NOTICE: This wiki is read-only. Rebuild 3's design phase is over and it's now released. Thank you for all your help!
- The main survivor will be more customizable, visually and with a backstory that affects whole fort
- Every survivor has a backstory that gets gradually revealed as they level if their morale is high, and might result in a free perk
- Survivors have individual morale which affects their performance, the fort's morale is an average of these.
- Survivors can be lovers or friends or family and the health of these other survivors effects their morale
- Survivors can have kids which can't go on missions but can be killed during attacks, and only affect morale
- Survivors will gain skills+levels logarithmically and won't max until saving ~5 cities
- New level cap is 100, skills still go to 100 but have fractional values
- Wquipment increases skill level past natural max
- Survivors can earn perks through training, levelling, events or backstory
- Children will age to adulthood at 14 but nobody will age further
- Will aim for ~100 survivors at the end of an average game but with better tools for organizing them
Discussion: Main Survivor
- Be fully visually customizable (pick hair, face, accessory)
- Have more options for starting equipment
- Be immortal, but refuse to go on very dangerous missions
- Move on to the next fort every time, but miraculously survive if everyone else dies
- Always sign the diary for events that effect the entire fort (not individual missions)
- Have a long-running plot to find his/her family (see Setting)
- Have a background that determines their starting skills and maybe an overall bonus to the fort
- Teacher: +leadership and gives entire fort +10% skill gain from schools
- Politician: +leadership and one extra survivor
- Store clerk: +scavenging and 10% bonus when trading with other factions
- Homeless guy: +scavenging and 10% less danger from travelling through zombified blocks
- Programmer: +science and starts with some kind of electric tech
- Another science ???
- Construction worker: +building and 10% less materials used when changing buildings
- Retired guy: +building and ???
- Police officer: +offence and 10% bonus to all firearms
- Soldier: +offence and 10% less morale reduction from death/injury
- Pizza delivery kid: +scouting??? and starts with a car
(Wardude999) Suggestion. Why cant we customize all the characters? It would be cool to be a nice, happy, good looking group except this random dude i named Jimmy with a Gas Mask on. I hate those. Anyway, customize ALL the characters and then it would be fun. Another thing: Choices. You should be presented with MORE choices than just 'Church of the Chosen Ones' and 'Gambling' and whatnot. Be a real leader. Example: We have a traitor in the group. Sarah has been acting suspicious, but we cant boot her, can we? I know, like the Helicopter part, but still. Another thing we should see relations between people. Like, say, romance, children, hating each other. Sorry if i babbled to much.
The First suvivor should be more customizable.
(DragoonIII) I agree i think that players should be alloud to give their first guy/gal things that are unique to them and stuff that way it lets other survivors know that this is the big dog and tht they shoiuld lsiten to her/him.
Cheshire (talk) I agree with this. I must have spent hours of my life clicking the photo on the starting screen in Rebuild 2 to get the perfect avatar. Is there any way that a character creation screen can be added, allowing us to customize our characters?
(Dracace) But after day 20 the "Main Survivor" is one of the other. When you have 20> survivors they start to be all the same.
(ChaseL15) You should be able to change the looks of all your starting survivors, because at 20> people,they are usually the strongest.
The first survivor should have Lv3 scavenging and fighting and Lv2 building (due to the fact that the survivor picked up these skills wile he was out on his own)
Ramiro ARG (talk) Hmmm. If you ask me, the survivor should have a bit more leadership, because a bit later on you get beaten by another survivor who has more leadership (and usually writes a strange books about zombies being "The Chosen Ones". Also you should be told what do the items you can pick do (What bonus do they have) and you should be able to pick a speciality (Scavenger, Soldier, Builder, Scientist, etc). Also I'm annoyed when my guy is no longer who sends messages and start being sent by another survivor. Isn't it supposed to be the leader's diary?
(Edy991) Can we change or set our age on our own? And can we make our own diary and write it ourselves? If me, I would like to write a diary myself,remind me of any romance, sad and happy moments.
- Scientist - allows for quicker researching of science projects
- Doctor - injuries are not as severe
- Historian/General? - Leadership, x% Defense
- Technician - scavenging of electrical parts, research in technical fields go faster, creation of special equipment goes faster
- Criminal - negative to leadership and morale, + to scavenging and attacking.
