›

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Quick Links

would you play a dedicated server based sandbox medieval fantasy zombie survival game?

bishbosh2bishbosh2 Member Posts: 66
in The Pub at MMORPG.COM

1. 100-200 players per server; you are not locked into one server... think of it like bf3 or dayz servers

2. emphasis on player economy and crafting

3. item decay upon death to allow for player economy

4. ability to make environment ; repair walls, doors, set up defenses

5. casual gameplay suited to small groups/ solo play

6. no levels or classes

7. learn/respec skills from skill books/temples/shrines/ NPCs

8. B2P

9. 3rd+1st person view, action combat, no auto targetting

10. fairly crappy graphics and repitive buildings/terrain but will improve over time

Think of it as a dayz/diablo2 hybrid with some sandbox mmorpg elements

 

«1

Comments

  • muffins89muffins89 Member UncommonPosts: 1,585
    no.
  • beat_downbeat_down Member UncommonPosts: 46
    Heck yeah I would.
  • IchmenIchmen Member UncommonPosts: 1,228

    umm dayz and d2 are as far from each other on the gaming spectrum that its almost idiotic to view a 3rd person shooter type game with them. also neither really matches up in any regard to what you are invisioning.  just because d2 and dayz have zombies or crafting doesnt mean they are remotely similar. 

     

    so no, i wouldnt buy it to play it with this current vision. it does not sound like a game at all. :/ trying to cram too much under 1 hood will generally leave the game play shallow

  • Stuka1000Stuka1000 Member UncommonPosts: 955
    Nope
  • ToxiaToxia Member UncommonPosts: 1,308

    a sandbox....medieval....fantasy....zombie...survival game...

     

    uhm....no....

    The Deep Web is sca-ry.

  • DignaDigna Member UncommonPosts: 1,994

    Would depend on the implementation and the B2P final cost. If it's dull and poorly implemented, no of course not.

    100-200 people per server likely wouldn't be feasible though, not in a dedicated environment . A small group leaving for another game or even a family group going on a vacation would unbalance things.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910

    I already play something like that on a Minecraft server. The only difference is that the server I'm on uses the mcMMO mod, so you have a set of skills that you skill up through various activities.

    • 150 players on the server at a time.
    • It's Minecraft, crafting is important. The server has an economy plugin, so players buy and sell items from each other.
    • Items that players use decay. Items are lost, stolen and forgotten. A constant influx of new stuff is necessary.
    • It's Minecraft. You have to build your environment, or you're just wandering in the wilderness.
    • It's small groups, but maybe smaller than you're talking. The most people I've seen in a single group is four or five at a time. No classes, but players do have skills that they level up. All players have all skills. There are no NPCs. Minecraft is B2P, but the server I'm on has a 'Premium' option that isn't a blatant money grab like other Minecraft servers I've seen. It's First Person View. There is a Third Person View, but that doesn't work super well in Minecraft.

    ** edit **
    There are zombies, but the important aspect of the game is the other players, not the monsters.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • bishbosh2bishbosh2 Member Posts: 66
    Originally posted by Digna

    Would depend on the implementation and the B2P final cost. If it's dull and poorly implemented, no of course not.

    100-200 people per server likely wouldn't be feasible though, not in a dedicated environment . A small group leaving for another game or even a family group going on a vacation would unbalance things.

    you are not locked to a server. its like FPS servers. you can freely switch whenever you to which ever server you want like in dayz.

  • bishbosh2bishbosh2 Member Posts: 66
    Originally posted by Ichmen

    umm dayz and d2 are as far from each other on the gaming spectrum that its almost idiotic to view a 3rd person shooter type game with them. also neither really matches up in any regard to what you are invisioning.  just because d2 and dayz have zombies or crafting doesnt mean they are remotely similar. 

     

    so no, i wouldnt buy it to play it with this current vision. it does not sound like a game at all. :/ trying to cram too much under 1 hood will generally leave the game play shallow

    dayz is already played in third person? you really only switch to 1st person to shoot and thats only because 3rd person view aiming is bugged.

  • ThaneUlfgarThaneUlfgar Member Posts: 283
    I would at least give it a shot.
  • DignaDigna Member UncommonPosts: 1,994
    Originally posted by bishbosh2
    Originally posted by Digna

    Would depend on the implementation and the B2P final cost. If it's dull and poorly implemented, no of course not.

