Switching to NPC's

[willow512]

The thought that prompted this suggestion is that when you've built a group of survivors. The story becomes not just about the individual, but about the group as well, if one of them dies then that's not the end of the story for that group. 

 

I see two obvious ways the game could change to reflect that:

First off the lite option: your player character dies. So you get the option to continue playing as one of your npc buddies.

 

Then the full blown option: Since the game is no longer about the temporary survival of an individual but has become about the survival of a group. Why not switch between NPC's in your group at will?

 

Then there's the somewhat less obvious option where you respawn a new character who is or becomes part of that group.

 

It would surely add a dimension to the game.You give an NPC the instruction to go to a store. Whilst he's travelling you do base construction, upon his arrival you switch to the npc, loot the store, tell the man to go home, and switch back to continue base construction.  It wouldn't trivialize the game, and it might be a way to get the player closer to the NPC so they become more than just game assets similar to a pile of wood or a gun turret.

 

 

[Liva98989]

I just don't think that's a good idea to be honest, it kind of takes away the excitement of the game and adds a safety-net for players. It's also makes you want not to die, because you'll die and can't be revived. And that's a factor that makes this game. I think you will be able to give npc's instructions, but if they obey your command is also up to them, and again, adds another factor to the game that you will remove by giving you the option to switch. I liked it in state of decay, but that was because the game was build around that philosophy that you could switch, but I really just think it will take away too much of the survival part of the game. 

[zukas]

It's alright idea. But it would be hard to make it without flaws and properly AI'd. But it's not that bad idea of course.

[ToastedFishSandwich]

It would make a good mod, but wouldn't be well recieved in vanilla.

[TinnedEpic]

It's a Nah from me. You could just switch between NPCs and effectively never die. It lessens the risk of Zombie attack begin able to control an NPC for looting, fighting or barricading. This idea is very much like the feature currently in the game State of Decay. It works for State of Decay because it's about setting up a small society. But PZ I feel is about individual survival.

[willow512]

I expected opposition to the idea. Please allow me to invite you to consider the issue a little deeper.

 

Your biggest collective argument is that you'll get infinite lives, yet if I look a the game I see we have infinite lives right now! Penalty of death is loss of skills, and the necessity for a corpse run, you get your items, crops, safehouse and stores back. You even get the option to re-pick your traits! People tend to not use this respawn unless they have a big viable safe-house built and want to continue with it.

 

The fact to note here is that you can play as another survivor in the same saved game right now! So any objections regarding infinite lives should be directed at the current situation and not at my suggestions! 

 

My suggestion given the current situation is merely: Why not respawn as one of the NPC's in your care instead of an entirely new character which will 99% of the time do nothing else but immediately (re)join that community. This is merely a minor change.

 

Of course you still want to keep your character alive. The corpserun is still there (presuming the player will carry his good weapons and bags). The option to pick your own traits is effectively taken away. In exchange for that the Loss of skills won't be as severe, though you will probably still lose some skill. And your community ends up -1 characters. Death still very much sucks.

 

Finally, a bit off topic maybe... But I don't feel Zomboid to be about individual survival, as soon as NPC's are in we're all going to gather survivors around us, players will naturally connect feelings to NPC's. NPC's for this reason alone offer options to deepen the game and they will be exploited by the devs. Whatever your opinion on switching to npc's is, you cannot deny that being in a group makes it a game about group survival instead of personal survival.. It is human nature to consider your group almost as important as your self. I personally can't wait to get NPC's in the game for exactly that reason. It will definately become the story of how "We" died...

[willow512]

No further thoughts?

[nasKo]

The only issue I have with it is that you could change to a character that has achieved something without you actually achieving it.

 

E.g. changing to a leader of a group while it's not really you who's always going to be the leader, etc.

 

I don't see how the "infinite lives" is an argument here as - just as willow512 states - you can already continue the same world with a different character.

[Rathlord]

It's not so much that the game is only about individual survival, it's that it's about survival from an individual's perception which is fundamentally different.

 

The whole thing about NPC's is about cooperating with others and trying to get along with them in a tense environment. If this was the case and you could swap control at any time, when things were getting tense (let's say two people were about to fight over leadership of the group) you could just take control of one of the people and have them lock themselves in the bathroom for a while. It effectively takes a massive chunk of the entire point of NPC's and gets rid of it.

