• Announcements

    • Brentonator

      Forum Rules (Please Read)

      Hello everyone and welcome to the No More Room In Hell Forums! We greatly appreciate your interest and support. Please feel free to begin post and become a part of this community. But please make sure that you read and understand the following rules so things can stay as clean and as orderly as possible around here. These rules are expected to be follow by any and all members at all times. Disobeying these rules will result in disciplinary action by a moderator. #1. Off color remarks are acceptable but can be deemed inappropriate at the discretion of the moderators. #2. Flaming and disrespecting other members of this community or this mod is strictly prohibited. #3. Please do not post links relating to warez or illegal downloading. #4. No offensive content is to be posted (gore, dead babies, porn). #5. Please do not spam topics to increase your post count. #6. No excessively large signatures. Signatures that violate this will be modified. #7. Signatures are not to be used as a spamming tool. If your signature's sole purpose is to annoy or distract other members, it will be removed. #8. Please do your part to be as friendly, respectful, and helpful to anyone and everyone on this forum. #9. Your posts may be removed at any time at our sole discretion. #10. Remember the terms of your registration...a copy is posted below but may not represent the latest version of our terms of use. #11. No advertising other communities or products. Have fun.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
treat

Anti-cooperative Aspects

18 posts in this topic

Strife among the living is what the Romero films have always been about, and I commend the NMRiH team for accounting for this in the mods design and with how well NMRiH conveys this theme. Many players may react adversely to the concepts of anti-cooperation because they interpret it as griefing, and in many cases it may actually be griefing, but I feel it adds an undeniable level of depth to the gameplay. Working together is a necessity, but you may find yourself in a situation where throwing someone else to the hoard may be your own best bet for escape. The amount of cooperative effort I've seen has been amazing, but it almost feels forced. There is currently either a great atmosphere of cooperation, or a total lack of cooperation through sheer ineptitude. What I would like to see is an element of players working against players for their own personal gain to even the scales, and it's a play style of which I think a number of players would embody and enjoy.

Not knowing who you can trust, I think, could have a few beneficial effects.

First and most obviously, it would allow for more interesting moments in gameplay and social interaction between players, whether through elaborate ploys to get another player alone and take their weapons without the rest of the survivors knowing you killed him, to simply failing to save another player from death for those pills on his belt he refused to give you. Second, it would surely be detrimental to cooperative efforts, making team play less reliable and harder to coordinate. This, in the long run, could help to maintain a certain level of difficulty which will naturally soften as players learn the maps, find all the secrets and discover all the tricks. Finally--and this is a stretch--implementing an open ended system of condoned griefing could reduce intended acts of griefing by allowing players to be "that asshole." A bit of reverse psychology. There would still be the necessity for counter measures against serious griefing, but the objective, I believe, is put an emphasis on disorder, self-preservation and conflict while still keeping these sorts of interactions socially taboo. Naturally, being counter productive to the rest of the players isn't going to earn you any favors (or your stay on the server) if you're doing it habitually.

As for suggestions, I have two:

Extending the player ability to shove zombies to other players, without damaging them. This serves a couple of purposes. The first is to build tension between players in an environment where social cues, expression and often language are at disconnect. "Maybe he shoved me by accident? Maybe he's egging me on? Maybe he'll try it again in a less than auspicious situation for me?" Whether playful or malicious, players will interpret the action differently from one another. The intent is to build a little bit of mistrust by offending our innate sense of personal space, something typically absent in games which we take very seriously in our every day lives. The second purpose is in the mechanical function, which is to give players the ability to push a fellow survivor into the hoard to allow themselves time to flee, shove another survivor out of the clutches of a zombie to help them escape, or to push an overzealous axe swinger aside to give the gunman a clear shot.

Limited zombie play once succumbing to infection, though not when dying at the hands of zombies and rising again. We've all been confronted with that moment of indecision just before infection takes you, and there are two options that run through our heads. To actively support your friends by handing over your gun and ammo and allowing them to finish you off, or to slink around in the shadows, wait to turn, and hope your terribly inept AI zombie manages to take some people out so you don't have to spend 10 minutes sitting in spec. I've seen very little of the second option, largely due to how the AI zombie responds being well out of the players control. Giving players limited mobility with their corpse (slow turning speed, no strafing, no ducking, automatically attacking players on contact) would provide incentive to not go quiet into that good night, but to get crafty and have a shot at cutting down that spectating time without making human zombie players too effective or overpowered.

