General Category > Untitled 3D Survival

So does creating havoc have a cost?

<< < (3/3)

x4000:
Various responses:

1. I also am not a fan of stealth in a game like this.  Not in the sense of how it's traditionally done.  Avoiding the enemy is one thing, but "stealth systems" are quite another.

2. For defending bases, my hope is that it will be something that you can pretty much either do on your own as an FPS player, or else you don't do it at all.  I'm not a huge fan of just setting up lots of turrets and then running between them and repairing them.  If the game has turrets you can put out, then pretty soon that becomes the only and optimal way to play because they are such force multipliers.  So I'm really against having non-player turrets if I can at all avoid it.

3. Then again, just going on the opposite end of the spectrum, it might be that turrets are indeed a thing, BUT you can't repair them (perhaps they auto-repair over time), and they are expensive to build in terms of crafting materials, etc.  Some degree of automation to defenses is a must (in 7 Days to Die it's spikes and trenches for me), but exactly what the balance will be there depends largely on playtesting and so on.  But I basically don't want people being a Tribes 2 engineer. ;)

4. Will you be able to have allied guards or robots or whatever else?  Maybe.  I'd certainly be all for it, and the complexity is only medium... for the most part.  But it does take extra art and a variety of other things, so it would probably be a kickstarter stretch goal.

5. There is definitely no management gameplay here, for attacks or defense.  That slows things down way too much.  I'm all about the speed and fluidity with this game.  A lot of survival games get bogged down in making everything slow -- I want to make things fast and fun.  Yes you'll be able to use some vehicles to soften the enemy base, or even suicide-slam them into the base (ala Just Cause 3).  The first vehicle is already in the game.  It's a low-altitude hovercraft that is really great for traversal, but which has no guns at all.

6. I don't really want to get into Rainbow 6 style assault squads.  I see you as more of either a lone gunman or a group of friends in co-op.

7. I don't see an attack on an enemy base as being a singular thing, which is a key note.  I'd see you doing a number of raids to accomplish a number of objectives of your choosing.  Aka, you might raid one time to weaken X part of the perimeter, another time to take out Y guard post, another time to set up a bomb in location Z, another time to ram a vehicle in and then actually hit a key objective and escape while blowing the bomb, etc.

In other words: that whole thing that you're thinking about with the complexity of taking down an enemy base is something I LOVE.  However, I prefer to have more freewheeling persistent choice in how to do it.  And I want to do it all, myself.  I don't want to be ordering squads around that do big parts of it for me.  I don't want to be in planning map screens.  Heck, I might be doing a raid or two in just to figure out what my objectives even ARE.  My personal, self-chosen objectives, I mean.  Do I care to loot prior to capturing, or do I want to destroy, or what?  Etc.

In multiplayer this would go faster because you can do more things at once -- and indeed you could divide and conquer as a squad in that sort of scenario.  Sounds like fun!  But I don't think it's any less fun in solo.  Well, all of that is on paper right now, but it's also based on my past experience with other games.

8. On the idea of safe zones, I don't see why not.  That might be a really good anti-griefing setup, anyway.  I've been plotting out the starting area of the game as being kind of a rebel complex where you can actually load up on a number of guns and gear before setting out into the world (why the heck make you start from absolute scratch on the first day?), and keeping that as a safe zone would make sense.

chemical_art:
The first thing I thought about after reading this was the "Mercenaries" game franchise. The idea that you work for a "rebel" group(s) whom may provide a true safe zone and also a "first wave" of NPCs to assist you in goals but that you ultimately are the star. Not at all I am sure what you had in mind, but the idea of the game flow being "we have a complex plan. <honk honk> I and you 5 brave NPC's will try to see if we can make it happen!" That poor wave of NPC's would provide a solid base for your breach, but the effect was more morale improving then actual combat ability.

The idea of multiple factions is extremely labor intensive so not what I had intended. But...erm, just the first thing to pop into my head. It just that one game reminded me of the personal freedom I had to engage the game. "Do I park my helicopter outside the base, blow up all the threats to my helicopter, then haphazardly run back to it to unleash havoc?" "Do I just blow a wall down and lead a vehicle full of people into it, tell them all to get out, and hope for the best?" "Do I lead a powerful tank inside with one gunner, and try to nurse my gunner for as long as I can?" "Screw it all! I hate this mission! Carpet bomb it all! I don't care if it costs 5 times the mission reward, I need it for a longer term goal!"

x4000:
That sort of freedom is the sort of thing I also love.  I'm just not too fond of having dumb human-standins that are around that then people complain about the AI on. ;)  But being able to park my Batmobile wherever I want and having it able to defend itself while I'm away is something I'm a fan of, haha.

Pumpkin:
Why does it start to sound like AI War?

Needless to say, I love it.

x4000:

--- Quote from: Pumpkin on March 10, 2016, 06:59:48 am ---Why does it start to sound like AI War?
--- End quote ---

YOU know why.  8)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page