How can teaming up on the spot be encouraged?

Unturned II U4 Discussion
1

Currently players die way too fast to risk working with another player, so most encounters end with one player ending the threat to their life.
Would it be workable to make zombie damage and bullet damage seperate to increase the incentive to team, and make it harder and riskier to backstab?
Currently any player you leave alive can kill you near instantly, and taking the risk of teaming with another player has very little reward.
Decreasing the threat of death to another player in cities, and making zombies more of a gradual threat so you eventually get infected to death rather than getting your hp punched away seems like it could work.
Killing another player in cities could be slower, and much more risky.
But players shouldn’t be safe around bases or in the wild. Zombie areas can be relatively safe to enter with mostly zombie gear, but the wild and especially areas around bases should be seen as very dangerous to stay in.
I’m hoping this could make more people work together and get loot from zombies, and fewer people getting it by easy raids.

Stacking the deck in favor of the person being attacked is difficult to accomplish, but having guns that are good at killing players attract large hordes of zombies seems like it could be a deterrent.
If one player meets two, he probably won’t attack because of the retaliation. How could this be used to reduce killing on sight without giving the two players incentive to kill him anyway?
Irl stacking the deck against the attacker works very well, they know not to attack where people are armed, or they will be stopped by 10 armed people in the crowd.
The problem is, how do you use this effect in a game with no repurcussions without the 10 random people killing that guy anyway?

How can large Zerg groups be balanced without making small and on the spot teams useless?

2 Likes
2

First, everything in the first paragraph I disagree with 100%. There should not be separate damages and things like that. So like I said, there is nothing in the first paragraph I agree with.

The second paragraph I genuinely am struggling to understand sadly.

The final paragraph, the answer I believe simply is. You can’t. There are some things that can’t be balanced, I guess the smaller on the spot teams could avoid popular areas and grow slowly. That, of course, is easier said than done.

Counter Suggestion

As a counter suggestion to your original suggestion that I actually just thought of. In my opinion could be slightly better than the Reputation system in 3.x. My thought is, what if instead of using numbers for the reputation, facial expression.
To go deeper in depth on this, the problem with using numbers, is that you just know the person by name and who has the good positive reputation, sadly. You can’t know the player’s name until you walk 1 meter up to them and find out yourself.

How is the facial expression any better? Well, let’s say I have 0 reputation. The players face could be neutral or :neutral_face: (there could be various options to the face (eyebrows, eyes etc so you can change up the face a bit whilst keeping the same expression). Now I have +15 reputation, my facial expression would change to something such as a slight smile :slightly_smiling_face: (as said before, there could be slight adjustments to the face to have a bit of variety to not have everyone look the same). You get the picture, would work the same ways for negative reputation.

Why is this better? Well if you spot someone looting, and you’re afraid to make communication. You can see by their face what kind of player they are.

What are you thoughts? See anything wrong with this?

3

I’m confused as to what this is asking for. You don’t mean making it so groups take reduced damage from zombies and players, do you?

4

I’m trying to figure out how zombies can be a threat without making players even more vulnerable to bandits

5

if anything, higher TTK makes killing people LESS risky, since you can just constantly tank rounds and heal after out-DPSing people. if you want to discourage PVP you have to make the TTK lower so that if some idiot decides to raise a gun at 4 people, he gets gunned down in a second, instead of being able to tank half a magazine and have enough time to get into cover.

6

The problem is, how are those 4 players going to be kept from shooting that guy when he doesn’t attack them?
If death is quick, he has no chance of escape, and therefore avoids teaming because of how easy it is to backstab.

7

My answer to the main Q:

The obvious answer is to quickly make a group with them so that they can’t friendly fire you. The problem with that is that they can quickly leave the group and kill you.

As a solution to the above, when you join one of those “Temporary” teams that you can quickly join and leave by pressing “M” and going to groups, you shouldn’t be able to exit the group until you leave the server. If this were to happen, you could team up with someone simply by inviting them into your group quickly, and not have to worry about them killing you. (Of course, as long as you don’t lead them to your base, or let them re-log while you’re around)

When you see a random and want to team up, your first demand from them should be that they join your group. If you don’t group up with someone when you decide to team up, you’re pretty much asking to be back-stabbed.

8

not through raising TTK. that creates more problems then it solves.

2 Likes
9

Honestly, I want to discourage big groups/clans. They ruin the game.

10

interesting stance. is it because they tend to dominate servers and wipe out anyone who isn’t part of their group?

11

Over complicated and very unnecessary.

2 Likes
12

That’s probably the best solution. To add on that, if reputation or something like it comes back in 4.0, it should give MASSIVE amounts of negative rep if you kill someone who you were in a group with (it’d expire after a while).

1 Like
13

The assumption is that friendly fire would be disabled, no one cares about reputation.

14

No separate damage values. I hate how guns like the colt go from doing 24 player damage to 99 damage to a zombie. I’d like for weaker guns to be weaker to zombies, while stronger guns to be stronger to zombies. One exception I would be fine with is the Grizzly and other sniper rifles doing extra zombie damage compared to their player damage.

1 Like
15

What if it actually had a purpose in 4.0?

1 Like
16

It would be a good idea. Being a saboteur player killer (like the most current players of 3.x) should turn you into a target to the rest of people, not encouraging your ego even when game logics says that you’re on a negative reputation, lol.

The problem with this theme and the whole survival in general is that most players do PvP for merely fun out of boredom, or simply being childish happy triggers, rather than for gameplay-wise purposes. Overhauling survival and PvE aspects, including making zombies stronger, would help a bit to fix that up.

In the case of reputation system, I think it would be better if there are NPC factions that you may keep a reputation with, to obtain good worth-seeking benefits and safe zones in case of extreme distress, and not just a global set of reputation that either determines if youre “nice” or “mean”.

So you may lose reputation for one or maybe two of these factions in a single map if you’re a happy trigger and go all around killing everyone just because, causing these factions to deny their benefits to you and even shoot you on sight if you approach to them.

As it seems to be intended, survival in 4.x won’t be as easy, and player capabilities won’t be as OP as these are in 3.x, making any help to survive a good chance to stay alive and an incentive to make your choices considering multiple aspects than just selfish dumb fun (this is not CoD, for f*cks sake).

In 4.x, I see PvP as a more gameplay-wise action when you’ve already settled up with a large group of partners, as you’re almost forced to cooperate with others to survive, and somehow, your group interests clash with another group’s interests, so there’s a true conflict that might draw some lines and settle new ways to do stuff up, caring always on survival and avoiding the infected over anything else. If you decided to kill everyone on sight instead, you might be an easy target for zombies and mostly you’ll get socially banned from everyone else, lol.

This is more or less what my idea of public relationships could be balanced in 4.x, compared to current 3.x messy state.

17

My intent with this was to keep physical zombie damage, but make infection a common cause of death in addition to being punched by a zombie repeatedly. Currently players die very quickly to guns, and with zombies becoming more challenging, killing peaceful players becomes even easier. Changing the mechanics so zombies don’t weaken players against bullets seemed like a good idea at the time.

18

My view of it is players in loot and zombie areas generally work together and avoid fights, while out in the wild there’s danger from bases, snipers, and other players, since there is no danger from a horde of zombies no matter what gun you fire. In the city, using a powerful gun and the smell of player blood both attract zombies, making the killer a target.

19

This topic was automatically closed 28 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.