Player Death and Future NPC Interaction

[Bloody Mary]

I only like permadeath. That'd of course mean NPCs would forget you.

[ORMtnMan]

I only like permadeath. That'd of course mean NPCs would forget you.

 

Well, a lot of people like that idea, and in this particular situation, your original character would be perma-dead. You would just take over a different NPC in the group when it happens.

 

It would be immersion breaking for your character to die and suddenly all the NPCs in your group forget why they were hanging out together...At the very least if you make a new character, that group should stick together and possibly mention your character like in Some Clever Username's other topic.

[robban279]

I want it to be proper "Iron man mode" just like xcom. I dont even want to be able to respawn at map so I hope the rumour is true that they'll remove this. I wanna know that when I leave my group for a "mission" it might be the last time I see them

Edit: I never ever start a character on an old save, it completely takes away the whole point of this game, at least for me it does. Sorry man, but I'm determined on this and I want this game to stay hardcore.

I must say I agree with Migualo on basically every point he made.

Also I don't think he's Beeing a "dick", whoever stated that

[ORMtnMan]

I want it to be proper "Iron man mode" just like xcom. I dont even want to be able to respawn at map so I hope the rumour is true that they'll remove this. I wanna know that when I leave my group for a "mission" it might be the last time I see them

Edit: I never ever start a character on an old save, it completely takes away the whole point of this game, at least for me it does. Sorry man, but I'm determined on this and I want this game to stay hardcore.

I must say I agree with Migualo on basically every point he made.

Also I don't think he's Beeing a "dick", whoever stated that

.

Hey, I have no problem, with your opinion,, but, again it is not an arguement against the feature itself. You told us how you play and will continue to play. I respect that. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be an option (one of which you can choose not to partake in).

 

What I don't agree with (and I hope none of the dissenters so far think this way) is the idea that: "I like the game this way, with these options, all other options are thus useless and should be removed"

 

Instead of thinking through that lens, look at the idea as a mechanic and how it would be interesting to (some) people. That is all I ask.

 

Migualo wasn't being a dick, he was expressing his preference and opinion just like you did. Which is totally fine, but it doesn't really advance the dialogue.

[Suomiboi]

I'll just pop in and say that any options will not be removed from the game itself just some modes of it!

And just a reminder to keep it lovely. If anyone finds themselves in a state where they might hint something unlovely, the chances are that their conversation partner is in the same mood and it's better to step back and have a breather. <3

[robban279]

If I sound harsh, it's not against you, it really isn't, I just really want this game to be what it's always been, cause the way it's been promoted and the future features have always been hardcore gaming.

I don't want to be "not lovely" but PZ may be THE game I ever looked forward to most in my gaming life.

Permadeath is one of the core features of this game and if they removed it, I'd be deeply disappointed. I can even go so far to say that I at first glance likes your idea and I still do, but at the cost of Permadeath it's a definite no for me.

[ORMtnMan]

If I sound harsh, it's not against you, it really isn't, I just really want this game to be what it's always been, cause the way it's been promoted and the future features have always been hardcore gaming.

I don't want to be "not lovely" but PZ may be THE game I ever looked forward to most in my gaming life.

Permadeath is one of the core features of this game and if they removed it, I'd be deeply disappointed. I can even go so far to say that I at first glance likes your idea and I still do, but at the cost of Permadeath it's a definite no for me.

 

I don't think anyone here was getting heated or being "not lovely". It is just incredibly difficult to express yourslef over a text medium and still maintain the inflection behind it... I sometimes come off as very blunt when I am trying to get a point across.

 

The response you gave right here is exactly what I was hoping for. Nobody is going to remove the permadeath feature. (in fact they will be making it THE mode in survival and an option in Sandbox. Nor am I suggesting its removal. However, you also mentioned what you thought of the idea sans your probable not usage of it.

 

So, thank you. Thank you for breaking that mold responders to ideas sometimes get into.

[robban279]

Glad to hear we understand eachother

I See no harm in it if it's a sandbox choise or outside survival mode oh well it's up to the gods to decide (the devs).

[ORMtnMan]

Glad to hear we understand eachother

I See no harm in it if it's a sandbox choise or outside survival mode oh well it's up to the gods to decide (the devs).

 

Exactly!

[Bennytheowl]

I personally like the idea, It'd really help with getting to know your men (NPCS) and being sad when they're killed. I don't want to lose a world everytime I die. I like seeing my world evolve over time and over multiple people, seeing the supplies run out slowly until i'm forced to pick through bodies for ammo. Like the main character is actually the map and it's just witnessing all the stories of different people as they try and survive on it...

