What I want more of in the game


#1

Ive been gone from the community for all of the summer because to post I use a computer the school lends me and that is taken away during summer. But I have still been playing the game and keeping up on news on their website. I honestly need more survival elements or more of something to hook me to the game but recently I get bored of it fast but I’m excited for the august update I think I know what all they have in store for us. So grant if that’s how you say your name please consider crafting, base building, and more survival elements cause I know you said you wanted more survival elements too. Im also a big survival game fan that why I would want these changes.


#2

I for one will 100% stop playing & promoting the game if they add crafting & base building & turn this game into just another so-so game like so many out on the market now. Seems to me from looking here in the forums that there are two camps one that wants to change the feel & play of the game in total & one that wants bug fixes, likes the general feel of open world free roam gaming that is & that wants new content that will carry on in that direction. Which way the development team will go is anyone’s guess at this point but when they decide it will either way make many unhappy it seems. Any just my opinion & have a great weekend,
SPP


#3

Well for me I play on xbox and the suplly of base building/crafting games are limited and are in short supply and also they could just make a seperate game mode for the survival elements I want.


#4

I also am on Xbox & see those games along with the forced combat games all over the place…That said if it is a paid DLC that people who like the feel now do not have to buy or play I am good with that. The key is for me at least would be just that keep it as a separate DLC & make it clear in co-op MM that you can join or not join those with that DLC…Under those two things I feel a solid compromise could work. Again take care & have a great weekend.
SPP


#5

I’m not too interested in base building and crafting. Closest I would go is a temp basrfortification and horde mode. You get some supplies and gear, setup the base (one of the preexisting buildings) and then turn on an Uber beacon and they just keep coming.

More of what they’ve done would be great. The open world, scarcity of resources and vague mysterious storyline really got me hooked and would love to see more. I’m ready to fund a DLC right now. I’ve gotten way more entertainment value out of my $35.00 Cdn than I deserve.


#6

@SteampunkPagan I totally understand what you mean by the market being clogged by worthless basebuilding game’s with no core mechanics or real enjoy-ability to them.
But who’s to say that generation zero will wind up like that if they do add base building or crafting, or even the more wild ideas that have appeared in the surveys?

I feel there is a lot to be said in learning from others mistakes and it’s easy to see where base building is enjoyable in games and where it’s not.
Ie; In most base building games you build your base where ever you want and it can be really janky, leading to clipping out of maps and all sorts of weird outcomes. if the team has a designated area designed for us to build/customize to our liking that sort of issue will not happen. Also most base building games have a stale rate of progression, if each thing built could have a satisfying in game mechanic/aesthetic to it then the end result for the player would be more worthwhile. I think too many games focus on a “tech tree” for building and that can make things gated. But take for example a game like Ark where you can find blueprints on the fly in the world for better gear from beacons that spawn on the map, if that could instead be applied to what you could build in GZ then it would add value to exploration and going out into the world of generation zero well past the end of the game. Whether you would find the blueprints off tough enemies or in designated missions or what have you, it would mean you could search for something more in this game.
And the same can be said for crafting, as long as the team is looking at other video games with these elements and thinking “yes, that’s great for (insert game here) but how can we make this better?” then i think it could only add to the game.

Sorry for the long reply, but I’ve seen you state this a few times across the forums and i don’t know if anyone’s tried to say it so thought i’d take a swing to showing the bright side of how these could be implemented. :slight_smile:


#7

Like I said above if as a separate DLC then fine…I want zero part of base building or crafting I do not play or like those games & when I bought this one I checked to make sure it did NOT have those two things. I simply would NOT have bought it if it did @GungHoSarge had an idea above that is solid with fortifying existing structures for a short term fight that TBH would fit with the feel of the game. However Base building & crafting as a forced on all play would totally change the feel & dynamic of the game to the point that it would be a totally different game than the one I purchased…As a separate DLC for those who want it fine I have no problem with that but forced on all I do…Have a great weekend @tene & take care.
SPP


#8

Well said! I’m often confused with the be everything to everyone trend in games. I like the clear sense of direction Gen Zero went with and feel like the Product owner has a vision which is key


#9

You couldn’t possibly survive in this environment by “building a base”. It would only be question of time before the machines found out where it was and then they’d besiege it until you were dead. You’d have to keep moving to stay alive. Now, i have a favourite safe house, yes I do, but that’s because the boxes in it continually contain cool stuff. I suppose it would benefit from a wall with a couple of good firing positions, but what for? I have to keep going to find out where everybody is and save the world. I don’t want to live here!