Karrachr000 (talk) Something that I could see as an option beyond the standard starting classes, is a custom class option. In it there would be a list of positive and negative modifiers. You get one positive for free and can take an additional for every negative you take. Some examples that might work are: +/- stat points, +/- a starting survivor, gain a starting item, +/- starting money or supplies, or information of the surrounding map.
You could also have the choice to choose some item or background trait that will have a negative effect to the start of the game, but once a specific goal is met, it adds a bonus to your character or fort. these could be something like: You have a daughter, girlfriend, parent, etc. lost somewhere in the city. You take a negative to scavenge and safety when out on missions. But once you find that person, your stats normalize or increase further and you gain morale.
Axethrower23 (talk) I think the main survivor/player should have a personality. So that you can easily make alliances with the riffs and easily make enemies with the last judgement gang(if the player is good). On the other hand, if the player has a bad personality, psychotic, etc. He could easily make friends with the last judgement gang and make enemies with the riffs.
I think giving the main character (and other characters) a personality would make things more interesting, and could make interactions with other people and factions more fun and enjoyable. Maybe giving a quiz or filling the blanks like in the diary thing in the start of rebuild 2 would make the default personality, or maybe something in the backstory would make the personality if ever.
If the personality thing is actually added, I think that the personality could change depending on the decisions of the player. i.e. if you have a good personality in the start, you could change it to a bad personality by raiding other factions that are actually good people, or you could choose an option that only a person with a bad personality would choose in a certain event.
Every survivor will come with age and backstory. What was their former career? Did they witness their family killed before their eyes? Were they forced to shoot their best friend after he was bit? Or were they too young to remember what the world was like before the undead came?
(Zim1415) Maybe survivors may not tell the others their entire story, and the longer they stay with the group, the more they open up. This could be affected by morale, higher morale means they are more willing to talk, lower morale might mean closed lips. (could change, if they think what they know could affect what others think of them.) People who, say for example, killed someone before the world went to hell, might not want to tell the others, and so the play might not know unless they tell someone and it eventually makes it back to the leader. This could make for an interesting playing, as the player might try and force the truth out of someone, which could reveal important information, or backfire and hurt morale.
What if learning more about a person, you (the main starting leader) might have to decide whether or not to tell the rest of the group. If the newbie had killed one of your original survivor's sister, would you tell the entire group, or keep the info to yourself, hurting your own morale from having to keep such a large secret. Or if two people in the camp get into a fight, you have to pick sides, and help one or the other. With low morale, this could have big consequences. As the game goes on, survivors outside the camp might die, or get better, or join other factions, attempt to raid you, ect. They could develop other traits as they are alone in an apocalypse, someone who has been living alone for the past X years could have gone crazy, or be a loner, or they could become almost superhuman in their will to survive. An example I thought up was: later in the game, you lose small amounts of supplies randomly. Then, it suddenly stops when you bring in a new survivor. As you learn more about her, she eventually tells you that she had been stealing supplies from the camp while she was living on her own.
With quieter survivors, this adds a dimension of "Who are you?" to each person you pick up. When you start the game, you have so many survivors in your group, 5-20 and maybe they have their own story. After that each new survivor picked up has a random chance of telling a story or being quiet. Before allowing the survivor into the camp, maybe you choose to allow them in or kick them out. Either you believe their story or you don't. Then with the quiet ones, you could assume they are in shock (remember end of the world is enough to put just about anybody through shock) or maybe they are just playing on your emotions and could be some sick individual that might let zombies in at night, or sabotage food/water supplies, or maybe even starts killing survivors off. Somebody said have a join date for each individual, that could help with a few things when trying to figure out who is the person screwing with you. Then again it could backfire as maybe you kill an innocent person while the real bad guy is still running around doing their thing. This in a way would help make each survivor become an individual. Every survivor is going to have a story and every survivor is more than likely going to have seen somebody die. If you were not born during the initial onset, you would have to redefine the survivor bit. ~Wizzid
Sarahnorthway (talk) Neat idea. Maybe every time you view a survivor's details, there's a chance that a chat bubble appears which you can optionally click, and they tell you a little more about themselves which would get permanently added to their character sheet. This could be a reward for leveling the survivor. Most events would be benign personal facts, but some trigger a quest or bestow a perk. Examples:
- Hey that's my old house, please reclaim it to make me happy
- You found my old dog, can I equip her?