 

Also it'd be amazing to talk to the NPCS as a different character and have them say "Damn I miss Jack (your dead character) He was a good friend, I won't forget him *tear falls from eye*"

[ORMtnMan]

I personally like the idea, It'd really help with getting to know your men (NPCS) and being sad when they're killed. I don't want to lose a world everytime I die. I like seeing my world evolve over time and over multiple people, seeing the supplies run out slowly until i'm forced to pick through bodies for ammo. Like the main character is actually the map and it's just witnessing all the stories of different people as they try and survive on it...

 

Also it'd be amazing to talk to the NPCS as a different character and have them say "Damn I miss Jack (your dead character) He was a good friend, I won't forget him *tear falls from eye*"

 

That was a very articulate and cogent statement. Thank you. That is exactly what I was going for idea wise.

 

I think the second bit was put forward as another idea from SomeCleverUserName on a different post. I do agree though, I liked it then and I like it now.

[uberevan]

Seems like this would not be good for the people who enjoy gameplay the most, though I bet people who like a game for its setting and storyline should love this so they can see how all the characters they've come to know and love will all die horribly. *Cough*Homestuck*Cough*

[ORMtnMan]

Seems like this would not be good for the people who enjoy gameplay the most, though I bet people who like a game for its setting and storyline should love this so they can see how all the characters they've come to know and love will all die horribly. *Cough*Homestuck*Cough*

 

I'm confused, why would people who like gameplay dislike the idea? I like gameplay... and I proposed it.

[uberevan]

 

Seems like this would not be good for the people who enjoy gameplay the most, though I bet people who like a game for its setting and storyline should love this so they can see how all the characters they've come to know and love will all die horribly. *Cough*Homestuck*Cough*

 

I'm confused, why would people who like gameplay dislike the idea? I like gameplay... and I proposed it.

 

I meant more that the people who oppose it likely oppose it for reasons relating to gameplay.

Plenty of people including you and me could use this to enjoy the game itself more, but I doubt the people who like a game for it's story will complain about getting to see it continued.

[ORMtnMan]

 

 

Seems like this would not be good for the people who enjoy gameplay the most, though I bet people who like a game for its setting and storyline should love this so they can see how all the characters they've come to know and love will all die horribly. *Cough*Homestuck*Cough*

 

I'm confused, why would people who like gameplay dislike the idea? I like gameplay... and I proposed it.

 

I meant more that the people who oppose it likely oppose it for reasons relating to gameplay.

Plenty of people including you and me could use this to enjoy the game itself more, but I doubt the people who like a game for it's story will complain about getting to see it continued.

 

 

Ah, see here is the crux of what I was saying earlier in this series of posts. I would addend your statement to say people would oppose it for reasons relating to their preference of gameplay.

 

I don't think that is a helpful argument on whether or not that game should have this feature.

 

Here is an example of what I mean. A lot of people don't like brusselsprouts because they don't taste very good. Does that mean the market shouldn't carry them?

 

The better argument would be if it fits in with the feel of the game.

 

To continue with my oversimplified example it would be as follows. If I am arguing that the butcher should carry brusselsprouts, and you state that veggies are not the purpose of a butcher, but rather meat. That would be a more valid argument.

[Zorak]

On survival - death and option to respawn with new character.

Sandbox - you can choose from:

-death and its over

-when you die you can take control over frendly NPC

-during the game you can switch between frendly NPC (just like in state of decay).

Why ? Coz its sandbox and its fun to take control over your group when your main dies just to continue the story.

-

[ORMtnMan]

On survival - death and option to respawn with new character.

Sandbox - you can choose from:

-death and its over

-when you die you can take control over frendly NPC

-during the game you can switch between frendly NPC (just like in state of decay).

Why ? Coz its sandbox and its fun to take control over your group when your main dies just to continue the story.

-

 

Well, I will say that it would be a bit much to transfer characters during a game.

 

First, code-wise, I imagine it would be a nightmare.

 

Second, if we were able to switch between characters it would defeat the purpose of asking the NPCs to do something/having their "liking" of you determine if they listen or not. You would just override them not wanting to listen to your PC by taking direct control.

 

I argue that dying then taking over an NPC is different because you still have to deal with interations and asking favors, etc.

[Zorak]

 

On survival - death and option to respawn with new character.

Sandbox - you can choose from:

-death and its over

-when you die you can take control over frendly NPC

-during the game you can switch between frendly NPC (just like in state of decay).

Why ? Coz its sandbox and its fun to take control over your group when your main dies just to continue the story.

-

 

Well, I will say that it would be a bit much to transfer characters during a game.

