Jump to content

Edit History

Ranzera

Ranzera


accidentally a word

5 hours ago, madmole said:

We decided ages ago that the wasteland would and should have the best loot because it is the most dangerous. Bombs dropped killing most instantly. The wasteland you see is "outskirts" where there was still physical destruction but not complete rubble. The radiation is what mostly killed everyone in these areas that is why the loot is good, the survivors there didn't live long enough to use up the supplies, most died instantly the remaining died of radiation poisoning or were killed by zombies. Seeing that it was ripe for the picking, bandits seize the opportunity and set up camps there and shoot on sight anyone caught looting their claim.

Except for all those bandits you guys are trying to convince us would love to live there. Lets forget the part where bandits have a tendency to loot everything that isn't nailed down.

 

5 hours ago, mdf25 said:

I think it would turn newbies off quite a bit but if someone wanted to add this idea themselves, then you could [banned word] the game to do that.

 

Having the forest as the easier biome is better in terms of game design imo because it caters to newbies and veterans. People who want it easier can build and live in forest but those seeking extra challenge can try burnt or wasteland living. It adds progression, slowly going to better areas for better loot as your character levels up which is good also.

I believe the go to code phrase for censored words is "Backstreet Boys Reunion Tour."

 

All of this only makes sense through the lens of having played too many games that make the same leap of logic in the name of "Game Balance." That's kinda what started me down this analysis of how this game is structured. People used to mostly go to 2 biomes (until TFP hilariously killed off one of them because it was "useless" outside of the fact that players loved it). Now they are making hamfisted attempts at justifying the remaining biomes that few people like.

 

You say that but you can't see how the following isn't progression?

 

Starting in a barren wasteland, everyone you know is dead. The only things around you are the shambling barely zombie viable corpses of the people you used to know and feral/infected dogs. You struggle to find scraps of food from the ruins around you and eventually have enough tools to try to push into the neighboring areas. There you find the occasional bandits but mostly the fast moving fresh zombies who've more recently turned from the local inhabitants. The tools are better here since it's not a destroyed wasteland but it's a lot more dangerous than where you were. At least crops will actually grow here, if not very well. You look to the greener areas in the distance. You long to be there, it's beautiful and fecund but it's heavily guarded by the bandits who've taken over and they don't like you. Maybe some day you'll be able to take a piece of their territory and claim it as your own.

 

I find it amusing that so many people bend over backwards trying to make this make sense when it really doesn't. Look at American history. What did the people with guns do to the people without guns? They took their great land, shoved the have nots into marginal/barren land and practically genocided them. That is what people do. Saying otherwise is just showcasing that people have been playing video games too long and their view of reality is warped in the name of "game balance."

 

I'm not calling for any changes here, I'm just saying that this makes very little sense.

Ranzera

Ranzera


accidentally a word

5 hours ago, madmole said:

We decided ages ago that the wasteland would and should have the best loot because it is the most dangerous. Bombs dropped killing most instantly. The wasteland you see is "outskirts" where there was still physical destruction but not complete rubble. The radiation is what mostly killed everyone in these areas that is why the loot is good, the survivors there didn't live long enough to use up the supplies, most died instantly the remaining died of radiation poisoning or were killed by zombies. Seeing that it was ripe for the picking, bandits seize the opportunity and set up camps there and shoot on sight anyone caught looting their claim.

Except for all those bandits you guys are trying to convince us would love to live there. Lets forget the part where bandits have a tendency to loot everything that isn't nailed down.

 

5 hours ago, mdf25 said:

I think it would turn newbies off quite a bit but if someone wanted to add this idea themselves, then you could [banned word] the game to do that.

 

Having the forest as the easier biome is better in terms of game design imo because it caters to newbies and veterans. People who want it easier can build and live in forest but those seeking extra challenge can try burnt or wasteland living. It adds progression, slowly going to better areas for better loot as your character levels up which is good also.

I believe the go to code phrase for censored words is "Backstreet Boys Reunion Tour."

 

All of this only makes sense through the lens of having played too many games that make the same leap of logic in the name of "Game Balance." That's kinda what started me down this analysis of how this game is structured. People used to mostly go to 2 biomes (until TFP hilariously killed off one of them because it was "useless" outside of the fact that players loved it). Now they are making hamfisted attempts at justifying the remaining biomes that few people like. You say that but you can't see how the following isn't progression?

 

Starting in a barren wasteland, everyone you know is dead. The only things around you are the shambling barely zombie viable corpses of the people you used to know and feral/infected dogs. You struggle to find scraps of food from the ruins around you and eventually have enough tools to try to push into the neighboring areas. There you find the occasional bandits but mostly the fast moving fresh zombies who've more recently turned from the local inhabitants. The tools are better here since it's not a destroyed wasteland but it's a lot more dangerous than where you were. At least crops will actually grow here, if not very well. You look to the greener areas in the distance. You long to be there, it's beautiful and fecund but it's heavily guarded by the bandits who've taken over and they don't like you. Maybe some day you'll be able to take a piece of their territory and claim it as your own.

 

I find it amusing that so many people bend over backwards trying to make this make sense when it really doesn't. Look at American history. What did the people with guns do to the people without guns? They took their great land, shoved the have nots into marginal/barren land and practically genocided them. That is what people do. Saying otherwise is just showcasing that people have been playing video games too long and their view of reality is warped in the name of "game balance."

 

I'm not calling for any changes here, I'm just saying that this makes very little sense.