#10

That’s fair, and entirely valid. If i bought something and it was drastically changed in a way i didn’t want i’d jump ship as well! I just wanted to be the voice of the other guy when it comes to the pro’s and cons of adding those things. But i can definitely agree with a lot of the opinions here.
Thank you, and you have a great weekend too! :slight_smile:


#11

I’d tend to agree with @Bootie on this one. It just doesn’t make contextual sense in the portrayed situation to hole up somewhere. Put simply, you don’t build castles to protect against stronger enemies, you build them so you don’t have to worry about weaker enemies (and peasant revolts).

Regardless of where you choose, you’ll eventually be found by the bots. If you happened to chose a place like a bunker, you’ll end up in a siege situation if you’re lucky (remember, bots seem to have all the access codes), so just waiting to die from starvation. If you chose somewhere you can escape from easily, you’ll pretty much need to run regardless, so you’re wasting effort to build up a base.

Even if you had a reasonable community to work with like you have in some of the better zombie survival games, you still have to contend with military grade weapons being pointed at you. All it would take is 3-4 tanks and a dozen or so hunters to wipe out a community located almost anywhere except a bunker (put differently, if tanks used proper sequenced fire with their MLRS pods and mortars and actually lead people, a pair of them would be an impossible battle for a solo player, and three would be a terrifying challenge for a group of four players), and if you are in a bunker, it’ll be a siege pretty quickly (which is just made worse by having more people).

The reason it works at all logically for zombie games is the significant discrepancy in firepower in favor of the players. Zombies (usually) can’t attack from range, and on top of that are typically slow enough to pick off with careful shots. In GZ though, the machines have a pretty decisive advantage in pretty much everything except intelligence (and the end-game dialog makes me fairly certain that they’re intentionally being stupid for some reason), so building a fortress just isn’t feasible.


#12

I think crafting would be a good addition, to be able to make use of modified parts on machines even more to augment stuff, even have a craftable melee section where utilising parts can make a melee weapon that can actually deal damage to a machine (Like a electric baton that stuns kinda deal). But I am in agreement with Ahferroin, base building wouldn’t be feasable in a game where being on the run is what keeps you alive, I mean look what happened to literally all of the settlements when hunters and tanks start rolling in.

Maybe though instead of base building, base improvements could be made, things like defenses, more storage, traps around the pre-existing bases to help improve the situations where it feels like a million tanks and hunters are barraging you while you are holed up in a church, something to make you feel like you are just a little safer, using machine parts to make said traps or reinforcement would also be a good way to entice people to look for a fight and to get machine parts. I dunno, just some thoughts.


#13

That’s very valid, I was simply looking from the side of adding variety to the main game play loop.
For the bunker code thing though, that could kinda kill two birds with one stone… if say we were to get a base in the form of a bunker that we could deck out and customize then having hordes of robots trying to take it on would be kinda fun in my opinion, it would be something that we would need to feel compelled to defend for it to be worthwhile, but maybe that could be something to it too. And it would give the much asked for horde mode that keeps popping up now that a lot of players have beat the game. :slight_smile:
Again i’m just of the opinion that i’d like anything and everything the devs decide to do with GZ, as long as it’s not loot boxes or microtransactions :sweat_smile:


#14

I have to agee and disagree. Base building like Minecraft on a fly doesn’t make sense. Fortifying a safe house or maybe a random house does make sense. In the woods I’d says deploying some kind of object to give you cover. Allowing both scenarios to lay or mount your weapons for greater stability would also be another nice feature. All things red dawn. I want a crafting system also to be on the fly. Trip wires. Timed explosives. That sort. Poor mans jamesbond effect. We’re Gorilla fighters taking down 2 ton terrors! I want glorious opportunities to open strategies to devastate the enemy. So I’m half for it. Just not a full blown ark/7days/Minecraft style. I play no mans sky for my builder game needs.

