in the round would opt to play as zombie, which is kind of neat since the older monsters would be the deadliest as it always should be.

I can't actually think of any reason having zombie survivors earn perks and graduate from city to city would be a bad idea, but it makes me uneasy somehow.  Although it would be neat if zombie veterans could be summoned by GMs to be placed in a fresh city.

One thing I think would be really special about this game, is it would enrich itself over time unlike most MMOs which seem to stagnate because people reach level limits/crunch the math on best character builds/beat all the instanced dungeons/etc.

Oh god, please no pay per death. I somehow hate those games, especialy in the death heavy enviroment of a zombie surviver. While a lot of people love to reep havoc as an antagonist such as a zombie, for others, saddly, it is all about the kills rather then immersion and enjoyment, and all around escapisem. For these people, becoming a zombie would already mark you as having been killed once, but you wouldn't even be able to score power ups!

And the reason that zombie perks is distrubing is because people will just get bitten for perks, and stop trying as hard to survive, killing the general vibe of the game. And that is why surviver perks should be better in just about every way.

[SalmonGod]

Oh god, please no pay per death. I somehow hate those games, especialy in the death heavy enviroment of a zombie surviver.

I wasn't aware any other game had tried this.  And yeah, I realize it's a pretty far out idea.  Lots of risks.  Then again, I can see a lot of potential good effects from it.  There's the aforementioned effect on people choosing to play as zombies because they died early and don't want to buy another character yet.  I imagine you could also charge less.  No need to worry about cancelling a subscription when you don't want to play anymore.  It also feels like it fits better with a game that doesn't focus on long-term number farming.  Above all, I really really hate subscription fees and desparately want to see somebody do something different.

The gigantic drawback: some people will get more out of their money than others.  Then again, that's how it was in the beginning.  Insert quarter.

Edit:  Just to clarify, if this ever actually happened, this is not an idea I'd be dead set on.

[GamerKnight]

Run it on a credit system. Maybe if you are one of say, the first 10 zombies to turn and you survive until the end and exterminate the survivors then you get your next two lives free. Or allow players who pull that kind of thing off get to play in a vets-only city. Also, how would you deal with people wanting to leave to live their lives? You would need to set it up in scheduled rounds, maybe ten minutes a piece, where a certain number of players have to say lets go in order to begin. And allow those who didn't sign in to sit it out. But maybe these people should suffer detriments to stats in order for less people to share resources with.

[SalmonGod]

Run it on a credit system. Maybe if you are one of say, the first 10 zombies to turn and you survive until the end and exterminate the survivors then you get your next two lives free. Or allow players who pull that kind of thing off get to play in a vets-only city. Also, how would you deal with people wanting to leave to live their lives? You would need to set it up in scheduled rounds, maybe ten minutes a piece, where a certain number of players have to say lets go in order to begin. And allow those who didn't sign in to sit it out. But maybe these people should suffer detriments to stats in order for less people to share resources with.

That's the biggest hang up I see on this game concept in general.  Players would have to log in frequently.  I imagine it as a mostly persistent-world set-up rather than short play sessions.  A good safe-zone logout system would be essential.  Even then, it wouldn't be for everybody.  I'm thinking something like making parameters for the creation of a safe zone (a barricaded room or gathering a large number of players in one place or something).  When this is done, that area becomes immune to zombie intrusion for a set amount of time.  Let's say 12 hours.  After that period, you become vulnerable again and really need to log back in to see to the safety of your character.  The length of a round could also be loosely engineered by placing only enough resources in the city to support X amount of survivors for roughly Y amount of time.  This way the game can get away with being such a commitment just a little bit better, because it's a predictable commitment.  I still realize it's very unrealistic, though.

[GamerKnight]

But with that setup you would need a very low price for new characters. People are going to get pissed if they can't go on holiday without paying for a new character. Also, escape needs to be possible at all times.

Allow players to set up their own safe houses. In fact, the biggest issue is generating multiple cities. I mean, if you want every building to have every room accessible then you are going to have graphics that feature you looking down on your charcter at all times, which would stop ambushes from working. Maybe if you implemented a shadow system like DF Adventurer mode, which  hide things behind other things.

[Angel Of Death]

Three words.

SERIAL KILLER ROGUELIKE.

Sadly, it does not exist.

WAAAAAH! 

[Farseer]

<snip>

Hi Distant Worlds. :p

Someone on SA posted what is basically my ideal game. Give me a minute to find it.
<snip>

So, essentially, epic Pokemon game? I'd play it.

One of my ideal games would be a fantasy (or science fiction) 4x / grand strategy (akin to Europa Universalis 3, Civilization 4 etc etc in concept) where you pick a nation (or space faring civilization) and through policy changes and grand sweeping decrees ("We shall go to war on the Z'fgan!" or "All are equal, it is merely that our race is more equal than others."), you effect the cultural, military, diplomatic, social and economic development of your nation, as well as determining how the rest of the world / universe feels about you. You might start off as a warring norse tribe or the hate-filled insect men of Magot but slowly, over centuries, change them into a united civilization under the banner of a new religion that suggests that we should unite and THEN destroy the rest of the thematically appropriate area. Even better if it has a zoom system where you can zoom to city level and then watch the raiders launch their ships or trade caravans get attacked by bandits and then zoom out to watch how everything evolves.