Ranzera

Ranzera


accidentally a word

5 hours ago, madmole said:

We decided ages ago that the wasteland would and should have the best loot because it is the most dangerous. Bombs dropped killing most instantly. The wasteland you see is "outskirts" where there was still physical destruction but not complete rubble. The radiation is what mostly killed everyone in these areas that is why the loot is good, the survivors there didn't live long enough to use up the supplies, most died instantly the remaining died of radiation poisoning or were killed by zombies. Seeing that it was ripe for the picking, bandits seize the opportunity and set up camps there and shoot on sight anyone caught looting their claim.

Except for all those bandits you guys are trying to convince us would love to live there. Lets forget the part where bandits have a tendency to loot everything that isn't nailed down.

 

5 hours ago, mdf25 said:

I think it would turn newbies off quite a bit but if someone wanted to add this idea themselves, then you could [banned word] the game to do that.

 

Having the forest as the easier biome is better in terms of game design imo because it caters to newbies and veterans. People who want it easier can build and live in forest but those seeking extra challenge can try burnt or wasteland living. It adds progression, slowly going to better areas for better loot as your character levels up which is good also.

I believe the go to code phrase for censored words is "Backstreet Boys Reunion Tour."

 

All of this only makes sense through the lens of having played too many games that make the same leap of logic in the name of "Game Balance." That's kinda what started me down this analysis of how this game is structured. People used to mostly go to 2 biomes (until TFP hilariously killed off one of them because it was "useless" outside of the fact that players loved it). Now they are making hamfisted attempts at justifying the remaining biomes that few people like. You say that but you can't see how the following isn't progression?

 

Starting in a barren wasteland, everyone you know is dead. The only things around you are the shambling barely zombie viable corpses of the people you used to know and feral/infected dogs. You struggle to find scraps of food from the ruins around you and eventually have enough tools to try to push into the neighboring areas. There you find the occasional bandits but mostly the fast moving fresh zombies who've more recently turned from the local inhabitants. The tools are better here since it's not a destroyed wasteland but it's a lot more dangerous than where you were. At least crops will actually grow here, if not very well. You look to the greener areas in the distance. You long to be there, it's beautiful and fecund but it's heavily guarded by the bandits who've taken over and they don't like you. Maybe some day you'll be able to take a piece of their territory and claim it as your own.

 

I find it amusing that so many people bend over backwards trying to make this make sense when it really doesn't. Look at American history. What did the people with guns do to the people without guns? They took their great land, shoved the have nots into marginal/barren land and practically genocided them. That is what people do. Saying otherwise is just showcasing that people have been playing video too long and their view of reality is warped in the name of "game balance."

 

I'm not calling for any changes here, I'm just saying that this makes very little sense.

Ranzera

Ranzera

5 hours ago, madmole said:

We decided ages ago that the wasteland would and should have the best loot because it is the most dangerous. Bombs dropped killing most instantly. The wasteland you see is "outskirts" where there was still physical destruction but not complete rubble. The radiation is what mostly killed everyone in these areas that is why the loot is good, the survivors there didn't live long enough to use up the supplies, most died instantly the remaining died of radiation poisoning or were killed by zombies. Seeing that it was ripe for the picking, bandits seize the opportunity and set up camps there and shoot on sight anyone caught looting their claim.

Except for all those bandits you guys are trying to convince us would love to live there. Lets forget the part where bandits have a tendency to loot everything that isn't nailed down.

 

4 hours ago, mdf25 said:

I think it would turn newbies off quite a bit but if someone wanted to add this idea themselves, then you could [banned word] the game to do that.

 

Having the forest as the easier biome is better in terms of game design imo because it caters to newbies and veterans. People who want it easier can build and live in forest but those seeking extra challenge can try burnt or wasteland living. It adds progression, slowly going to better areas for better loot as your character levels up which is good also.

I believe the go to code phrase for censored words is "Backstreet Boys Reunion Tour."

 

All of this only makes sense through the lens of having played too many games that make the same leap of logic in the name of "Game Balance." That's kinda what started me down this analysis of how this game is structured. People used to mostly go to 2 biomes (until TFP hilariously killed off one of them because it was "useless" outside of the fact that players loved it). Now they are making hamfisted attempts at justifying the remaining biomes that few people like. You say that but you can't see how the following isn't progression?

 

Starting in a barren wasteland, everyone you know is dead. The only things around you are the shambling barely zombie viable corpses of the people you used to know and feral/infected dogs. You struggle to find scraps of food from the ruins around you and eventually have enough tools to try to push into the neighboring areas. There you find the occasional bandits but mostly the fast moving fresh zombies who've more recently turned from the local inhabitants. The tools are better here since it's not a destroyed wasteland but it's a lot more dangerous than where you were. At least crops will actually grow here, if not very well. You look to the greener areas in the distance. You long to be there, it's beautiful and fecund but it's heavily guarded by the bandits who've taken over and they don't like you. Maybe some day you'll be able to take a piece of their territory and claim it as your own.

 

I find it amusing that so many people bend over backwards trying to make this make sense when it really doesn't. Look at American history. What did the people with guns do to the people without guns? They took their great land, shoved the have nots into marginal/barren land and practically genocided them. That is what people do. Saying otherwise is just showcasing that people have been playing video too long and their view of reality is warped in the name of "game balance."

 

I'm not calling for any changes here, I'm just saying that this very little sense.

×
×
  • Create New...