@Starke
Sir, with all due respect: I fail to understand this… “need”… for hoarding.
What’s the use of having 500 weapons if you only use 2 or three?
Or have a billion rounds?
Do not get me wrong, but that looks like hoarding for the sake of hoarding to me?
I never said, “need,” in this thread. I also made a comment about an “inner OCD collector impulse,” which isn’t about “needing” to hoard everything, it’s about wanting to be able to complete a collection of weapons, which isn’t currently feasible.
There is no point in having 500 weapons. There aren’t 500 weapons in the game. However, there is a value, from a collector’s standpoint, of being able to hold onto a Walther PPK simply to have that for the collection.
There’s no value in a billion rounds, however there is a quality of life value in being able to skip over the part where you’re scavenging for ammo on your existing weapon if you’re somewhere that already has access to your Plunda box.
Again, the suggestion here comes in a few parts:
First, you don’t simply have unlimited ammo on the go, that would be broken, you’d need to be in a safehouse with an unlocked ammo cache, AND have unlocked that ammo type.
Right now, you can, functionally, end up with as much ammo as you want, provided you’re willing to spend that time rooting around in command bunkers for spare rounds. There’s value to this in the field, when you can’t stock up, but (particularly in multiplayer) it ends up working against the flow. You’re still capped on the amount of ammo you can carry by the inventory system, and you’ll already see players discussing how they end up with so much ammo (and other supplies) that they’re throwing those away when they find them in the field. At that point, an ammo cache only serves to bypass the prep BEFORE you can go play.
Basically, for GenZero, endgame economy is about how much you can carry. How much ammo, how many supplies, to a lesser degree, how many weapons. Not, how much you can obtain. On a long enough scale, that stuff tends to fade. My suggestion here is to add content to the game, pushing the player to explore further for persistent, base side, unlocks.
For what it’s worth, I think it’s entirely reasonable to restrict weapon lockers and supply caches to the command bunkers only, where there should be armories anyway.
I’d also be fine with specific weapon locker unlocks being tied to finding some sort of unlock in the field as well, rather than just stashing the gun, so it would be a separate collection. Possibly pushing the game more towards the unique weapons being the Experimentals, with the non-Experimental weapons being more disposable (eventually.)
So, no, this isn’t about being able to find all the loot, and carry it off, it’s about bypassing the recovery phase between going out and playing, which is more of a consideration in multiplayer, where you’re not simply on your own clock.
Thank you, sir.
Where I do not get the reason as to why collect weapons (no achievement for that), or the need for so much ammo that you will not ever be able to spend (which btw broke balance partially, which I warned for but got ignored), or HP packs or… I do agree to your suggestion:
Then, to:
I need to ask: where will you obtain ammo in the very first part, if all ammo is restricted to Bunkers?
My question to 500 weapons and a billion ammo stacks came from this:
Balance is already out the window, partially due to Plundra becoming a thing.
Removing the already darn high cap… seems just pointless.
Note, I am NOT saying: Throw Plundra into the Plundra-bin!
I AM saying: Devs, PLEASE fix what you broke.
Storing ammo that could feed 8 armies, as per the above mentioned:
is what I mean by breaking balance partially, removing the need to scavenge.
When you introduce something balance altering, then REBALANCE this back out.
Much like MP lacking scaling: how could this even be possible?
Guys, this is absurd. Waves have come because people asked for “waves”. Defend the base is here because people have asked for “Defend the Base”.
It doesn’t make any sense.
If machines are everywhere looking kill humans and they locate a base of humans when everywhere else is empty, there is no reason for any machine to do anything but surround the base and destroy it. Not 12 waves, but seven hundred. Not ten machines in each wave but three hundred.
If the enemy are limited in numbers, you might buy yourself a day or two by fighting off an attack. The enemy is not limited in numbers - they can send as many as they like.
If they find you, you die. Keep moving. Or let’s just follow the whim of anyone who “wants” this or that, and screw the game and the story and the immersiveness, and let’s just scream and run around shooting at tanks.
If you can bring down a Viggen, then something unwieldy is toast. Hide, creep, snipe, fight only when you have to. Go and find something to shoot as you like, but let’s not ruin the game for it. (I’m not talking to you BTW, I know you’re on my side in this.)
@Bootie, @Xogroroth, You guys need to accept that not everyone wants the same thing as you. Many want gameplay additions, some of which may not be entirely realistic, but Generation Zero never aimed towards being that either.
The game is not in any way ruined just because it’s not shaping up to be exactly what you want.
There’s still plenty of immersion to be had for those that want it, and plenty of action to go along with it.
And you’ve got every right to voice your disagreement, but it’s a pretty poor attitude to throw around tantrums about “the game being screwed” as soon as someone voices ideas for features just because you happen to disagree with them.
It discourages people from posting, and that’s something we don’t need here on the forums.
