Start group & a bit of tactics

[raymond]

So, again for post-NPC era, what about instead of creating just one character, you could make a whole group to start with? And there will be a tactics system like in many games, to give out orders or let them do what they want if they need to eat, rest or whatever. Also, an ability to switch player controls between your group members, so that while one sleeps, other stays on watch... Or goes on a raid. That'd make sense in multiplayer with the sleep implementation, but the problem is, you can't roleplay a loner, unless you need to sleep for not more than only 5 minutes (game hours), and have contraptions so players or bandits won't get you.

Also, I'd like a feedback on my idea about offline AI characters - you log off a server, your avatar goes AI and does whatever you assign for it (just an option, I don't mean it to be everywhere, I know it's probably hard and quite a bold idea which would cause some more random or butthurt for some players)

[silents429]

Because that isn't the game o3o

[Kajin]

I remember discussing something like this a while back, and it was my recommendation at the time that you should be allowed to start with extra group members, but only if you had limited control over how they were created and only if the advantage of having extra group members was offset by some major disadvantage that stood a high likelihood of screwing you over.

 

Like, say, you choose to start with a brother and the game gives him the traits "Isolationist" and "Huge Asshole", so dealing with other NPCs has a far greater likelihood to end in disaster. Sure you have a loyal NPC in your group that can help you out, but it cuts off options significantly and forces you to play in a way that limits what means you can utilize for getting ahead. Choose a girlfriend? Her leg is broken and you'll need to look after her and keep her alive until it heals. Start the game with your character's Mother? Hiding a bite wound from you and she's probably gonna turn in the next couple days. Start the game with an adult Son? He was mugged and is bleeding out and you have to try and stop the bleeding while zombies pound on your doors. After that it's a long road to recovery, assuming you managed to keep him alive while simultaneously fending off the zombies and the muggers who kindly introduced their knife to your poor boy's insides.

 

Any advantage you get from starting with an NPC in your group can and should be offset by some huge disadvantage that hurts you more than it helps you. Or else why would anyone ever choose to go solo?

[Ewok]

Personally I'd go | No - Maybe - No - No.

 

I'd say no to starting with a group as that would take too much challenge away from the early game, and it's supposed to be hard.

 

Maybe to the idea of giving out orders or requests for group members to do things, but they shouldn't be totally subservient to your demands.

 

No to switching to control another group member (is that what you meant?). This is the story of your character (and his death) so no switcheroonies.

 

Big no to your character going AI when you log out. I'm against anything that takes control away from the player.

[Kajin]

I'd probably be in support of the AI taking control of your character while logged out of a server, but only if the control was very limited. It stays in the safehouse, maintains the barricades and gardens so that you'll always have fresh food and a disease free garden when you log back in, and grabs a go bag and flees elsewhere in the event some asshole decides to grief you by burning your safehouse down and/or luring a horde in that'll eat you as soon as you log back in. Crap like that is the single biggest reason that I will never play PZ multiplayer. I experienced bullshit like that when I played Rust and I won't put up with it here where I have the option to play singleplayer instead. Not wanting to take control away from the player is all well and good, but logging back in to find everything I worked for destroyed and taken while I was off doing real world things is the ultimate mood killer for me. Hell, the meta game would be perfect for this purpose.

 

On the flipside, there would have to be an option to turn the thing off for people who think this is cheating or dislike the prospect of the game controlling their character. All well and good for those people, but I think it'd solve or at least mitigate some of the biggest complaints I have with the prospect of multiplayer short of turning the server off when you're not online yourself.

[Zorak]

The MP in PZ is way better than dayz and rust, i play some MP and only 2 times was attacked w/o reason. Most of the time people just create a nice communities, build up base and scavenge togeather. Pvp is mostly part or RP. Try MP in PZ coz its way better than in most survival games.

[Some Clever Username]

I like the idea of spawning with maybe a friend or sibling but the switching characters thing is too much like State of Decay.

[raymond]

I'd probably be in support of the AI taking control of your character while logged out of a server, but only if the control was very limited. It stays in the safehouse, maintains the barricades and gardens so that you'll always have fresh food and a disease free garden when you log back in, and grabs a go bag and flees elsewhere in the event some asshole decides to grief you by burning your safehouse down and/or luring a horde in that'll eat you as soon as you log back in. Crap like that is the single biggest reason that I will never play PZ multiplayer. I experienced bullshit like that when I played Rust and I won't put up with it here where I have the option to play singleplayer instead. Not wanting to take control away from the player is all well and good, but logging back in to find everything I worked for destroyed and taken while I was off doing real world things is the ultimate mood killer for me. Hell, the meta game would be perfect for this purpose.

