Suggestion to reduce the "shoot on sight" mentality: More lethal zombies

[TeaLeaf 5]

So since the announcement about bandit skins being removed everyone has been suggesting equally unrealistic system such as insanity or some kind of reputation thing. I think I have a more "natural" solution that doesn't directly force people to play nice, just makes it more beneficial.

Currently it isn't too difficult to solo the game and avoid being killed by zombies. Teaming up helps a bit but it isn't a must. My suggestion is to add new zombie types or give the regular zombies new abilities to make teamwork exponentially easier than soloing and make zombies the main threat again. The idea is that having at least one teammate is more important to survival than having "phat lootz" so you will be less likely to just gun down someone. Now even if you are merciless bastard, having someone around is useful.

So the sort of thing I'd like to see is effectively zombies that can "grab" you (and start eating your face). After being grabbed you can't get out of it by yourself, someone has to shoot the zombie off you or something. The regular zombies would have a certain percentage chance of performing this grab instead of a regular attack. Now going solo is very risky, as zombies can basically one shot kill a lone player.

I think if even more lethal zombies where added further down the road we'd see much more teamwork. Even if it is just serve a mutual goal.

[proxzor 3]

Yeah I was discussing the same on teamspeak with friends yesterday but I dont know what kind of zombies would work in this game. Just looking at a game like Left for Dead, I dont think any one of those zombies can actually work in this game so you need something completely different. I wonder if it works if you add different stronger zombies.

[TeaLeaf 5]

I think something like the hunter could probably work. Just a faster monkey zombie that can pounce short distances and pin you down.

[Leechman 8]

I agree that zombies need to be more threatening in order to challenge a player's decision-making.

I disagree about zombies grabbing players or having a one-shot ability on lone players. Instead have them respond to actions that players may undertake.

For Example:

Spawn more zombies in an are if X shots have been fired in Y seconds.

Increase aggro radius of gunfire if X shots have been fired in quick succession.

Spawn zombies around players have have moved less than X metres in Y minutes.

[Domakk 0]

@Leechman:

So you get a penalty for fending of a horde on your own or for being a good shooter, this may also result in a loop of zombie respawns, as it is the case at the moment with the spawnbug.

Example:

1. Three survivors enter a town

2. They kill a few zombies (maybe one of them attracts some more Zeds that the others and has to shoot more and faster)

3. More zombies spawn and are attracted to the survivors

4. Jump to point 2

[TeaLeaf 5]

I agree that zombies need to be more threatening in order to challenge a player's decision-making.

I disagree about zombies grabbing players or having a one-shot ability on lone players. Instead have them respond to actions that players may undertake.

For Example:

Spawn more zombies in an are if X shots have been fired in Y seconds.

Increase aggro radius of gunfire if X shots have been fired in quick succession.

Spawn zombies around players have have moved less than X metres in Y minutes.

That doesn't really make grouping easier than soloing, it just makes the entire game harder.

[Leechman 8]

@Leechman:

So you get a penalty for fending of a horde on your own or for being a good shooter' date=' this may also result in a loop of zombie respawns, as it is the case at the moment with the spawnbug.

Example:

1. Three survivors enter a town

2. They kill a few zombies (maybe one of them attracts some more Zeds that the others and has to shoot more and faster)

3. More zombies spawn and are attracted to the survivors

4. Jump to point 2

[/quote']

You get a penalty for acting recklessly.

If you're a good shooter, you will take careful, considered shots and not be in-efficient with ammo.

What I was suggesting is increase the threat of zombies in order to increase the risk of decisions that are currently not that risky.

I'm not saying that there doesn't need to be careful balancing, because there does.

That doesn't really make grouping easier than soloing, it just makes the entire game harder.

I don't believe one type of gameplay should be easier than the other. The game needs to increase the challenge that zombies pose, affecting the decision-making process for all players.

[Domakk 0]

So everybody who survives a zombie apocalypse is a crack shot? Cool.

[TeaLeaf 5]

Then the exact problems we have now will remain. People just shoot each other because they have no reason to risk trusting them. Making all other players a valuable survival asset gives a reason to take a chance on randoms.

[Leechman 8]

You're misunderstanding the criteria I was suggesting.

I'm not saying if someone shoots a few times within a minute. I'm talking about high amounts of shots - Rapid firing - in a short amount of time, a matter of seconds.

This would then be further balanced for weapons and number of players.

It would deter recklessness and inter-player gun battles.

[TeaLeaf 5]

I still don't see what that solves though. People will still put each other down if they think they can do it in one shot and if they are in the country side killing will occur as usual.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that it doesn't fix this particular issue.

[sALADIN1 7]

Maybe make military bases have many more zombies, therefore making people team up to get the BEST gear, but still making a soloing an option to just survive.

[TeaLeaf 5]

Yeah but then unless you are actually near a military base, shoot on sight will still be in effect.