- I used to be in the military but I've been hiding my skills until now
- I refuse to stay in the fort unless you declare war on the Cannibal faction who ate my wife
- I'm immune to the disease but the Science faction wants to dissect me
- I used to be a farmer and I can teach the fort how to do it better
- I'm a selfish dude and might steal food if morale is low
- I'm a crazy dude and might snap if morale is low
Ramiro ARG (talk) This is good, but remember, some people don't mind about all the notifications and just click the button "OK" so make it interesting enough, but at the same time, not boring. By the way, some survivors already "had" a job (Scavengers, Scientists, Builders, etc) You could maybe work on that a bit more to add more jobs. Another suggestion: Some survivors might bring items to the fort, but related to their jobs, for example, builders might bring saws or toolboxes, soldiers might bring guns, etc. About that, there might be soldiers that choose good weapons like assault rifles and sniper rifles if you send them to scavenge a military checkpoint or gun store, while if you send someone inexperienced he will pick big guns that are not convenient(big machineguns and rocketlaunchers do big damage but are too noisy and atract more zombies)
Wizzid (talk) What if you have a survivor that is kind of like the Crocodile Hunter? Except call him the Zombie Hunter, "Crikey that zombie has a set of teeth on him." Maybe make him related somehow to some faction or what not. The guy goes around and observes movements and conducts field studies on the zombies. With him being faction related, you have to develop a relationship with not only him but his particular faction. So you might not even learn his true name till later on, then there is always the "What If" scenario, if you take out his friends or faction, maybe he starts feeding you bad information on the zombies and that leads to your defense being hurt.
Wizzid (talk) I got to thinking, it would be kind of cool to see a Crazy Map Maker that might also fit in with the Zombie Hunter in a way. The map maker is tied to no factions and instead is also a loner. He will give you quests such as clearing out some zombies around his home (I think mountain or forest would be cool), as time goes on he might give you a map of the area or provide a free map of another area. If he is tied with the Zombie Hunter in a way, then maybe if you decide to kill the Map Maker this could piss off the Hunter, or visa versa. Maybe you can attack the guy and have some % of getting a free map of the area or partial map of another future area. All in all the guy just wants his little piece of land that he already has.
(PageNotFound) Perhaps there could be a survivor that is in fact a spy from another faction and does whatever he can to sabotage the fort and the relationship between your survivors, like spreading rumors or if he's partnered up with someone in a zombie killing mission he intentionally lets his partner die.
Awobbie There could be certain members that have a more primary role than others. And their backstories inspire story-line missions or something.
Batch: Children & Relationships
I'd love to have useless survivors that can't be sent on missions, but they've got relationships to other more useful survivors so you need to keep them alive. Kids might come along on scavenging missions after they're 10 or so but if they're killed their parents will be totally crushed and perform much worse than usual (or go full batman). Maybe even up and leave the fort or worse.
Similarly two survivors can be married, or brothers, or friends, or lovers, and have serious angst if their loved ones are killed.
SeymourG: Yeah, if a child dies, it should be double the morale loss of an adult dying, and children should only be able to be killed in fort attacks.
(Dalno) As i said on kongregate you might make an edict sort of thing, (in which i listed my idea) which is you could make couples ask to get pregnant but what if you could make it so that it reduces morale to everyone or certain people like women cannot go outside unless they have a guard or a tax thing you see? this can add a depth that effects morale good or bad depending on backstory or personality?
(r2d2go) I think it should be more of an extended game rather than only over a few months, possibly making days into weeks or something, and making it possible to have children and watch them grow. Having children would make happiness go in the direction it's already going with a tendency to create happiness, and after a 10 or 13 years they would be able to do missions - after all, in a zombie apocalypse you want children to be ready to fight early. Since it's the 3rd game, I think it should be civilization coping with zombies and making a new, civilized world despite them.
