The second floor should be safe, narrow staircases are nothing for runners, and ticks canât climb stairs at all. Seekers could in theory, but they are bulky and get stuck easily.
You should be able to walk through enemies once they are looted. So they donât prevent you from leaving the building.
Safe houses/places should be kept safe by salvaged and modified relay beacons turning enemies away.
In my opinion runners should be able to enter houses, and some doors should be breakable (as those containers doors with machines inside are), ticks are annoying and in realistic terms could only get in after doors are destroyed.
However i do not want enemy machine gun fire to go through houses, as Bootie stated , no one would survive, that is the reality, it would make the game impossible
I am also a supporter of all non Safe-houses bunkers and settlements to have enemies patrolling , makes sense that civilian settlements and military compounds would attract machine attention. Many are just deserted or with little resistance, makes it too much easy once you are no longer a rookie.
Also, i think machines should follow you in certain situations yes.
By the wayâŚsometimes i already have runners following me inside houses (sometimes), my game A.I must already have gain self awareness .
And no, the game is not hard, it`s easy when you understand it, happy gaming everyone.
I donât think you have to worry about that. Destructible buildings are pretty much out of the question due to the complexity of such mechanics, as confirmed numerous times on the dev streams. The novelty would probably wear off quite quickly, as well.
However, enemies blowing doors completely off the hinges wouldnât require nearly as much effort as re-modeling the entire set of house assets. Even though most enemies would be able to blow out doors, runners are the only enemy type small enough to fit through and actually get inside. Indeed, certain mission-critical houses have corpses of runners propped up and doors forced open.
I agree that destructible houses would throw the difficulty level to even more ridiculous heights, though runners arenât particularly hard to kill so I think it would be a good compromise. Excluding the tics, I quite like the close quarters combat in GZ since it requires completely different tactics, and I for one would love to see more of that.
Iâve been shot through the wall of a house by a Tank firing .50 cal. Most of them came through the window, but I was hiding from the window and I saw it come straight through the wall. -40 points!
Perfecty understandable, but irritating at the time nonetheless. But then he was shelling me too, and never took a point off me by that, so I am equally gratefull (having seen an 84mm anti-tank shell in action - suffice it to say that one round would demolish the house. Well, actually, that depends on the type - a HE would demolish the house, a HEAT round would create a laser beam of explosive that would burn an effortless hole through about ten or fifteen clapboard houses.) Iâve over answered, havenât I?
@Bootie
No such thing as âoveransweringâ to make a point, IMHO.
Youâre cool.
Thank God houses and furniture have Godmode running. XD
Would be a total wasteland if not.
GZ2: when shit went Apocalypse!!!
Wow, could be somethingâŚ
I have actually been followed to a safe house by Hunters, Runners, the odd Tank and even a Harvester.
Once they have you penned inside the house, they kill you. Either with HE/gas/heavy calibre munitions or just by a runner getting in and eliminating you while youâre trying to avoid the attacks by the squad of Hunters and/or the Tank/Harvester.
Ever since I have been playing GZ, machines have been getting into where I am, their commitment to my elimination being close to 100%. Also, the detection range often turns an attempt at stealthily bypassing a column of machines into a very quick trip to the mortuary.
In short, I think the machines have pretty much everything sewn up in the âdenial of coverâ stakes.
I, too, enjoy the role-playing aspect of the game, and seeking cover is, for me, central to my style of gameplay. Having cover completely denied by the machines freely entering the structure I have sought cover in would just make it harder work to survive. And its already not easy (understatement) in the first place.
I donât think there would be any point in safe houses if they were no more secure than, say, a field or the woods. Maybe call them âstash houseâ or something, to reflect the lack of safety.
None of the walls or doors I have encountered (not counting the metal bunker/containers) are even slightly bullet proof. Not to mention the AOE weapons that really donât care about your âcoverâ.
tl:dr - things get to you no matter what.
@Howie666
Thank you, andâŚ
True.
Sometimes by âcheatingâ (teleporting inside).
If however safe houses canât be optionally set to enterable, then keep them safe.
I would not like this enforced on others to have their safety taken away by forceâŚ
Personally, I would not mind, from RP point of view, but that should not be reason to force this on others.
I would love an in-game explanation as to why safe houses are safe. Be it that they are only in underground bunkers with strong metal doors, or at least strongly barricaded houses (there are some on the map already, one is a safe house), or be it technology that turns machines away.
I already suggested somewhere that the first task in this game could be to destroy a seeker or a relay beacon and to salvage and modify a vital component in a way that acts as a machine repellant (disturbing their communication, or senses, or whathaveyou, by emitting a constant EM field, e.g.).
That way you would create safe houses yourself, making the concept more believable.