Multiplayer zombie survival horror: Players can work together to barricade and secure areas or buildings. However, this is a one man project on very limited budget. I can't afford to create new areas/buildings all the time as old areas/buildings get secured.
Possible solution: instead of securing the entire area/building, players only get to secure a few rooms or a small part of the entire area. The rest of the area/building is still a danger zone and zombies spawn as usual.
What do you guys think of this, and do you guys have any other ideas?
How to let players secure/win locations on limited budget.
Programming thought: If content creation is a problem, either generate the content, or make tools that allow you to create good content quickly.
Game design thought: I see nothing wrong with only securing sections of a building.
Are barricades permanent, or do they get broken down by zombies over time?
I admit, I'm unclear as to why the budget is a barrier insofar as creating new areas/buildings "as old areas/buildings get secured". Assets are ever a boundary, but in a one man project why not recycle assets like crazy? Why not number the buildings or color them differently or use a mini-map to illustrate where the players are relative to buildings they've locked down?
I must be missing something, I'm sorry. Is this intended to be a persistent world? How many players? What am I missing? :)
If you plan the whole thing ready, and program those Zombies so that they can run from any Spawn Points to the Players, then a single designer can pump out multiple levels in no time at all, by using modular art assets and just move spawn points, barricades, windows, doors, rooms, staircases, etc etc etc around.
Apartment blocks - Can secure floors or rooms - you have the added fear of whether it is another player or zombie when going up or down the stairs and the building requirements are very repeatable given the way they are built.
Author
I must be missing something, I'm sorry. Is this intended to be a persistent world? How many players? What am I missing?
PBBG - persistant browser based game. Effectively an "MMORPG" for around ~100 players played in browser with very little graphics.
Are barricades permanent, or do they get broken down by zombies over time?
Semi-permanent. They last for a long time until some catastrophic event that rarely happens (someone setting off a bomb etc) destroys them.
Author
Thanks to everyone who suggested recycling art assets and using programming tools to "mass produce" levels.
That slipped my mind because I have been working on the server code and user interface for weeks with a MUD (multi-user dungeon) mindset. In MUDs, every area/dungeon is handcrafted and unique, and almost no one "generates" them by code. The networking code is based on MUD design principles and my mind kinda got locked in.
That slipped my mind because I have been working on the server code and user interface for weeks with a MUD (multi-user dungeon) mindset. In MUDs, every area/dungeon is handcrafted and unique, and almost no one "generates" them by code. The networking code is based on MUD design principles and my mind kinda got locked in.
+1, brilliant suggestion.Apartment blocks - Can secure floors or rooms - you have the added fear of whether it is another player or zombie when going up or down the stairs and the building requirements are very repeatable given the way they are built.
Instead of making new resources all the time and occasionally blowing up the one's you've already spent the time to put in, why not just give players motivation to abandon a given safe-hold?
Something like zombies learning that the player is holed up there (attracted by the light/smell/what-have-you) over time could encourage players to use safe-places as temporary havens, moving on and opening the space for other players more frequently.
Or, you could make supplies dwindle over time in the area that is secured, such that the players have to travel further to get food/ammo and are thus at risk (outside of the safe zone) for longer periods of time because they have to travel further.
I'm not sure if these ideas are in line with your game-play mechanics, but I think, as a player, holing up in a building doesn't sound like much fun for long periods of time. If there were benefits to hopping between safe-zones (securing one, then abandoning it in favor of another), I think I'd wind up not only seeing more of the game-world because I'd be on the move, but because I'd probably log-in more frequently.
That's just my two-cents, though; again, I really don't know your game's design, and I just want to throw out ideas in the hopes of helping.
Author
Thanks for the input - it was helpful. I'm sorry I didn't provide much details about my game.NoAdmiral, on 27 Jan 2013 - 14:48, said:
I'm not sure if these ideas are in line with your game-play mechanics, but I think, as a player, holing up in a building doesn't sound like much fun for long periods of time. If there were benefits to hopping between safe-zones (securing one, then abandoning it in favor of another), I think I'd wind up not only seeing more of the game-world because I'd be on the move, but because I'd probably log-in more frequently.
That's just my two-cents, though; again, I really don't know your game's design, and I just want to throw out ideas in the hopes of helping.
After reading the inputs in this thread, I was going to go for something like "secure a floor in a multi-storey building so players can use it as a rest stop before climbing further up". And then occassionally I'll trigger catastrophic events (bomb, zombie overrun etc) to destroy the barricades - allowing another attempt to capture/secure the floor.
You make a good point about giving an incentive to hope between safe-zones. I'll remember to incorporate it to my design. Thanks!
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