 

First, code-wise, I imagine it would be a nightmare.

 

Second, if we were able to switch between characters it would defeat the purpose of asking the NPCs to do something/having their "liking" of you determine if they listen or not. You would just override them not wanting to listen to your PC by taking direct control.

 

I argue that dying then taking over an NPC is different because you still have to deal with interations and asking favors, etc.

 

Thats why i think it might be only a sandbox option.

Then to switch character you need to be frendly with them, so first you need to earn their trust.

I agree that it will make death less scary but, still once the character dies its dead and all skills are lost. the state of decay works that way, and its still fun.

Keep the main survival mode as it is but more options in sandbox never hurts.

[ORMtnMan]

 

 

On survival - death and option to respawn with new character.

Sandbox - you can choose from:

-death and its over

-when you die you can take control over frendly NPC

-during the game you can switch between frendly NPC (just like in state of decay).

Why ? Coz its sandbox and its fun to take control over your group when your main dies just to continue the story.

-

 

Well, I will say that it would be a bit much to transfer characters during a game.

 

First, code-wise, I imagine it would be a nightmare.

 

Second, if we were able to switch between characters it would defeat the purpose of asking the NPCs to do something/having their "liking" of you determine if they listen or not. You would just override them not wanting to listen to your PC by taking direct control.

 

I argue that dying then taking over an NPC is different because you still have to deal with interations and asking favors, etc.

 

Thats why i think it might be only a sandbox option.

Then to switch character you need to be frendly with them, so first you need to earn their trust.

I agree that it will make death less scary but, still once the character dies its dead and all skills are lost. the state of decay works that way, and its still fun.

Keep the main survival mode as it is but more options in sandbox never hurts.

 

 

I can see your point, though I would still say that making the transfer mid-game would logistically be a nightmare.

 

Having a whole set of controls to select and transfer control while still controlling your character would requre a major rework of how player manipulation works. Especially if you extrapolate out the transfer of control to a friendly NPC that is in a different square.

 

For example, you are over in Westpoint looting the gun store, the rest of the "world" is in meta game at that point. You switch to your companion who is back at a base in Muldraugh (probably spelled that wrong) suddenly your guy in the gun shop is in meta and your "new" person is not. it would really mess with the meta game operation.

 

If you limit it to only NPCS you can see it might be a little better though it would be a B**** to catch one while they are running around.

[King jjwpenguin]

I don't care for this idea. I don't hate it but i don't like it. I think the game is fine how it but if you really want it you could ask someone to make a mod of it.

[ORMtnMan]

I don't care for this idea. I don't hate it but i don't like it. I think the game is fine how it but if you really want it you could ask someone to make a mod of it.

 

Okay... as I have mentioned many times, you are entitled to your opinion. Though stating your opinion without having any gameplay or mechanics reasoning why or why not does not help the conversation in the slightest.

 

You effectively said, "I don't really like this idea. Thus, it should not happen. Because it should not happen, if X still wants this they can make a mod (or ask someone to)"

 

The statement you made took your opinion and imposed it as if it was the letter of the law. I am not trying to be combative, I am trying to point out the logical fallacy in your statement. 

 

LONG story short, I would love to debate the mechanic/gameplay reasons this idea is or is not a good one, but I can't debate your opinion.

[Zorak]

 

 

 

On survival - death and option to respawn with new character.

Sandbox - you can choose from:

-death and its over

-when you die you can take control over frendly NPC

-during the game you can switch between frendly NPC (just like in state of decay).

Why ? Coz its sandbox and its fun to take control over your group when your main dies just to continue the story.

-

 

Well, I will say that it would be a bit much to transfer characters during a game.

 

First, code-wise, I imagine it would be a nightmare.

 

Second, if we were able to switch between characters it would defeat the purpose of asking the NPCs to do something/having their "liking" of you determine if they listen or not. You would just override them not wanting to listen to your PC by taking direct control.

 

I argue that dying then taking over an NPC is different because you still have to deal with interations and asking favors, etc.

 

Thats why i think it might be only a sandbox option.

Then to switch character you need to be frendly with them, so first you need to earn their trust.

I agree that it will make death less scary but, still once the character dies its dead and all skills are lost. the state of decay works that way, and its still fun.

Keep the main survival mode as it is but more options in sandbox never hurts.

 

 

I can see your point, though I would still say that making the transfer mid-game would logistically be a nightmare.

 

Having a whole set of controls to select and transfer control while still controlling your character would requre a major rework of how player manipulation works. Especially if you extrapolate out the transfer of control to a friendly NPC that is in a different square.