(DragoonIII) I think that children can be found and should be able to fight (at a lesser extent of course) and that just like those adult survivors should be able to die on missions other wise people will just send out the kids to do stuff since they cant die example: cannibals are neaby arm the children with guns. thats what would happen if they cant die on missions.
(Skyrimmaulsass) I think that survivors should be able to (not trying to be rude), but to engage in intercourse for happiness, a gain of relationship, and also children.
I don't know how this would play out in game terms, but if the people are trying to rebuild, they're looking to do more than survive. That being said, they'd have to teach their children how to be the first new generation, which poses some interesting aspects: What do you teach them? How much advanced (and only moderately advanced) technology do you try passing along, and what do you lose to the new antiquity? Assuming humans begin to retake Earth from the zombies, how do you teach the children to interact with the other upcoming factions? It's just something to think about...
(EllaClass) Building on the last suggestion, you should be able to assign the kids in the fort to tasks for minor perks. So they could help with farming for +.5 food per day or take apart/recycle materials for scrap. There could be a choice to have them work/educate them at the school. Pros for them working = more supplies, food etc. But, they would need a certain level of training to take on different jobs when they turn 14 and start going on missions. For example, maybe kids trained to be scientists need X amount of hours of schooling, while kids trained to be builders need Y amount. So, if you delay educating them for the production perks, they might take longer to be effective soliders, scavengers, etc.
The only thing I am sure of is that if turns lasted a week, you'll have to wait at least until turn 40 before there were any children born. That seems like an added difficulty with important positive effects on happiness and negative effects on food supply and productivity.
Before they were productive they would have to wait at least until turn 400 (10 years) and I think that's too much, only the longest games would see any children become part of the workforce, I don't think is worth it.
However, children found randomly at ages like 4 or 8 or so would have to wait much less to become part of the colony, so it makes sense to let them become mature enough to work in the middle of the game.
Anyway, is up to you to decide if you want or not to add this complexity, you might just throw this issue to the bin if you add a minor plot change saying that the zombie infection had 100% success rate with children (immune children excluded)
Woolfe (talk) The Big issues with children are the potential "rating" issues, and the timing issues. If you were to use them, you could assume they just do "home" duties, and then have a chance for them to be killed etc, Kids that die = Big Morale hit. If you wanted to be really nasty, you have a "nursery" type building, where all the young kids are kept with lots of defenders etc, if the zombies get in... oh dear... Morale drops through the floor. Parents would potentially give up etc... etc etc... I don't think its a great idea honestly.
Prutton (talk) I think you could use a loyalty matrix L(i,j) to store the bonds between character i and character j. The mission success rate could be affected by the character bonds: characters with low loyalty could affect the odds negativelly and characters with high loyalty could affect it positivelly. The loyalty could affect relations like dates/marriages and at critical levels it could make some characters leave the fort. Some random events would affect the loyalty between members, and churches/bars could raise the chance of positive events. To make it more interesting, the loyalty should interact in some way with the characters morale.
(Haukins) remember people this is a video game keep the days and put in relationships makes up for children growing into a teen for a week and teens to grown-ups for another week but remeber maby the air has a growing hormone or something like that and it can't effect grown-ups but yet slows it down just remeber it's a video game just put in a realistic story why the hormones are in the air
Batch: Individual Morale
Rather than or in addition to having fort-wide morale, every individual has a morale level. They also have different things that make them happy, aka Dwarf Fortress.
- One guy's satisfied with life if he just has a bloody huge gun.
- Another guy's stressed to the extreme if he ever even sees a zombie.
- Some people's happiness is dependent on how much food there is
- Some people want blingy equipment like hats, necklaces, outfits
- Or a pet, some guys are allergic
People are more likely to leave the fort or kill themselves or refuse to work if they're unhappy. I think also they should just perform better/worse after a certain happiness level. Maybe subtle and hard to explain, but realistic.