 

It's also just a fundamentally different game type that let's you shift control over multiple characters. It requires different programming, and is really something very different. PZ would become more like an RTS game than anything else.

 

And, slightly off topic, but for what it's worth I really feel that people who run back to safe-houses/corpses are "cheating" in a big way anyways, so it's not a very good justification for this system. Obviously your (new) character could have no idea where this person's corpse and stash are, so no matter how you try to explain it you are cheating in a way, and I don't take anyone's survival times who does this seriously.

[nasKo]

Ah. Correction then, after reading Rath's post.

 

I'm against OP's "full blown option" because Rathlord.

 

 

I'm pro OP's "lite option" because why the fuck not.

[GodWaffle]

I don't like the idea, mainly because you would essnetially change an NPC's personality by playing as them, you may switch to someone who could be about to rob the group or murder someone, and that's the kind of dynamics I want to see with NPC's, I want people to lose their sanity, I want people to betray my group.

Once you switch to that person, they're no longer a psycho (you may never know if they were, as they never had the chance to commit the act).  I think it would be more exciting to make a new character, and upon arriving at your group's camp, find them all dead/zombified or have this guy as the leader now, and be able to learn about how he went out on a supply run with their old leader and came back alone.  

It's not a bad idea, but simply because I want NPC's with personalities, I'm gonna have to say it's not for me.

-GodWaffle

[Rathlord]

I would possibly be okay with the Lite option in Sandbox. I think I would never approve of it in Survival.

[Headshotkill]

I don't think this idea really works with the concept of the game. I mean, you're looking through the eyes of a random person who has to survive in a post-apocalyptic world. You might make friends but you will NEVER know how they look at the world, maybe they secretly hate you and want to plot with others. It will also be difficult to bond with said character cause you will have new persons to control all the time and this also keeps you alert. You have one guy, one life and you won't get it back if you loose it.

[willow512]

Are the npc's planned to have such elaborate personalities? Like how they feel about others, or planning a coup or betrayal within the survivor group? Unless those plans are seriously on the table I doubt it's very sensible to use them as arguments. If they are then they're potentially valid arguments but we'll have to see how the npc's turn out first. 

 

I'm doubtfull that we'll see surivor groups of which we're not the leader anytime soon. The AI required to manage a group is quite a programming feat, the developers would more than likely initially just delegate the whole leadership role to the player because it's easy to get that to work and they'll have time to study how players react to being in groups. It's just common sense to take the path of least resistance.

 

The lite option is good enough for me. I personally don't agree that switching between characters breaks the immersion. Like I said, I believe players will begin to emotionally bond with the group and not the individual. What's important is the fun people can have.

 

An option in the sandbox to toggle  lite or full switching could be a good solution. But if you don't even want the lite switch then just end the game after you died and don't respawn, much like right now you don't respawn if you don't want to.

[nasKo]

Are the npc's planned to have such elaborate personalities? Like how they feel about others, or planning a coup or betrayal within the survivor group? Unless those plans are seriously on the table I doubt it's very sensible to use them as arguments. If they are then they're potentially valid arguments but we'll have to see how the npc's turn out first. 

 

I'm doubtfull that we'll see surivor groups of which we're not the leader anytime soon.

 

Yes they are planned to react differently towards you, plotting and scheming, etc.

The fact that it's going to take time and work isn't an argument for working on a feature like the one you're suggesting.

 

I don't think this idea really works with the concept of the game. I mean, you're looking through the eyes of a random person who has to survive in a post-apocalyptic world. You might make friends but you will NEVER know how they look at the world, maybe they secretly hate you and want to plot with others. It will also be difficult to bond with said character cause you will have new persons to control all the time and this also keeps you alert. You have one guy, one life and you won't get it back if you loose it.

The concept of continuing in the same world is already in the game, though.

I don't see how continuing the same world with a different character is okay but splipping into the shoes of an NPC is a no-go?!

[Headshotkill]

 

I don't think this idea really works with the concept of the game. I mean, you're looking through the eyes of a random person who has to survive in a post-apocalyptic world. You might make friends but you will NEVER know how they look at the world, maybe they secretly hate you and want to plot with others. It will also be difficult to bond with said character cause you will have new persons to control all the time and this also keeps you alert. You have one guy, one life and you won't get it back if you loose it.