Thoughts?

Edited by treat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see this working in some ways.

It'll be very abused by "Trolls" or people who find killing their team mates fun, however in a mature environment i wouldn't mind some events where a player must sacrifice themselves for the team in order for the team to escape.

It adds a heart breaking experience as well as a heroic experience. Which I'd gladly sacrifice myself if my team needs to survive.

However i wouldn't want this implemented in so that it's scripted I'd have it added so sometimes a player might need to and sometimes a player may not have too, perhaps in some situation the player need not die and find an alternate route to the extraction? Which would bring the experience of feeling abandoned but the need to continue to help your team mates.

So i could see this as both a great implementation and also an abused implementation.

I also like the idea of having Human Enemies to kill, there's always people who dislike other people's idea of a plan which they separate themselves from the group and start their own, trying to control area's.

There's always Human Conflict no matter what the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is to balance the moments of heroism with moments of depravity, conflict and self-preservation. A good (maybe obscure) example of why is the old Zombie Master map Red Queen. One player is forced to sacrifice himself for the others to complete the map, and it was a good idea at first. After playing the map a number of times, the gesture becomes mechanic and loses its effect. It stopped being fun relatively quickly. Striking a balance between teamwork and selfishness serves to ripen the fruits of each.

As for human enemies, if AI enemies is what you're implying, I don't feel it's a good idea for the same reason cited in the above example. It's not exactly "human" conflict, but conflict between actual humans and AI, which is exactly what the game is now with only zombies. It's mechanic and without feeling. The whole point of anti-coop is to bring real conflict between the real people who play NMRiH to elaborate on the theme of "Man is the monster" that has always pervaded the films that so strongly influence this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is to balance the moments of heroism with moments of depravity, conflict and self-preservation. A good (maybe obscure) example of why is the old Zombie Master map Red Queen. One player is forced to sacrifice himself for the others to complete the map, and it was a good idea at first. After playing the map a number of times, the gesture becomes mechanic and loses its effect. It stopped being fun relatively quickly. Striking a balance between teamwork and selfishness serves to ripen the fruits of each.

That's because it's scripted to happen at that one point in the map. If it's dynamic and shifts between, having to die, needing to sacrifice yourself and finding alternate routes, or not doing it at all it'll be fine.

As for human enemies, if AI enemies is what you're implying, I don't feel it's a good idea for the same reason cited in the above example. It's not exactly "human" conflict, but conflict between actual humans and AI, which is exactly what the game is now with only zombies. It's mechanic and without feeling. The whole point of anti-coop is to bring real conflict between the real people who play NMRiH to elaborate on the theme of "Man is the monster" that has always pervaded the films that so strongly influence this game.

There's Zombie Panic Source for this though of course if they did add a game mode where it was Versus it'd be just like Left 4 Dead and in another post i remember the dev's saying they don't want to make their game like other games, they want theirs to be unique in different ways. But you have a point with it so i won't say it's a bad idea.

But none the less a good idea is always ruined by the people who think it's "Fun" to take the part where, being able to hurt a team mate or use a team mate as bait for your own survival to the level where it's not about survival but about them feeding their giant ego with their so called "Pranks".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because it's scripted to happen at that one point in the map. If it's dynamic and shifts between, having to die, needing to sacrifice yourself and finding alternate routes, or not doing it at all it'll be fine.

What I'm saying is, in relation to NMRiH, having it possible to pick up another survivor and throw them to their death for the good of the team (and yourself) instead of forcing one survivor to willingly kill themselves is a good thing. It spices up the gameplay by providing a greater element of social depth. Why limit and contextualize these sorts of moments? Put the ability to make these choices in the players hands at all times, in all situations. It doesn't need to be presented, scripted, by the mapper to happen. Give the players a greater ability to act human, and they'll do so on their own.

