Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Not really. The sandbox "goal" of 'get 50% of the living populace" into your community can still hold true.
Though, I suppose it would necessitate the creation of a faction "hierarchy" that the player can climb through (using the quest and reputation systems). That wouldn't need to be anything too complex.
I guess one big thing would be giving NPCs the ability to "demand" the player do a task for the community or face a reputation loss. Though that has off-potential too, for example the player could do be taken prisoner and forced to do tasks as an alternative to death by raider - or the player could do tasks instead of paying gold to looters.
It open the door for interesting possibilities. For example, getting "elected" out of your own faction leadership position, getting "marooned" out of your faction for failing to meet their needs consistently.
Basically - it would be the same game IMO, but it would require that inter-faction politics be more refined than they are now for it to succeed.
M&B's everything is focused around war (you can do other stuff, but all of its elements come cleanly together when played as a politics-for-war's-sake simulator).
This game is more like Rimworld - focused on interpersonal relationships and less on inter-faction warfare.
Even if faction mechanics got expanded, its focus would still be keyed on person-to-person drama. Just the drama would be expanded by allowing players to influence communities, help build communities, etcetera.
So no. . .I doubt it would fill the same niche as Mount and Blade. They are two very different games.
What it WOULD allow for is things like:
-Setting up your tent in a community (this should likely be dependant on how much the community likes you or for how long you've been reliably helping them).
-Using community buildings (again, dependant on how long you've been helping them).
-Contribute to the growth of NPC communities, by finding resources for buildings that the NPCs can then build (NPCs could tell you what their current material needs are, then you could choose to help meet them - either for gold or for relationship points. Similar to how they do now for living needs - medicine and food).
---Like I mentioned before, this could be leveraged for looters as well. Instead of paying gold to stay in a looter camp, you could contribute to the camp instead.
-Maybe if the player stops helping for too long, the community decides that the player isn't pulling their weight and might kick them out (they can still come in to trade, but they can't sleep in the camp).
I think that kind of thing would be very in-line for this game, and it would certainly offer more choice as to how one can go about achieving their goals.
Can you just roam the map, trade and survive by your lonesome?
You can, yeah. You can also create a nomadic community (GL containing the invisible strain though :D).
Though the "goal" of the game is to recruit 50% of the living pop.
Hmmm....this is....an interesting plot twist...
but to the point of the post, im hoping its on the radar, in an apocalyptic story telling people banding together out of need is pretty normal, eventually people would kill off or band together enough to create huge communities, and eventually a full blown county.
basically if an apocalyptic community story telling style game like this couldnt allow you to play the role of another survivor while the NPC's do what the player would do it would lose some bonus points for being unique.
one thing no other survival game i'v ever come across allows you to join a community and go with how the game tells the story rather than you dictating all the growth and story telling.
sometimes playing "soldier" instead of "hero" can be way more fun :)
if Survivalist allows us to go down the path of following the NPC's semi randomly progressed story rather than the players "leadership" in my eyes it would be one of THE most unique survival games out there, not to say its bad, on contrary i like the direction its going but the ability to be apart of the world rather than you controlling the world would be a massive feature in my eyes.
Sounds awesome, but very very ambitious.
You could use the pre-existing systems. Say your reputation with a town/community = the average of your reputations with everyone.
The higher your reputation, the more you can do (harvesting, using buildings, etcetera).
When you take things, your reputation lowers with everyone, after 8 in game hours.
When you put things into storage, your reputation raises with everyone, after 8 in game hours.
The loss and raising of reputation from items could come from the value of the item. An item worth 1 gold gives 1 reputation with everyone, an item worth 50 gold gives 50 reputation with everyone.
So, you take seeds and lose reputation. But you plant them, get carrots, and put 1/2 the carrots in. Reputation improves slightly, because carrots are worth more than carrot seeds.
Perhaps the ability to build within NPC bases could be based on reputation as well. Higher reputation = ability to build more buildings.
Once you get a very high reputation, maybe you can issue some light orders. After you get a high enough reputation, you can ask people to make you the leader. If more than 70% agree, you get nominated the leader and the current leader (along with anyone who disagreed) suffers a morale loss.
The same could happen with your own base. Maybe if you don't tend to the needs of people for too long (days) or have too low of a reputation with your own community, they can hold an election. If the NPC gets 70% of the votes, they take control of your faction.
Yeah. Really, the most useful features (in the current game build) would be setting up your tents within the walls of a camp and using their campfires to cook. That allows you to more easily be a "vagrant" - which is a pretty fun playstyle IMO.
I think it wouldn't be too bad, but the NPCs need a wider range of motions for it to be really fun. They need to be able to take in refugees, build more buildings/expand their walls, etc etc. As well as fight with others for territory.
Main problem is (imo) their food, water, and sleep needs are met by being in camp. They rarely go out to scavenge. I think if they went out to maybe scavenge for alcohol or more materials, that would be good. The player could accompany/lead scavenging parties, help them fight rivals for scavenging rights, etc..
Like. . .for example, if they could take in refugees - that means they need to scavenge for materials to expand the camp. Which means they send out scavenging parties, which means they encounter other camp's NPCs (and the player) - as well as other zombies. Which then dynamically creates entertainment.
NPCs die, NPC communities replace fallen members, NPC communities grow to hate and like other communities depending on how they treat each-other. . .that is the kind of potential I see in this game. And I sort of thing that is close to where the dev is going with this game, at-least from what I've observed during my play time. Right now, communities do these kinds of things inside themselves - but inter-community relations isn't really a thing.
Just my 2 cents.