    100-200 people per server likely wouldn't be feasible though, not in a dedicated environment . A small group leaving for another game or even a family group going on a vacation would unbalance things.

    you are not locked to a server. its like FPS servers. you can freely switch whenever you to which ever server you want like in dayz.

    Then I would likely give it a try assuming the 1st part of my post was within acceptable limits.

  • DarthMajinDarthMajin Member Posts: 92
    Title says it all, you are cramming too much different stuff into a game. It would never turn out good.

    image

  • Unknown
    If it's any good, sure.
  • SimphanaticSimphanatic Member Posts: 92
    Originally posted by megabuu
    Title says it all, you are cramming too much different stuff into a game. It would never turn out good.

    Exactly.

     

    Let's just pile up a bunch of cliches. Hmm, let's see, Medieval: vampires, werewolves, certainly some goblins AND zombies. And let's add some battle bunnies, and dragons -- gotta have dragons. Aliens, let's add some of those too. And maybe some discordant leprechauns. And, yes, let's locate all of it in a terribly original dark, gothic setting, with volcanoes and stuff. Oh, yeah, and we'll contrive all this in a world with no regard to Abraham Maslow or Adam Smith.

     

    No thanks.

  • ShakyMoShakyMo Member CommonPosts: 7,207
    Be better if it was.

    You, you personally, get zapped back in time with a shotgun, chainsaw and beat up old car.

    Would be GROOOVY

  • GrixxittGrixxitt Member UncommonPosts: 545

    If you used a decent FPS engine and snagged the Ravenloft IP you could make millions.

    MILLIONS I tell YOU!!!

    The above is my personal opinion. Anyone displaying a view contrary to my opinion is obviously WRONG and should STHU. (neener neener)

    -The MMO Forum Community

  • CakeisyummehCakeisyummeh Member Posts: 194
    no
  • IchmenIchmen Member UncommonPosts: 1,228
    Originally posted by bishbosh2
    Originally posted by Ichmen

    umm dayz and d2 are as far from each other on the gaming spectrum that its almost idiotic to view a 3rd person shooter type game with them. also neither really matches up in any regard to what you are invisioning.  just because d2 and dayz have zombies or crafting doesnt mean they are remotely similar. 

     

    so no, i wouldnt buy it to play it with this current vision. it does not sound like a game at all. :/ trying to cram too much under 1 hood will generally leave the game play shallow

    dayz is already played in third person? you really only switch to 1st person to shoot and thats only because 3rd person view aiming is bugged.

    my personal taste of FPS is for first person. as that is what i grew up playing. blakestone/wolfenstin 3d/doom/dod3.0/cs ect. 3rd person fps games always feel flat as a board like trying to play a ridge racer game without any mountains or tight turning paths,  its just hollow.

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Member CommonPosts: 3,675
    Not a chance in hell.

    Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
    Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
    Now Playing: None
    Hope: None

  • DibdabsDibdabs Member RarePosts: 3,239
    No.  There are certain keywords that stop any interest I might have in a game - Diablo is one of them.
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by bishbosh2

    1. 100-200 players per server; you are not locked into one server... think of it like bf3 or dayz servers

    2. emphasis on player economy and crafting

    3. item decay upon death to allow for player economy

    4. ability to make environment ; repair walls, doors, set up defenses

    5. casual gameplay suited to small groups/ solo play

    6. no levels or classes

    7. learn/respec skills from skill books/temples/shrines/ NPCs

    8. B2P

    9. 3rd+1st person view, action combat, no auto targetting

    10. fairly crappy graphics and repitive buildings/terrain but will improve over time

    Think of it as a dayz/diablo2 hybrid with some sandbox mmorpg elements

     

    Nope. Don't like zombie survival games.

  • VengerVenger Member UncommonPosts: 1,309

    Friendly fire?

    Yes to friendly fire probably not.  No i'd give it a try if the price is right.  Just not to sure on the medieval fantasy zombie survival.  

     

  • OzmodanOzmodan Member EpicPosts: 9,726
    No, how boring just killing zombies.  A game like this would die a quick death.
  • AzaqinAzaqin Member UncommonPosts: 67
    I would not only play it, I would have its babies.
  • KaniverKaniver Member UncommonPosts: 110
    NADA
Sign In or Register to comment.