Well, I'd have zombies that screamed, just not the screamers.
I like the idea of having the weaker ones too. Basically, just a load of rotting corpses of former people. No attempts to make bosses, just regular zombies that are harder or easier to kill dependent on what they are wearing, and how good shape they are in.
I know I said I wish I'd bought it earlier, but reading this thread I'm glad I held off. A lot of your issues have been fixed. Seems like I got a much better game than at launch.
Was bound to happen. Congrats to em, cos they went about making an MMO in a very sensible way - i.e. Not biting it all off in one go and trying to build up and launch a "WOW Killer" from scratch, with no experience and no infrastructure - they've built it up slow and steady with a game first then MMO tech second, to keep the money rolling in at each step.
Hell, I'd be happy with a standard sequel. Just ditch the limited resource thing and give us a proper sandbox on a larger scale and I'd be satisfied. Anything extra is a bonus.
I don't think they're going to ditch the limited resources, back when SoD was released a few people complained about it but the devs said that it's key to how the game plays, and adds to the realism. I don't know where Ferals and other special zeds fit in with their realistic stance, but there you go.
I think it was more to do with players wanting an 'endless' mode, the resources are still set each time you enter a new map. Or re-enter the same map as it is here.
I'm with DD, I would prefer a new single player game, with some sort of Co-Op option but I think they will do a good job of an MMO. I'm interested to see how it pans out.
Oh, I'm with the pair of you, I don't really want yet another zombie MMO - if I wanted that, I'd drop £20 on DayZ - but what I do want is a bigger, more polished sequel to State of Decay with the co-op that never made it into the original.
Tbh, it'd be a bit mad of them to make it a single-world MMO - never mind the tech cost and difficulty (as they'll presumably be using ms azure cloud powah), but minecraft shows that lots of groups want their own shared, but walled garden - rather than pitching in with the great unwashed.
I'd hope whatever they make next would allow private servers and the like.
That's a much better idea; I was thinking I'd prefer just a straight, polished sequel, but a Minecraft-style model with invited friends living in the same world would be a lot better. I suppose it implies things would generally be cooperative and there wouldn't be any conflict, but it'd still be fun.
It's a problem for a game like this though, you need to have that competition for resources, equipment, space etc, and it's only natural that some people would go as far as to kill for them. It's a key point of almost all modern zombie fiction, isn't it?
I guess you could choose to have a purely co-operative server or map, but how do you incentivise that? Or do you keep it competitive, but without the chance to actually kill other players? Is it just first to the resources keeps them, or should you be able to raid and steal...?
I'm not sure what I'd enjoy. I know Day Z doesn't appeal to me in the slightest because it seems that it's full of people who'll just kill you straight off no matter what, so I like the idea of a survival MMO where you have to try and survive in relative peace with your neighbours.
Day Z, with a bunch of friends might be good, as you can defend against the bullshit. As I can't guarantee having that whenever I play, I won't be playing it.
People wouldn't be killing for resources though, that's the problem. They would be killing you to kill you. Because they are dicks. And it wouldn't be some. It would be a lot.Too many for the game to be fun, unless you derive enjoyment from spoiling others fun.
The Minecraft-style idea is probably the best solution. That way, players can have their own private game in which they can invite only the players they want to play with or, in the case of those with DayZ-style murderous intentions, they could join an open server and just have at it.
They could implement some sort of punishment for player killing. A reputation drop or something like that which means NPC which are vital to gaining some resources won't deal with you. I would prefer the minecraft style server though.
Yeah I'm liking the server idea. Co-op would be best, you could let the AI handle raiders etc. if you need that human vs human buzz, as others have said letting people kill each other is a recipe for griefing.
Look at GTA Online, there's loads of co-op content there, you earn more xp by playing together but most of the randoms there are happy to spend their session fucking with other players instead. Dicks.
I was thinking that, some sort of risk/reward or punishment mechanic. Maybe you could only attack another settlement if you desperately needed a certain resource they had, and you could only be harmed while attacking...?