There's Zombie Panic Source for this though of course if they did add a game mode where it was Versus it'd be just like Left 4 Dead and in another post i remember the dev's saying they don't want to make their game like other games, they want theirs to be unique in different ways. But you have a point with it so i won't say it's a bad idea.

Then you completely misunderstand me. Let me elaborate: In both the games you mentioned, it is one team versus another. That's not my suggestion here. Players still rely on each other to survive, but sometimes working for personal gain is the better option for survival. I've been in situations where myself and another player, both without any weapons, were cornered by zombies coming through two doorways. What if, instead of futilely attempting to fight off the advancing hoard with just fists, I could instead push my companion into the arms of one of the zombies blocking our path, distracting him and giving myself the opportunity to slip by? This is the element of anti-coop I'm trying to outline, and it proves far more useful (and far less detrimental to other players) than simply popping a team mate in the head with friendly fire on.

Giving players the option to be unreliable, selfish, or outright hostile makes all players somewhat wary of one another. Accidentally cutting down a team mate who decided to run through you while attacking may not be such a common occurrence, and we may see more people allowing space between themselves and others for their own personal safety. With this, players may find themselves in interesting situations while fighting off single zeds because they're afraid to turn their backs on one another.

But none the less a good idea is always ruined by the people who think it's "Fun" to take the part where, being able to hurt a team mate or use a team mate as bait for your own survival to the level where it's not about survival but about them feeding their giant ego with their so called "Pranks".

There will be griefing regardless, that is unavoidable. Fortunately, having friendly fire as a central facet is already the worst of it. Implementing a system of vote kicking, while difficult with so few players, may be the best method for dealing with indiscriminate team killers. Like I said, these elements should be allowed while still socially unacceptable to keep them limited. Actively working against team mates could earn you a kick if you keep it up. Of my suggestions, the only one I can see being successfully abused is players shoving players, but keep in mind that on the streets, every bit of stamina matters. If you're continuously shoving other players, you'll find them easily outrunning you. You may even end up cornered by zombies because of it.

e; lastly, "for the lulz" isn't the only reason behind team killing. Sometimes people just get frustrated by another player and the best way for them to vent is to cut that player down. Having an ability to shove, while harmless, may also help vent those frustrations, further reducing team killing, and also giving the other player indication that there may be a problem, and that they should watch their back. Having one player immediately eliminated from the game does very little for tension between players in that specific round, and in the next, players will be out for vindication. Shoving allows players to build and expend those tensions in the same round without instantly killing each other and perpetuating a slap fight dragged out over the course of the next several games.

Edited by treat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I don't want to see player controlled zombies I did enjoy the bit about self-serving players, and maintaining a sense of chaos. That's why I wasn't for nerfing friendly fire. There's been times when I was killed for my weapons, and as crude as it was I did not internalize it, I did not seek revenge. I just kept playing. It was funny.

First you have: The Whiners. These are the guys who can't take losing. If it beat them, then it's "UNFAIR".

Second we have: The Mitigators. These guys are just total spineless suck ups. They don't want to offend anyone, and often times side with, or cater to 'The Whiners' while still trying to maintain their neutral stance to 'The Vengeful'. They have an active drive to win.

Third there is: The Vengeful. These guys are just total douche bags. They love winning, and they hate loosing. Winning often results in gloating, and self-proclamation. Loosing for them often results in reverting to their true state which is a 'The Whiner'. Slightly envious of 'The Relentless'.

And forth: The Relentless. Their behavior varies in nature, but generally keep to themselves. Does not internalize much of anything going on with the other types. He's there to kick ass, and take names, but doesn't care to be beaten as it is a challenge for him.

Edited by Leviathan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's why I'd say no to most of those ideas. This is a co-op game, and few people like to be the guy thrown to the zombies because they were trying to help their team. Moreover, 'in game' the characters wouldn't hold grudges, because each map is a new 'instance'. Since the old group is dead. New reality, etc. Out of game, throwing someone to the zombies will lead to people getting shot NEXT game, and then we'll wonder what's bannable/kickable. Is shoving me to zombies teamkilling? Is shoving me off a cliff? If you make TKing a sanctioned part of the game, then you can't kick or ban for it, since it's PART OF THE GAME. The moment you put dedicated mechanics in for such a purpose, the game becomes about that, or at least centers somewhat around it.