(szgerg77) In connection with relationships, conflicts, morale: Most conflicts can happen between newcomers and old members. In Rebuild 2 all newcomers are green. Can you imagine that? A guy is hiding from and fighting the zombies alone, while also gathers food for him/herself alone. Should they have level 0-1 skill levels? I guess not. I would model this with the decreasing number of survivors found as time passes (even previously found survivors that not yet joined could "disappear"), but they should have advanced skills. On the other hand imagine this lone-wolf guy suddenly become part of a mini society of 10/20/100 people. There will be some conflicts, right? People should get used to each other, respect and trust each other. This could be modelled using individual morale. Successful missions increase morale. Missions where someone gets hurt: decrease morale. Not doing anything decrease the morale. "Leaders" working wiht these people can increase their personal morale. Newcomers should always have low morales. These individual morales should determine how effective the survivors skills are. Extreme low morale people can start making troubles: stealing stuff, harassing others, might even killing others decreasing others' indivdual or the group's general morale. There should be a list of hard decisions of what to do with these people (incl: exile, or execution), while "leaders" working with them should always be an option.
The Fantastic Michael Preston (talk) That gave me an idea. What if we used a Zodiac System? I.E. Cancers and Sagittarius' people are said to NOT get along. Well then in the group, these two groups tend to dislike each other! It's the most organized and predictable way to make people have relationships.
(Foxlink) Hey, I've played these games on Kongregate and loved them. An idea that I thought might be interesting for the individual survivors is if maybe you can assign where you want them to live within the community. Maybe depending on where they live it could change their morale (ex. if they live in a lush suburb house they may get more morale than those that are in a cramped apartment.) or possibly get a change in skill level, (ex. living next to the police station allows a survivor time to watch others train during spare time giving that survivor ideas for improving their combat) or possibilities of finding loot that was hidden, (ex. your survivor was trying to clear out more living space in the mall when he stumbled across a hidden janitor closet with a crowbar inside). It would also give the ability of when zombies attack and overrun the zones that are lost, whoever was living in them, are also lost with them (possible survival of said survivors if the areas are reclaimed).
I really like the idea of "survivor loyalty" on an individual basis. especially if tied to random events (eg ban the book event) if loyalty dips too much, suvivors may leave and form their own rival stronghold => civil war!
How about crimes taking place, maybe a murder or robbery and that can effect things like lower morale also make so you can elect people and everyone has a different point of view, so when one guy is elected maybe buildings are built faster, or your morale is raised etc. -Harvey
(Rebuild Fan7575) Also there should be an individual’s morale which is affected by what happens in their lives. For example, someone close to them dies (-35 morale) or they get a gift they wanted. (An ex baseball player gets a baseball bat +10 morale) Then there should be an overall Rebuild morale which is the average of all the existing morale. (For example, Todd’s 70%+ Sarah’s 50%+Jacks 80%+Bob’s 65%=Overall morale of 66.25%) Then there should be events tied to the individual’s morale and the group’s morale. Here is a list:
- When an individual’s morale is above 80% then:
- Increase in job productivity (For example, a farmer yields 2 or 3 rations instead of 1. Or a soldier’s fighting power is 5 instead of 3.)
- Increase a chance for a random good event to happen. (Like they find a puppy +10 morale or because of more smiling people around this person are happier +5 to people that are close to him.)
- When an individual’s morale is below 50% then:
- The individual talks about suicide and the mood rubs off on those close to that person. ( -10 to those that hear or are close to that person.)
- The individual is less productive than before. (For example a farmer yields less than what it normally yields and etc.)
When an individual’s morale is below 20 or 15% then:
- Then the individual does something crazy (For example, the person commits suicide, destroys supplies, feeds people to zombies or kills children because he/she lost a child. These events also can affect the morale of people in a relationship with this person.)
- When the group’s morale is above 80% then:
- Everyone gets a productivity bonus
- There could be group parties (+10 morale to everyone)
- The community gives off a pleasant feel so survivors show up randomly without finding them.
When the groups morale is below 50% then:
- The negative mood effects the whole group(-10 morale for everyone)
- The whole group is less productive (For example everything that produces something is 33% less productive or soldier’s power is 33% less productive.)