*A survival system or extra mode would make more sense over base building. So I’m with you on adding more challenges in game.


#15

I have no idea why people want melee weapons! I have been around heavy machinery all my life and this much I can tell you. Machines are hard and spiky and human beings are soft and squishy, and the two don’t mix in close proximity. You can hit a machine - it doesn’t care, and a human being cannot exert enough force to do any damage to something 14 feet high. It would be absurd. Go and hit a zombie - it’s as squishy as you are.

As for traps - we already have traps. And you can lay mines and go away, but whatever you destroy has respawned before you get back - what’s the point?

Even when I was in the Royal Marines my idea of close hand-to-hand fighting was being sat 200 yards away with an SLR, which would strike with a force of 3,000 ft/lbs. The only way you could exert that amount of force would be to fall on the machine out of an aeroplane.

Guerillas (and I have fought them) must have multiple transitory bases, because any pattern can be seen, worked out and then they are the ones ambushed, and walking into the tripwires…

Some of us seem to be wishing that the game were something it is not.

What we do need is new areas to explore, new developments in machine strategy, or a way to defeat the machines by hitting their central brain - but that might be miles away on the mainland. Alternatively, a way to turn many machines and have pitched battles with your machines (blue piping) and you fighting their machines (red piping). That might be fun. I hated the airport mission just because I was so overwhelmed by numbers and couldn’t find a way out to recover. A few rocket firing dogs would have evened it up nicely.

P.S. actually a pair of wire-cutters would be nice. Possibly an oxy-acetyline torch. Okay, more tools which you could find in anyone’s garage…


#16

I never exepcted so many people to respond keep it up the devs need some of this advice to make generation zero better


#17

@Bootie I like the tools idea. Could lead to new possibilities


#18

For dealing with the tanks and harvesters, yeah, a melee weapon doesn’t make sense. Beyond that though, I think you’re misunderstanding what some people are thinking of for melee weapons here. I’m not talking a combat knife when I say I want melee weapons, I’m talking big two-handed stuff that you can use inertia to maximize the effectiveness of, like a sledgehammer, or a mattock, or an ice axe. Stuff that gives you decent reach which you don’t have to be super strong to swing with a lot of force, yet is still well within reason to find in rural Sweden in 1989.

Put differently, in real life I’m far from athletic and have very little upper body strength, yet I can still swing a 5kg sledgehammer horizontally (so, without using gravity to my advantage at all) with enough force to break cinder blocks because I properly take advantage of the leverage gained by shortening my grip across the arc of the swing.

If we translate that to the apparent in-game strength of the characters, that’s more than enough force to send a tick flying a few hundred meters and ensure it never gets up again. I suspect it’s also more than enough to knock a runner out of the air without much difficulty, and probably seriously damage it too. Now imagine doing that with an ice axe or a mattock, both of which will focus the force on a much smaller area than the sledgehammer would.

What I want melee weapons for isn’t dealing with big stuff, it’s so I don’t have to waste ammo on small stuff.


However, I do think tools would be an interesting addition. Bolt cutters might be useful too (and you could probably use them as a club to swat ticks).


#19

I would absolutly love melee weapons to bash some runners with


#20

Okay, I get the desire, but the only thing you could hit would be a tick, and if you hit it with all your strength you might hit it ten metres, and you would damage/destroy it. A runner is about 6ft tall and travelling (when it gets into its melee stride) at perhaps 20 miles per hour. Travelling at that speed there is nothing you could swing which would even make it change direction, let alone stop it in mid-air, which is what people are talking about!

If it’s within five yards of you, a runner is in a run, but if it were standing still, you wouldn’t be able to pick it up - it would be much too heavy for that. Think of a ride-on mower travelling at 20 miles an hour (35kph), in mid-air, and you want to hit it with a sledgehammer for some reason, instead of just getting out of the way. It wouldn’t notice the blow, it would not change direction, it certainly would not be stopped.

So let’s try this. You create a ramp at the bottom of a steep hill. Stand in front of that with your sledgehammer, while you friends line up a ride-on mower at hte top of the hill. They then let it go and it rushes down the hill, hits the ramp and flies up into the air towards your face. You swing your sledgehammer to try and stop it and really, good luck with that! :))

Tick, yes, but they come from all directions at once…