I don't want to have to worry about a single jerk ruining a match by throwing everyone to the zombies because it's slightly easier than shooting them. I don't want someone to judge their success by how many people they screw over. The reason such things are fun in movies is because it's dramatic and scripted and no-one's experience with the movie is ruined over it. If my first three games of a mod are "LOLZ WESA GUNNA THROU U 2 DE ZOMBAHS!" I'm gonna go and play a different mod. The FF is bad enough on its own for that, and at least it's mostly binary. Killing a team-member reduces your chances of winning, because it's one less gun and one less body to help. Shooting someone can happen by accident, but not 3 games or 3 people in a row. This creates a grey zone where griefing MIGHT be 'in character' rather than just being a dick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they add the push ability to not harm users then they need collision to the players (we dont go though each and other)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's why I'd say no to most of those ideas...

Adding friendly fire as a central aspect of the game doesn't automatically sanction it, as has been shown already. Providing alternatives to outright team killing should serve to reduce it, but even if it doesn't, having a shoving mechanic certainly won't convince more people to team kill nor persuade others that constant team killing (or counter-productive play) is okay any more than it already is. Since Friendly Fire is already a core element of the gameplay, I think we've overcome that initial hurdle of anti-coop to see that there are issues with it, but that it is overall beneficial to the gameplay. Introducing non-damaging alternatives for anti-cooperation can't hurt the gameplay more than turning friendly fire off already does.

I definitely agree, though, that "characters shouldn't hold grudges" between rounds, not for reason of some sort of obscure continuity or character development, but because--while it allows players to build impressions of others and respond to them as such--it can also distract from the actual gameplay. Thankfully, I don't think it's much of an issue, and will explain why. With or without friendly fire or anti-cooperative mechanics, players will inevitably respond to one another with non-cooperation for doing things they don't like. Furthermore, I've noticed that in similar round-based coop mods, players tend not to become vindictive with one another at the start of the next round because they'd simply prefer to play the game than risk getting killed again, though they will surely be wary of the player(s) in question from the previous round. All in all, I think round-to-round vindication is less of a problem than you'd think, especially with the friendly fire grace period at the start of rounds introduced in 1.01.

Finally, one player definitely isn't going to ruin the whole game. Maybe they'll cause a wipe or two, but other players will respond to their behavior accordingly. The "hunter" quickly becomes "the hunted," and their previous self-serving efforts will more likely come back to bite them in subsequent rounds. Also, while yes, I agree that introducing these mechanics isn't remotely similar to introducing complex and emotional character interactions as seen in a zombie film, but I feel they'd add additional depth to social player interaction which would be beneficial to the gameplay more so than it would be detrimental.

People will work counter productively whether or not there are mechanics provided to do so. It's fun for some people, I myself am viciously guilty of it from time to time. Think of it this way: The objective is to weld a door, so one of the players gathers up the welders and holds them just to impede progress, hiding in a safe place after everyone is dead and preventing the round from restarting. Because there's no friendly fire or further ability to work counter-productively, this is what griefers will most often resort to, and it's absolutely more detrimental than a simple team kill. Friendly fire could not only reduce instances of serious game-stopping griefing, but provides a counter measure against it.

If they add the push ability to not harm users then they need collision to the players (we dont go though each and other)

And, as a result, the biggest issue with player collision (players blocking doorways, objectives, ect) would be a mediated with a pushing mechanic in place.

Edited by treat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firemaster28, on 05 November 2011 - 01:39 PM, said:

If they add the push ability to not harm users then they need collision to the players (we dont go though each and other)

And, as a result, the biggest issue with player collision (players blocking doorways, objectives, ect) would be a mediated with a pushing mechanic in place.

My thinking exactly. And after reading all your post i'm starting to agree with you. No matter what there will be griefers and thats a given. And playing NMRH I havent experienced that one bit, except maybe once when in cabin the welder wasn't opening the door and one person shot the welder and we all killed that guy. But that goes with what your saying about the people killing the griefer. And with this type of game it already requires anti-coop decisions such as telling if your infected. But I think this type of stuff should be left with the decisions of the user. Such as if they add a shove ability to players they don't out right say "shove your enemies into zombies!". and if they add it, then player collisions are added to.