I expect all of our Regulars to know that. So please mind what you say.
I completely agree, @Zesiir, this forum shall be for all, and all reasonably well behaved posters shall feel welcome. A lot of us feel strongly for this game, but often in different or even opposite directions. This might show as strong positions on certain aspects which I think the forum should allow for, as long as we are respectful about it. But I also think it could serve as feedback to the developers, that some kind of optionality on certain features should be considered for future releases. A recent mission for example is very much more suited for multiplayer game play than solo. Some like survival, some find experimental weapons a tiny bit too much, and recently some bloke even suggested to add a hot air ballon to fly over Östertörn. I’m not a game designer, so I can’t see all implications on game logic, but I believe that game options could make a wider audience like the game.
Um, that’s not what I said. I know English isn’t your first language, so I’ll explain. In that usage of English, in that sentence, “screw the game” means: “never mind the game” (in the sense of pay no attention to), not “the game is screwed”.
It isn’t screwed, but waves against bases makes no sense. Machines might as well float down from the sky - it’s arbitrary, do you see? Why 12 waves? And then what do they do? Why only 12? It doesn’t mean anything. What I mean is, once you go down that road it’s a series of arbitrary bolt-ons. There’s no explanantion; there’s no reasoning, and the story makes no sense. But no one calling for waves, bosses or bases is wondering what Von Ullmer is going to do next.
So what do we have? Von Ullmer knows where the survivors are and sends 30 machines. Once. And then stops. Why? Why send them? Having sent them, why stop? Does he not know they didn’t succeed? If you have a base, then Von Ullmer will get to know about it, and then it’s an army.
But Xezr, Von Ullmer is what got us this far. And now he’s irrelevant. What does he have to do with rivals? What do rivals have to do with anything except arbitrary bosses? They could be integrated into the story, but they’re not. They’re bolt-ons. Look above, and see the comments - there are a list of games up there that already have all these elements, and possibly better integrated into their worlds, than rivals are in this one. But Generation Zero had what they didn’t, and that is what is being lost.
I’m not supposed to flag it? I don’t play other games - this is the only one I play. The Promo video got me and I’m still trying to hang on to that. Is that gone? Is that over?
Once you wholly lose belief in the story, then it’s just a shoot-em-up. I mean, isn’t it? Do you see. Perhaps this were better done in the Lounge, but don’t tell me not to flag it.
To me this is looking like two separate games, but the one I love is being left to wither on the vine, and that’s the shame of the world, because there was nothing like it.
@Zesiir Delete my comment once you’ve read it if you like - I’ve no desire to upset the newbies.
English is my second language, and I still stick to what I said.
Um, that’s not what I said. I know English isn’t your first language, so I’ll explain. In that usage of English, in that sentence, “screw the game” means: “never mind the game” (in the sense of pay no attention to ), not “the game is screwed”.
But that is exactly what it comes across as when you word it like this.
It isn’t screwed, but waves against bases makes no sense. Machines might as well float down from the sky - it’s arbitrary, do you see? Why 12 waves? And then what do they do? Why only 12? It doesn’t mean anything. What I mean is, once you go down that road it’s a series of arbitrary bolt-ons. There’s no explanantion; there’s no reasoning, and the story makes no sense. But no one calling for waves, bosses or bases is wondering what Von Ullmer is going to do next.
Again, it could be a possible gameplay addition, nothing more. Why would you be so quick to shoot it down, even if it was optional? Not everything you do in the game must be tied to the main story.
But Xezr, Von Ullmer is what got us this far. And now he’s irrelevant.
That, is entirely speculation. We don’t know what’s being planned for the future, story-wise.
What does he have to do with rivals? What do rivals have to do with anything except arbitrary bosses? They could be integrated into the story, but they’re not. They’re bolt-ons. Look above, and see the comments - there are a list of games up there that already have all these elements, and possibly better integrated into their worlds, than rivals are in this one. But Generation Zero had what they didn’t, and that is what is being lost.
I thought it was implemented pretty well. Machines that adapt to defeating humans. That they actually gain toughness is entirely for gameplay purposes, though that’s more a convenience thing.
I’m not supposed to flag it? I don’t play other games - this is the only one I play. The Promo video got me and I’m still trying to hang on to that. Is that gone? Is that over?
Of course not. But I think you have to accept that the game won’t necessarily evolve in the direction you want it to. I enjoy the immersive nature of GZ as well, but I’m still open for more gameplay options in the future, options that won’t necessarily rely on a single element.
Once you wholly lose belief in the story, then it’s just a shoot-em-up. I mean, isn’t it? Do you see. Perhaps this were better done in the Lounge, but don’t tell me not to flag it.
