The one issue I see with getting extra prestige for killing zombies
with an axe and a pistol is that it forces a situation where you're
sort of encouraged to play crazily. You'll get more of a reputation
for doing reckless, dangerous, and possibly fatal stunts, and I don't
know that that's always a good thing.
If I personally had to go out on a mission with a fellow survivor to
go raid the surrounding city for supplies, I would want someone old
and dependable by my side, not a loose cannon with a death wish. I
would want a clear-headed, straight-thinking soldier, not a barbarian
berserker. Besides which, I don't know that a reckless axe-wielding
maniac would be trusted with important goods, as it's likely he'll be
killed in action.
What I would advocate for is a system whereby players are awarded for
heroic, valiant, skilled, or daring actions. First, make accuracy
count. A player could have a counter that reset itself every x
zombies. It might also reset each time the player left the safe zone.
The greater the players' accuracy and skill while out in the field,
the greater the reputation he gains. In order to do this, though, the
axe will need to stop contributing to shots fired.
Possible formula: reputation += hits * accuracy percentage
This way, if you go out and take down a tyrant with a pistol, and it
takes you 10 shots, you can get a max of 10 reputation points for it.
If it takes you 10 shots, but you also miss 10 times, you get 5
reputation points. This puts greater emphasis on conserving ammo,
too--something the survivors will greatly approve of. That said, extra
points for head shots would be nice. There needs to be some prestige
for being a sniper.
Second, as missions and the like are implemented, give points for
completing those, and give additional points for completing them well.
Did you complete the mission accurately and cleanly, or did you level
the place and use up twice the ammo you could have?
Another possibility might be letting players sign up for guard duty.
Staying out of the field to keep the safe zone free from zombies could
show that you're a dependable sort who has the safety of the survivors
in mind.
I like the idea of reputation being a fluid thing, and I'm glad it's
on the table for consideration.
Best,
Ryan

On 11/28/11, Christopher Bartlett <themusicalbre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been mulling awards and have some thoughts to share.  There are
> currently two different award currencies, experience and reputation.
> Experience gives access to higher-level stuff, while reputation is the
> currency with which you buy it.
>
>
>
> There are also two variables in zombie killing, the zombie type you kill and
> the weapon with which you do it.  This should allow for some variation in
> awards.
>
>
>
> I suggest that reputation should be awarded on the basis of which weapon you
> use to kill the zombie.  Axe should get the highest award, followed by
> pistol and shotgun.  I'm not sure exactly how to order the rest.  I
> personally have an easier time with the hunting rifle than I do with the
> Banally, but it has five shots vs. eight, so one could argue that it's
> harder because of more frequent reloads.  The assault rifle, m-60 and Vulcan
> all seem similar, though if I remember correctly the machine guns have a
> longer range.  And I'm not sure where the sniper rifle fits in, still
> mastering that weapon.
>
>
>
> The second variable is zombie type, and this should be accounted for with
> different experience awards.  It is certainly more difficult to kill a
> tyrant or matriarch than it is to kill the garden variety zombie.
>
>
>
> I think I'd save the 1 rep point award for kills with the big guns.  Axe
> might be worth as much as 10, pistol maybe 7 and shotgun 5 with others
> proceeding from there.  This makes those times with only a pistol and axe
> and no ammo a bit easier to deal with.
>
>
>
> As for exp, have the common zombie worth 5.  I'd argue the dogs should be
> worth less; I've one-shotted them with a pistol.  Other types go up in award
> to maybe 20 for the tyrant?
>
>
>
> Lastly, there needs to be a limiting factor on experience.  As it is,
> everyone's going to be level 5 sooner or later; you just have to keep
> playing, never mind how many times you die.  Reputation is self-limiting
> since you spend it for stuff, but experience has no such limiting factor.
> So I propose that death should cost experience.  I'd reset it to 0, but we
> all know I'm the rat bastard who wants to steal all your fun.  perhaps a
> compromise of half would work.
>
>
>
> Anyway, that's what I have so far, now that the worst of the bugs have been
> squashed.  (Great work and thank you Jeremy.)
>
>
>
>                 Chris Bartlett
>
>
>
> ---
> Gamers mailing list __ Gamers@audyssey.org
> If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to
> gamers-unsubscr...@audyssey.org.
> You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
> http://mail.audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org.
> All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
> http://www.mail-archive.com/gamers@audyssey.org.
> If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list,
> please send E-mail to gamers-ow...@audyssey.org.
>

---
Gamers mailing list __ Gamers@audyssey.org
If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to gamers-unsubscr...@audyssey.org.
You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
http://mail.audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org.
All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
http://www.mail-archive.com/gamers@audyssey.org.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list,
please send E-mail to gamers-ow...@audyssey.org.

Reply via email to