*in future development when the spawning is fixed think of this scenario

Group is running to the end of the hall door, open. Runners are right behind you, the last guy is lagging behind. If the last guy goes through there is no way to close the door and zombies will spill through. in the end you would take more casualties. Or you can shove the guy back and close the door only losing one.

And if I was that guy I would fully understand what happen and accept my death. Obviously not everyone will share that. But this game has shown me that people will do better for the group like letting you kill them if there infected, or running off in the opposite direction killing all the zombies they can. So maybe there is room for this mechanic here.

Also on an end note the pushing mechanic doesn't have to be all anti-coop. If you see a zombie running at someone from behind and cant reach the zombie you can shove the player instead to dodge the grab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes me think of this part from the walking dead:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-H97rLbkgEI

currently, with the way the zombies spawn and generally 'work' there'd be little benefit to injuring/pushing a player into a crowd of them to save yourself. If there was a damage model like deus ex for arms, legs, head chest where players would become worse at aiming if hit in an arm, be slower if hit in the leg (maybe a bandaging system where minor injuries could be patche up, usable once or twice) and zombies would be more likely to go for injured team mates, then I think it'd go a long way in creating the kind of gameplay elements/descisions talked about in this thread.

While I don't agree with everything the OP is saying, I do get where you're coming from and agree with the spirit of what you're saying. Tk'ing etc will happen, but i'd prefer to have the odd round ruined by someone messing around than having FF etc completely disabled/nerfed. 'Anti-cooperative' actions whether intentional or not can add to the game (People tend to be far more careful with their fire/meleeing, as it should be) and i'd rather see an attempt to extend this rather than 'sterilise' the mod.

You can often tell how a round is going to go within the first 30 seconds, and unless you have a flagrant TK'er you'll either have a very co-operative team who share ammo etc and generally try to help eachother or you'll have the majority trying to get as much ammo/weapons as possible then slowly getting through objectives, concentrating more on killing hordes of zombies and quite often being overwhelmed (tends to happen with inexpierienced players) Giving players more free reign to act 'anti co-operatively' would help vary things up and add a bit of a grey-area in terms of how a team/individuals go about completing a campaign.

What I would suggest (Realise that this will probably never happen) would be a ranking system similar to that in the Red orchestra 2 with something similar to its 'honour' and 'hero' systems.

e.g. everyone starts out as a 'new' inexpierienced sutvivor who has joined the group, as you complete campaigns you become more expierienced (incrementally Faster reloading/fire ratse for weapons you've been using a lot, small increases in power/speed for any melee weapon you've used a lot etc) As you rank up, your character changes aesthetically to look more hardened and experienced. With this in place, anti social actions would still be possible, but would dent the characters 'honour' (Maybe negatively impact anything else they have ranked up) this would be recorded to their profile and would be viewable by other players in game via the players name (While looking at a character a word describing them would come up in a corresponding colour e.g. green/white for helpful/co-operative players who've completed campaigns with good actions far outweighing any bad, yellow for anyone who's good actions mostly outweigh bad, dark blue for anyone who's bad actions slightly outweigh good, Red/Black for 'untrustworthy/unreliable' players who's bad actions far outweigh any good actions. You could then have ranked servers where you have to be of a certain level to play, within which even highly ranked players could still be selfish and act 'anti-cooperatively'.

any levelling would be linked to objectives and the overall completion of a campaign, e.g. actions would be 'banked' before the completion of objectives and added up at the completion/failure of that particular round. If someone killed their entire team then completed a campaign using a particular weapon killing loads of zombies on the way, they wouldn't level a great deal. On the flipside of that, helpful co-operative players who used a particular weapon a lot would earn far more points/expierience. (And so that people wouldn't just create servers and try to level up on their own, the amount of experience you could earn would increase with each real player in the server)

very few 'points' would be awarded for killing zombies (maybe a few if you shot a zombie off a player that it was attacking, which would count as a 'good' action) and would be awarded for the completion of objectives/campaigns.

