Not really a glitch. The enemies may not be very smart, but they aren't going to dive down to you and risk killing themselves. Maybe in the future, there will be swimming enemies.
I don't see how skeletons and zombies could drown anyway. And when I think about it, I'm not sure how they'd swim, either. By my logic, they should walk along the bottom completely unaware that they're even underwater. The only time they should try to come up is when you're above them.
I did it, the grave used to be in the center of that pit. A couple got away, but they died pretty easy. I barely jumped out of range in time to avoid certain death. Too fun.
1. Dig a hole three deep, and however many you want wide.
2. Find a bad thing that wants to hurt you.
3. Lure to hole.
4. Let it fall in.
5. Repeat steps 2-4 as many times as you wish.
6. Cover up hole, make a tombstone and plant flowers.
Congratulations! You've just laid some poor souls to rest.
And now you can hear them walking around below you whenever you pass! Does my heart good.
If we have a progression system at all, I don't think points should be awarded only for killing things. Perhaps mining and building, planting things, all kinds of stuff could give experience.
I don't know about that. I rather strongly disagree.
Well, what you suggest it does make more sense from a multiplayer aspect, and you've actually swayed me a bit to your view of things. You don't want everyone to be the same, and therefore must impose limits to just how good everyone can be. This will encourage more unique play styles.
Though your points make sense to me, I still believe there should be ways to retool your character if you're limited in what you can do. Not everyone will want to play in just rounds, and trust me on this, a lot of people will want a more persistent experience if your character progresses at all. There will be requests for longer, more substantial games. Not just "Oh we made this hut and ate this pig, then we met the end-game goal and won!".
Let me rethink my last statement, as what you've suggested does make more sense when you think about the actual mechanics of multiplayer gameplay.
If the players are given a choice out of many perks as they progress, but can not choose all of them, then there should be a way to "exchange" perks in favor of others. There should be a significant penalty for doing this, as to make sure the players don't exploit this system, switching out perks for others on the fly and whenever they wish. Perhaps they must be in a certain location, or have a number of expensive resources to give in exchange for a perk "redo". Perhaps they must give up experience in order to do this, granting them less perks than they had, and leaving them to gain the difference back.
This is all based on the assumption that ending survival will be optional, of course. I'm ninety-eight percent sure that some people will want to play longer than others, and I hope the gameplay mechanics can adjust to meet that need. It's not set in stone that survival will be short or long. Or that players will even have a system of roleplaying-style progression. But if it turns out that we have the option to play in a sort of "endless" mode, and there are RPG elements, I hope that players won't be completely stuck with their choices.
I really think the thing most people would want with a system like this is the ability to have every perk. I know limits impose creativity, but I think if you're willing to put enough time into it, you should be able to have every ability available. I know there's things like balancing to worry about, but sometimes if you sacrifice fun for gameplay, it's a big oxymoron.
If I can't invest time in a character and have it get every bonus, I'd rather not have a system like this at all. It's why games like Morrowind and Oblivion appeal to me, they don't force you into a mold, and how awesome you are is only dependent on how much time you're willing to spend getting there.
Picking one perk per "level" or "point" is fine, I just want to be able to have them all, eventually.
0
Probably intentional, but it looks kind of weird underwater.
0
I don't see how skeletons and zombies could drown anyway. And when I think about it, I'm not sure how they'd swim, either. By my logic, they should walk along the bottom completely unaware that they're even underwater. The only time they should try to come up is when you're above them.
0
Your drawing is great. It's just what I imagined them as.
0
And that's without flooding the world in lava. :/
0
0
I tried, but they were too healthy. I think if I can get them down to low health, the explosion would kill them, but I haven't had a chain yet.
0
2. Find a bad thing that wants to hurt you.
3. Lure to hole.
4. Let it fall in.
5. Repeat steps 2-4 as many times as you wish.
6. Cover up hole, make a tombstone and plant flowers.
Congratulations! You've just laid some poor souls to rest.
And now you can hear them walking around below you whenever you pass! Does my heart good.
0
0
0
Well, what you suggest it does make more sense from a multiplayer aspect, and you've actually swayed me a bit to your view of things. You don't want everyone to be the same, and therefore must impose limits to just how good everyone can be. This will encourage more unique play styles.
Though your points make sense to me, I still believe there should be ways to retool your character if you're limited in what you can do. Not everyone will want to play in just rounds, and trust me on this, a lot of people will want a more persistent experience if your character progresses at all. There will be requests for longer, more substantial games. Not just "Oh we made this hut and ate this pig, then we met the end-game goal and won!".
Let me rethink my last statement, as what you've suggested does make more sense when you think about the actual mechanics of multiplayer gameplay.
If the players are given a choice out of many perks as they progress, but can not choose all of them, then there should be a way to "exchange" perks in favor of others. There should be a significant penalty for doing this, as to make sure the players don't exploit this system, switching out perks for others on the fly and whenever they wish. Perhaps they must be in a certain location, or have a number of expensive resources to give in exchange for a perk "redo". Perhaps they must give up experience in order to do this, granting them less perks than they had, and leaving them to gain the difference back.
This is all based on the assumption that ending survival will be optional, of course. I'm ninety-eight percent sure that some people will want to play longer than others, and I hope the gameplay mechanics can adjust to meet that need. It's not set in stone that survival will be short or long. Or that players will even have a system of roleplaying-style progression. But if it turns out that we have the option to play in a sort of "endless" mode, and there are RPG elements, I hope that players won't be completely stuck with their choices.
0
If I can't invest time in a character and have it get every bonus, I'd rather not have a system like this at all. It's why games like Morrowind and Oblivion appeal to me, they don't force you into a mold, and how awesome you are is only dependent on how much time you're willing to spend getting there.
Picking one perk per "level" or "point" is fine, I just want to be able to have them all, eventually.
0
0
I smell a Dwarf Fortress player. :smile.gif:
0
Maybe link us to the thread?
Also, what if he's not playing op, wants a destructible black block, or wants a block that's actually black, not the color of demon-spit?
0
I think it'll be more practical when survival starts up. Mushrooms could be used as a food source in caves. :3