I don’t really get this part. The Alpine Unrest DLC is thick with storytelling, even moreso than the main island. The visual storytelling for the locations you visit is great, you’re introduced to new characters and npc’s and yes, the Machines are tougher too but you’re given ample of explanation and background information about why that is.
The Rivals system is just an extension of gameplay, like filling in between the layers. Other such additions could serve a similar purpose; to give people something to do when they want to focus on other things than story-related content.
To me this is looking like two separate games, but the one I love is being left to wither on the vine, and that’s the shame of the world, because there was nothing like it.
Sorry to hear that. Personally I don’t agree with you there at all.
Delete my comment once you’ve read it if you like - I’ve no desire to upset the newbies.
No, I don’t think I will.
@kmjansen I think base building would fit perfectly in GZ, i can totally agree with wanting to immerse yourself into the world, have a place to really build up and feel is your own.
Don’t mind the regular posters on here. This game wouldn’t be “fallout” or rust, or dayz or SDTD. It would be generation zero with a base building mechanic.
Simple as that.
Some folks on here like to shove their whole foot up their own ass when someone brings up an idea that is slightly against “their vision” of the game, but most of us welcome ideas and input, as the devs do. It’s one of the core pillars of this games design, says so on the website. 
Cheers!
It’s not about achievements, it’s about collecting stuff.
Okay, let’s step back for a second, and talk about the different parts.
The first is the same thought process that goes into achievements. Some people like to complete personal challenges. As these kinds of personal goals go, having a complete collection of weapons is pretty reasonable. It’s also doable, because there’s only 16+6 weapons currently, and we can store up to 50 in the box. Having lower tier copies of existing weapons is only worthwhile if you’re intending to hand them off to alts.
Arguing that no it shouldn’t happen because there’s no achievement for it, is a bit like saying, “why would you pick up the Experimental M45? There’s no achievement for it, and the magazine capacity isn’t large enough to justify the special effect.”
Right now, there’s no reason to preserve your PPKs. If you’ve got a .44 or a Glock, you have a better gun. The PPK is outclassed in every respect. However, we don’t know what the future will bring. If some future change results in a situation where the PPK’s .32 Hollowpoint rounds are an advantage over the Glock, for example, if some future DLC added human foes, suddenly being able to load hollowpoint rounds in a supressed pistol is a big deal. One of the reasons people collect weapons, and other goodies in games like this is “future proofing.”
Now, I’m no stranger to having to pick and choose what to hold onto, but, there is value in being able to maintain a stocked armory of the weapons we’ve, “earned.”
Further, because of how the game’s weird relationship with alts, it’s not the wildest thing to suggest that weapon collection should be reexamined.
It didn’t break the game’s balance.
The problem here is a little more sophisticated than that. Every game has an economy (or multiple economies.) This isn’t, necessarily, about money or crafting materials, though both of those are kinds of economies. Time and inventory capacity are also economics.
In Generation Zero there are two primary economies: Resource Scarcity, and Inventory Slots.
Resource Scarcity can be a very effective game tool. If you had a game where the machines were actively hunting for you, moving around the map, looking for evidence of your presence, and you couldn’t simply find a place to get comfortable and hoover up any unattended ammo and supplies, then scavenging ammo would be a deliberate choice.
For example: Look at the game FTL. In that game, your resource scarcity is driven by the fact that you do not have unlimited time to scavenge around for the resources you need (fuel, scrap, and some ammo types.) Time you take scavenging is time that brings the pursuing fleet closer.
In contrast, time spent scavenging in GenZero is, simply put, time you could have spent doing something else.
Now, I’m not knocking you, there is a satisfaction to be had simply scaving around, grabbing everything that isn’t nailed down. However, it doesn’t really add to the game experience as a whole.
Resource scarcity can fantastic tool for a developer to push you into engaging in risky behavior that you’d otherwise avoid. However, Generation Zero does not do this. It encourages you to play conservatively, compulsively scavenge at every opportunity. “Stop, you have some houses you can rummage through for a spare medkit and a couple rounds of 9mm. You can continue on your journey afterwards.” It really does stop the flow of the game. If the goal is to have us peaking into every bathroom we find, great, it’s doing that, but if the goal is to go out, sneak around, and try to deal with giant killer robots, the houses actually work against that. You can get jumped by a tick, but only once per house, and you can completely avoid the bigger machines while you’re inside, unless you get really unlucky or something bugs out.
Not, all ammo.
Okay, I’ll explain this idea again.
Ammo scavenging remains as is. You can find ammo boxes with a couple rounds scattered around.
Bunkers have an ammo cache. This a supply box, and when you open it… there’s nothing in there. Well, that was a let down.
You go on with your day.
Later on, while you’re exploring, you find a box of .32 FMJ. It’s not an actual ammo stack, and it’s large, let’s say 2x3 (6 slots). You take that back to the ammo cache you found in the bunker, drop it in, and now it has a stack of .32 FMJ. Best of all, when you take out a stack of the stuff, there’s still another stack inside of it. It’s unlimited, but you still can’t carry an unlimited amount of ammo.