Though I imagine something like that would be too much work to implement in the first place and get right, it'd have to be balanced to make it so minor 'anti-cooperative' elements would have some benefit/point to them in regard to 'levelling' but I suppose thats making the assumption people would care about the system etc in the first place and it could become a forced 'tacked on' element that people either ignore or act more selfishly because of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see this as the biggest potential downfall for the mod TBH. It's not going to lead to compelling well-written movie tension as much as its going to lead to egos and childish drama queen situations followed by griefing. Movie tension is fiction, not something that will always realistically happen between actual people.

It's going to cause countless situations one cannot outplay, the plague of games IMO. Suddenly random player #4 out of the other 7 decides to stick a chainsaw in your back because he wanted your pistol and didn't feel like asking. It's a punishment without it being induced by your gameplay decisions and performance such as failing to shove away zombies, missing shots, not being aware of runners, shooting teammates on accident, ie you died because of some dumb meta-game instead of you actually playing badly. It's another manifestation of what nobody likes in games. Take COD's problems for instance, who likes playing these meta-games of seeing who can use the most underhanded tactics to come out on top?(outside of a competitive environment). I'd rather use every weapon in the game and sometimes even "bad" builds just to tinker with what the game has to offer, and not be hindered by people who feel to need try and win by spamming suicide RPG-7s or something. The tactic that annoys everyone in that is analogous to this "I'm RPing a psycho survivor lolol" trend.

Edited by 5thSurvivor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see this as the biggest potential downfall for the mod TBH. It's not going to lead to compelling well-written movie tension as much as its going to lead to egos and childish drama queen situations followed by griefing. Movie tension is fiction, not something that will always realistically happen between actual people.

I see where you're coming from, but the intention isn't to simulate a cinematic exchange between characters, but to further develop aspects of the mod which I believe were anticipated in its design from the very beginning.

It's going to cause countless situations one cannot outplay, the plague of games IMO. Suddenly random player #4 out of the other 7 decides to stick a chainsaw in your back because he wanted your pistol and didn't feel like asking. It's a punishment without it being induced by your gameplay decisions and performance such as failing to shove away zombies, missing shots, not being aware of runners, shooting teammates on accident, ie you died because of some dumb meta-game instead of you actually playing badly.

You bring up an important point which I'm damn familiar with coming from a background of competitive gaming, but it's an arguement that's really only deeply relevant to competetive games. What you call a meta-game, I call an addition to gameplay that serves to set NMRiH apart from your Zombie Masters and your BrainBreads. I think Call of Duty is a terrible example because it's a singular, by the books experience. It's glorified modern deathmatching with limited depth, subtlety or meticulousness in its design. This isn't deathmatch or CTF, it's coop, so I think it's open to broader interpretations and new ideas.

Take, for example, the in-development bank heisting coop indy game Monacco. At the core of its design is to require cooperation to complete a difficult robbery successfully using the strengths of each team member, but conversely there is emphasis on eliminating other members of your team to give yourself a bigger cut of the profits. This is the same course of design I think could work incredibly well for NMRiH if it is accounted for, and it's something very interesting that hasn't been done often or very successfully before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see where you're coming from, but the intention isn't to simulate a cinematic exchange between characters, but to further develop aspects of the mod which I believe were anticipated in its design from the very beginning.

I hope not, I just want a co-op experience that has interesting melee and firearms, zombie combat/avoidance mechanics, while keeping the egos, rage, trolling as far away as possible. Zombie movies are all about the people, but multiplayer games aim for a different experience. I'm fine with a story depicting betrayals and revenge and rage with written characters in maybe a singleplayer mode, but stringing people along in multiplayer games and messing with them only breaks down the immersion and everyones experience and leads to griefing.

You bring up an important point which I'm damn familiar with coming from a background of competitive gaming, but it's an arguement that's really only deeply relevant to competetive games. What you call a meta-game, I call an addition to gameplay that serves to set NMRiH apart from your Zombie Masters and your BrainBreads. I think Call of Duty is a terrible example because it's a singular, by the books experience. It's glorified modern deathmatching with limited depth, subtlety or meticulousness in its design. This isn't deathmatch or CTF, it's coop, so I think it's open to broader interpretations and new ideas.