 

On the flipside, there would have to be an option to turn the thing off for people who think this is cheating or dislike the prospect of the game controlling their character. All well and good for those people, but I think it'd solve or at least mitigate some of the biggest complaints I have with the prospect of multiplayer short of turning the server off when you're not online yourself.

There's the point. I think it'd be extremely experimental from what it sounds like, but why not even trying? maybe it'll make the game unique in the way it treats offline events. Also, the AI character's stats should be based on their skills. Like if you train your character to shoot well, you log off and you can be sure that the next griefer scumbag who tries to kill you will end up with a bullet in their cranium. Also, the character won't be stagnant if you can't or don't want to log on a server. I think they should do it as an experiment.

 

As for switching, we all probably know that AI can be Artificial Idiotism sometimes, you know, they get stuck in walls, accidently shoot you in the back in a fight - that sort of things. So, personally, I'd like to have more control over your teammates, cause sometimes I don't trust the AI.

 

Edit:  P.S. Going offtopic heare,but why not adding a BB-gun to train Aiming skill?

[Ewok]

Not wanting to take control away from the player is all well and good, but logging back in to find everything I worked for destroyed and taken while I was off doing real world things is the ultimate mood killer for me. Hell, the meta game would be perfect for this purpose.

 

But having your avatar AI-controlled gives the possibility that someone will just plain kill you when you are offline. Surely that's worse than burning down your safehouse or destroying your crops?

[raymond]

 

Not wanting to take control away from the player is all well and good, but logging back in to find everything I worked for destroyed and taken while I was off doing real world things is the ultimate mood killer for me. Hell, the meta game would be perfect for this purpose.

 

But having your avatar AI-controlled gives the possibility that someone will just plain kill you when you are offline. Surely that's worse than burning down your safehouse or destroying your crops?

 

Well, many players, as I presume, use their avatars as ungriefabble storages. Implementing AI would make them hide their stuff instead, making stashes, which is more hardcore, and as I can tell, Devs are striving for hardship. You can always get to a secluded area. It may seem impossible to escape from griefers now, but maybe, if the map is big enough, and everything is balanced, perhaps if there are more ways to hide away (undergrounds, sewers, unpenetratable or hardly penetratable buildings or even bunkers), it'd be irrational to ravage through forests with a gas can searching for one's base.

 

There should be more toggleable options for both softcore and hardcore, I think.

[Kajin]

 

Not wanting to take control away from the player is all well and good, but logging back in to find everything I worked for destroyed and taken while I was off doing real world things is the ultimate mood killer for me. Hell, the meta game would be perfect for this purpose.

 

But having your avatar AI-controlled gives the possibility that someone will just plain kill you when you are offline. Surely that's worse than burning down your safehouse or destroying your crops?

 

I'm not suggesting the meta game keep your character on map at all times. I'm not even suggesting it be on map at all. The meta game is entirely invisible to player characters, remember. Having your character be a part of it when offline would render them completely invulnerable til you log back on so there's no possible way you can die unless you're actively playing the game.

 

The meta game would do basic upkeep of the base, and if a situation arose that would likely kill my character when I log back in, it moves my character to a relatively safe area and provides a report of what happened. Armed robbers broke in and setup shop while you were gone, you had to flee. Someone threw a molotov at your house, burning it to the ground and attracting a massive horde. You were forced to flee.

[raymond]

 

 

Not wanting to take control away from the player is all well and good, but logging back in to find everything I worked for destroyed and taken while I was off doing real world things is the ultimate mood killer for me. Hell, the meta game would be perfect for this purpose.

 

But having your avatar AI-controlled gives the possibility that someone will just plain kill you when you are offline. Surely that's worse than burning down your safehouse or destroying your crops?

 

I'm not suggesting the meta game keep your character on map at all times. I'm not even suggesting it be on map at all. The meta game is entirely invisible to player characters, remember. Having your character be a part of it when offline would render them completely invulnerable til you log back on so there's no possible way you can die unless you're actively playing the game.

 

The meta game would do basic upkeep of the base, and if a situation arose that would likely kill my character when I log back in, it moves my character to a relatively safe area and provides a report of what happened. Armed robbers broke in and setup shop while you were gone, you had to flee. Someone threw a molotov at your house, burning it to the ground and attracting a massive horde. You were forced to flee.

 

Hmmmm, I guess that should be implemented as softcore option...