 

For example, you are over in Westpoint looting the gun store, the rest of the "world" is in meta game at that point. You switch to your companion who is back at a base in Muldraugh (probably spelled that wrong) suddenly your guy in the gun shop is in meta and your "new" person is not. it would really mess with the meta game operation.

 

If you limit it to only NPCS you can see it might be a little better though it would be a B**** to catch one while they are running around.

 

Well i dont know much about coding but as far as i know ther is option to send NPC`s for scavage missions when meta game control them. The whole point is to switch youre character with NPC. So once you switch to NPC in mouldraugh and leave your main in west point the AI will take control over him and "meta game" will do just the same thing as you would send normal NPC for scavage missions.

[ORMtnMan]

 

**clipped**

Well i dont know much about coding but as far as i know ther is option to send NPC`s for scavage missions when meta game control them. The whole point is to switch youre character with NPC. So once you switch to NPC in mouldraugh and leave your main in west point the AI will take control over him and "meta game" will do just the same thing as you would send normal NPC for scavage missions.

 

 

Just think though that the Metagame does not track exact positions of any npcs or zombies. it would randomly place you within a zone when  you switched...

[Ewok]

 

Okay... as I have mentioned many times, you are entitled to your opinion. Though stating your opinion without having any gameplay or mechanics reasoning why or why not does not help the conversation in the slightest.

 

You effectively said, "I don't really like this idea. Thus, it should not happen. Because it should not happen, if X still wants this they can make a mod (or ask someone to)"

 

The statement you made took your opinion and imposed it as if it was the letter of the law. I am not trying to be combative, I am trying to point out the logical fallacy in your statement. 

 

LONG story short, I would love to debate the mechanic/gameplay reasons this idea is or is not a good one, but I can't debate your opinion.

 

 

Everyone's entitled to their opinion dude, and not everyone is looking to join in a debate. No harm in expressing that opinion, that's what the suggestion forum is for.

 

I also think the game is fine as it is now, and this change would be a BIG change, so the resulting game would not be the game as it is now.

 

TIS are all about giving you a character and then killing him/her. "This is the story about how you died" is the principle of the game - it's not the story of a group, it's the story of a person and it has an ending (i.e. their ending).

 

Not saying it wouldn't be interesting and maybe even fun - I enjoyed State of Decay well enough - but it's not in keeping with the underlying Zomboid principle.

[ORMtnMan]

 

 

Okay... as I have mentioned many times, you are entitled to your opinion. Though stating your opinion without having any gameplay or mechanics reasoning why or why not does not help the conversation in the slightest.

 

You effectively said, "I don't really like this idea. Thus, it should not happen. Because it should not happen, if X still wants this they can make a mod (or ask someone to)"

 

The statement you made took your opinion and imposed it as if it was the letter of the law. I am not trying to be combative, I am trying to point out the logical fallacy in your statement. 

 

LONG story short, I would love to debate the mechanic/gameplay reasons this idea is or is not a good one, but I can't debate your opinion.

 

 

Everyone's entitled to their opinion dude, and not everyone is looking to join in a debate. No harm in expressing that opinion, that's what the suggestion forum is for.

 

I also think the game is fine as it is now, and this change would be a BIG change, so the resulting game would not be the game as it is now.

 

TIS are all about giving you a character and then killing him/her. "This is the story about how you died" is the principle of the game - it's not the story of a group, it's the story of a person and it has an ending (i.e. their ending).

 

Not saying it wouldn't be interesting and maybe even fun - I enjoyed State of Decay well enough - but it's not in keeping with the underlying Zomboid principle.

 

 

I agree, people are entitled to their opinion.

 

However, there is a big difference in arguments between you and King jjwpenguin.

 

His entire argument was "I don't like this, thus it should not happen". Whereas, your argument cited objective reasons why you think it would not fit with the game.

 

This is what I am pointing out. One argument is helpful to the debate, one is not. One can lead to a real discussion, one will not.

 

Imagine if a politician was in a debate and when asked if he supported a bill to protect kittens (to be hyperbolic) and all he said was "I don't like this bill, we shouldn't pass it", he/she would be a laughing stock. You can't have a discussion about that, there are no points to counter no persuasive facts....

 

Anyway enough of that. I understand your argument and you make a good point on TIS's intentions with the game. Which is why I doubt they will implement this idea. Though I still point to the fact that they allow you to respawn in your map with the same group of people and the same already built base with supplies which you could just waltz in and take (probably, I am not sure if item ownership would transfer to the NPCs).  So I don't really see enough of a divide between that instance where you get all your same stuff and just have to re-friend your NPCs and taking one over...