A "meta-game" as I know it just refers to the sets of strategies and norms that are accepted as what will win you the game. They should be limited to the mechanics of the game, things like how weapons work, routes to take, practicing skills such as aiming, learning loadouts that work, but never be about playing mind games and second guessing your teammates. It should be something shared in all games, winning(surviving) should be between you and the weapons and the zombies, not whether or not you should have taken someone else out of the game because you think they'll do it to you, or not. Teammates help you execute more strategies and add to the experience as you get weapons for/from them, and they cover you or you cover them. If they are inept, let them die from their own weaknesses. Deciding for them that they don't get to play anymore for this round is going to trigger emotional responses whether anyone likes it or not, and griefing will ensue.

Left 4 Dead (2), would've been the same way without votekick, but now that is sometimes abused. Why can't it just be about playing it and letting the bad players learn the hard way until they do start surviving? I'm not against leaving someone for dead if they can't fend for themselves, but letting all players be judge jury and executioner all at once is just going to lead to trolling every-man for himself games once people figure out exactly what is and isn't needed to survive.

Take, for example, the in-development bank heisting coop indy game Monacco. At the core of its design is to require cooperation to complete a difficult robbery successfully using the strengths of each team member, but conversely there is emphasis on eliminating other members of your team to give yourself a bigger cut of the profits. This is the same course of design I think could work incredibly well for NMRiH if it is accounted for, and it's something very interesting that hasn't been done often or very successfully before.

I hope it never shows up in games honestly. The only time I've seen backstabbing as a game mechanic was "diplo" AOE/AOE2 games. It might have worked there because the act of betrayal still involves the struggle of defeating their armies and base. In NMRIH, it's instantaneously being taken out of the game, no matter what gameplay events took place before, except maybe stepping on peoples egos and feelings or something (please don't make this "part of the game"). The only thing that remotely counters it is playing mind games and yourself also resorting to secret trolling. I just want zombie survival game with good combat.

Edited by 5thSurvivor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah my ideas expressed in my topic "FF On and Underground" wouldn't work out when players can shove survivors at any time. It would be a fun habit for people who aren't haven't any fun just playing the game.

My ideas supporting FF on actually had supported ideas that were meant to prevent players from killing each other EASILY and without admin supervision muting and kicking and banning players, which to me is strictly... horrible.

Having read this, I don't think people understand THEY WANT to support my topic, if you want more "freedom" and interesting moments.

Go to my topic http://www.nomoreroominhell.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6562 and read that bitch. I unfortunately may have to simplify it greatly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah my ideas expressed in my topic "FF On and Underground" wouldn't work out when players can shove survivors at any time. It would be a fun habit for people who aren't haven't any fun just playing the game.

My ideas supporting FF on actually had supported ideas that were meant to prevent players from killing each other EASILY and without admin supervision muting and kicking and banning players, which to me is strictly... horrible.

Having read this, I don't think people understand THEY WANT to support my topic, if you want more "freedom" and interesting moments.

Go to my topic http://www.nomoreroominhell.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6562 and read that bitch. I unfortunately may have to simplify it greatly.

Believe me Joe, I tried, but the thread reads like the way a drunk and toothless transient rambles. At no point while reading any part of it did I have the faintest idea what was going on or what it was about. It left me startlingly bewildered, frightened. You are a conundrum, Joe, a deep well of confusion but also a fountain of spirit. Shine on, you crazy diamond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe me Joe, I tried, but the thread reads like the way a drunk and toothless transient rambles. At no point while reading any part of it did I have the faintest idea what was going on or what it was about. It left me startlingly bewildered, frightened. You are a conundrum, Joe, a deep well of confusion but also a fountain of spirit. Shine on, you crazy diamond.

Joe just got Joe'd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While using Hammer I just noticed a Brush entity called Trigger_progress_weapon. Is this a standard entity or NMRIH specific? And is it what I think it is, for weapon 'levelling' of some sort?

Edited by Hellroom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0