The concept of continuing in the same world is already in the game, though.

I don't see how continuing the same world with a different character is okay but splipping into the shoes of an NPC is a no-go?!

 

 

IT WILL DESTROY THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM!            

[LeoIvanov]

I think it should be perfectly fine for people who want to play it that way in sandbox mode - After all, it's called Sandbox for a reason. You play the game the way you want to, and not the way the game forces you to.

 

In Survival/Stories/Last Stand/whatever else is going to be added, It's a straight up No-No. Obviously - In the story, you follow up certain character's story, so switching to someone else is just noncensial. Survival is meant to be a mode where the game tests for how long you can survive in extreme measures. Last stand, it's just obvious.

 

So, yeah, why not - In Sandbox. No to every other mode.

[willow512]

So, yeah, why not - In Sandbox. No to every other mode.

I think that's a good summary for the average opinion of participants in this thread.

 

Maybe one day the game mode "Group survival" will be invented

[Rathlord]

Willow, just for the sake of clarity, the last time Lemmy chatted about survivor groups he actually said leadership would probably be in the hands of NPC's long before it was in our hands, so there's that. Like I said, it invariably will destroy any kind of group dynamic you had.

 

Also, it's worth noting, being able to continue your world in survival may not be around much longer.

[Headshotkill]

Willow, just for the sake of clarity, the last time Lemmy chatted about survivor groups he actually said leadership would probably be in the hands of NPC's long before it was in our hands, so there's that. Like I said, it invariably will destroy any kind of group dynamic you had.

 

Also, it's worth noting, being able to continue your world in survival may not be around much longer.

 

It would actually be EXACTLY like the sims: Two people hate each other --- you control both and let them do nice things to each other --- no challenge at all...

[LeoIvanov]

 

Willow, just for the sake of clarity, the last time Lemmy chatted about survivor groups he actually said leadership would probably be in the hands of NPC's long before it was in our hands, so there's that. Like I said, it invariably will destroy any kind of group dynamic you had.

 

Also, it's worth noting, being able to continue your world in survival may not be around much longer.

 

It would actually be EXACTLY like the sims: Two people hate each other --- you control both and let them do nice things to each other --- no challenge at all...

 

 

Gh.

 

Don't remind me of sims... Them releasing ton of DLC's (that cost like 1/3 of initial game) just to announce Sims 4 with significantly less features and then scrub more money out of people by releasing more of DLC's... Which are the same, but "For sims 4!!!1"

 

There has already been a DLC for Sims 2 for pets. It seemed like a reasonable reason to add them in Sims 3 when it comes out... NOPE! DLC! Because... MONEY!

 

 

On topic : In basic survival I assume this function wouldn't make sense.. But why wouldn't it be cool to have as an option in sandbox? IMO - totally worth it.

[Footmuffin]

 

 

Willow, just for the sake of clarity, the last time Lemmy chatted about survivor groups he actually said leadership would probably be in the hands of NPC's long before it was in our hands, so there's that. Like I said, it invariably will destroy any kind of group dynamic you had.

 

Also, it's worth noting, being able to continue your world in survival may not be around much longer.

 

It would actually be EXACTLY like the sims: Two people hate each other --- you control both and let them do nice things to each other --- no challenge at all...

 

 

Gh.

 

Don't remind me of sims... Them releasing ton of DLC's (that cost like 1/3 of initial game) just to announce Sims 4 with significantly less features and then scrub more money out of people by releasing more of DLC's... Which are the same, but "For sims 4!!!1"

 

There has already been a DLC for Sims 2 for pets. It seemed like a reasonable reason to add them in Sims 3 when it comes out... NOPE! DLC! Because... MONEY!

 

 

On topic : In basic survival I assume this function wouldn't make sense.. But why wouldn't it be cool to have as an option in sandbox? IMO - totally worth it.

 

They aren't DLC! They're expansion packs, silly.

[CyberspyXD]

This should only be in sandbox. 

[nasKo]

Also, it's worth noting, being able to continue your world in survival may not be around much longer.

Really? This is new to me.

Source?

[Guest]

 

Also, it's worth noting, being able to continue your world in survival may not be around much longer.

Really? This is new to me.

Source?

 

 

Yeah. 

 

Never knew this was gonna happen, and I'm generally well informed of what goes around in PZ o.0

 

Give us the source!