At this point, as you’re adventuring, you’ll find situations where you probably shouldn’t stick your nose into someplace, but you’ve got to wonder, “is this where I’ll find that 5.56mm FMJ cache?”
You still can’t carry as much as you may want. You still have, at most 40 inventory slots, split between weapons, ammo for your other weapons, medical supplies, flares, grenades, ect. But, now, if you’re using your PPK, you can always start the day with a full supply of ammo for it. Once you get out in the field, you’d need to stock up the old fashioned way, scavenging.
Okay, remember a few moments ago when I was talking about game economies and I said GenZero had two? Resource Scarcity and Inventory. You can only carry, at most, 40 slots worth items. (Technically 50, because you have 3 weapon slots and 4 quickslots, but you know.) At that point, even with unlimited ammo, you still can’t carry all you’d ever want into the field. You can clog up your inventory pretty quickly.
Having unlimited access to specific ammo types at specific locations wouldn’t change that carry limit. As a result, it’s effect on resource scarcity is more limited than it may, at first, appear.
No, or at least, not really.
Plundra doesn’t add items to the game. It simply allows you pre-scavenge. Having an extra stack of 7.62 in the bank doesn’t make a Tank less dangerous. It just means that at some point in the past, you carried around a stack of ammo you didn’t use, and then stashed it away for a rainy day. With weapons in the Plundra, you carried this thing in your inventory, before dumping it in there. You gave up slots at one point in time, limited what you had on hand, and then stored it away.
What the Plundra does is, it lets you save up for bursts of activity. You can scavenge today, then play tomorrow. And, when I say it like that, it doesn’t sound good for the game.
I still think that’s the damage resist system. But, I mean, that’s a different discussion.
Like I said earlier, scavenging isn’t, really, an in game economy consideration. For this to be a balance component there would either need to be no safe spaces to scavenge from, or you’d need a system where the time you spent scavenging actively pressured the player in some other way.
Incidentally, if you had food/water/fatigue meters, that does pressure against scavenging for as long as you want. Time you spend scavenging for one resource ticks down on the others. I don’t like those systems (most of the time), but that is how some games pressure you to avoid scavenging endlessly.
I do like that Generation Zero doesn’t pressure your scavenging time that way, but, if scavenging is supposed to be a meaningful economy, instead of something you can do in complete safety on a whim, it’s not living up to that right now. The storage box highlights the issue, but not at fault.
Perhaps what we need is an update to the Code of Conduct stating “don’t shove your whole foot up your own ass, and please remember to comb your hair and brush your teeth before entering the forum”. 
@tene, just remember that “some regulars” have been loyally with GZ for a very long time, and “their vision” of the game is base on love for and dedication to it. 
It genuinely should be added, many “regulars” would get warned in that regard, and then eventually would learn to be civil human beings on here. It’s the sole reason i spend less time on the forums now a days except to catch up with certain individuals via messaging.
@IanForce just remember I’ve been here longer than most. Yet i don’t act so childishly when i see an idea brought up that i don’t agree with, now do I? Instead i keep an open mind, especially in regard to new comers to the forum.
I never had the idea you did, bother.
It is, indeed, partially that.
The lack of intellect from machines was tried to overcome by more damage and more armour.
Neither of which fixed anything, apparently.
One could even say: broke balance even more due to fixing the not-broken while leaving the broken as just that: broken…
But that’s how I see things.
Although the concept of ‘hoarding for the sake of having’ (this is how it comes across to me, I am a very “Take ONLY what you need, and then drop what you can miss” still type of guy: weight in a combat situations is just suicide, and even though weight is not implemented, I STILL am VERY minimalisic due the the game’s “military” nature: it’s an automatic thing with me) it, is odd and even illogic TO ME, I think I DO understand what you say.
Thank you for the marvellous explanation, sir.
Oh man would I love the game to act like that, that instead of us going out to hunt for these robots, it would have much more of the opposite, so that you would have to constantly move on and avoid. It would bring more tension to the game. I think a change like that would be awesome!
That, is a very good point. Regulars are essentially supposed to be the ‘pillars of the community’, they’re expected be forthcoming, helpful and keep the forum a welcoming place. They’re even given a few privileges, like changing topic titles. That doesn’t work unless we’re willing to keep an open mind.
And we all respect you for that, I’m sure. I certainly do.
Funny you mention it, my wife think it is pretty childish to play computer games in the first place.
As this is a forum for discussing a game and not the treatment of cancer, I have a hard time being too serious and grown up about it. Hope it is okay 
Again, @Zesiir, I agree there too, and for my own part I hope that I act accordingly. Otherwise I hope that You"ll PM me.