When the groups morale is under 20 or 15% then:
- Group’s do crazy thing’s (Group suicides occur, the whole group breaks in half causing you to lose half your buildings and people, a group does mass killings, or a group steals supplies and defects to a gang. Adding this feature will make this game more thought provoking and captivating)
Skye sken (talk) There should be an option to kick anyone out at any time (excluding your own character of course); the higher the leadership the person kicked out has, the more effect the action will have on happiness (which might be huge). I think in Rebuild 3 each individual character could have a distinct "reputation", that signifies how the character is liked in the community. Nutjobs and psychos generally would be less liked, and would thus have lower reputation. Surviving a lot of missions, doing nursing or teaching, etc... would gradually increase the person's reputation. I think it would be suitable if a person of very low repute would start to have a chance of being voted out or "accidentally" killed off the community. A number of perks might affect the character's reputation (bro, psycho, foul, musician...).
Prutton (talk) I think every character should have a personality. A violent person is more likely to become a soldier, and could raise morale doing assault missions. A coward character should become a weak soldier, losing morale when ordered to fight zombies or defend the city. The idea is to make every character more suitable to a given role and less suitable to other roles.
Batch: Max Skill Level
Sarahnorthway (talk) Survivors should gain skills+levels logarithmically, so it takes more effort to reach level 6 than level 5. I'll aim to max people out after saving 5 cities completely. New survivors will roughly match leader level with a penalty based on the current difficulty. New level cap is 100, skills also go to 100 but have fractional values.
If we have an overmap and you're encouraged to take your dream team from one city to the next regularly, how long will it take to max a survivor out... Should increase the max skill level so survivors keep gradually leveling for maybe 2 years, enough time to save 3-5 cities. After that, will people just stick with their heroes... unless they die I guess, or sacrifice themselves in some plot-related trick.
Also equipment should increase skill level past it's natural max.
(SeymourG) I'd hate it if I finally got a level 10 and the plot killed him. Still, it'd be cool.
I'd like to be able to connect cities and establish a trading route or traveling. For instance, you retake an entire city but now you have to branch out. The logical way to do this would be to head down the highway to the next town. But the town you established with it's tons of farms, excess food, top-notch survivors, antivenom, etc shouldn't just disappear like it never happened. so you can begin to investigate the areas surrounding the city, looking for a road out of town. When you find the road, you can explore it until you find another town (or several) each with different scenarios, like maybe you have to take it back from cannibals or raiders or something.
(RSC) About stats, I think that 10 is an OK limit, but that equip bonusses should not be included in the limit. (I'm so good at fighting that the shotgun is useless to me... Yeah right)
(Kakinaga) I think max level is not always 10, but below. Depend on their ages, job, etc. But the leaders always 10 on all skills. For example: Seniors & Children have max level 8 for combat skill (-2). Example for jobs: Seniors have ex-military profile, so max level become 10 (+2). Example for description (children doesn't have job): "this child have military relation" +1, so their max level is 9 for military.
In the game they can't exceed the max level.
Prutton (talk) What if every character have a different potential? Instead of 100 points per stats, it could have a maximum sum of all stats. For instance, a 300 potential character could sum up to 300 in all his attributes, while a 400 potential one could sum up to 400. Instead of showing the character potential integer number, you could show a grade, like A, B, C, S...
Batch: Perks, sub-classes or specializations
Once you max out a survivor's skill as a basic soldier, perhaps you could train him specifically as a sniper or melee attacker. These could be special sub-classes unlocked after a certain level with extra training, specializations you can take once you reach a certain level, or maybe just perks that can be trained for.
Some general perks or specializations might be:
- Soldier - heavy guns (bonus when equipped)
- Soldier - melee weapons (bonus when equipped)
- Builder - demolitions (explosives in battle.. or let builders destroy buildings faster and replace them with anything)
- Builder - stationary weapons
- Scientist - medicine (chance of saving lives)
- Scientist - research
- Scavenger - cooking (more food produced from scavenged goods)
- Scavenger - building materials (better at finding sheet metal, bricks, wood etc)
- Leader - morale (better at running bars & churches)
- Leader - recruitment (better at recruiting)
- Barricader- improved defense (increases the barricades in a building or on the wall)
Then you could get weird (these might also be awarded as random events or at birth):
- Skinny guy (eats half as much)
- Immune to zombieism
- Friend to animals (randomly finds dogs & cats, can't be hurt by them)
- Profiting from infection: when infected, gains part of the physical perks (toughness, strength etc.) of being a zombie, maybe even some neat mutations, but mind remains stable and fully conscious, allowing for still being on the survivors side (a rare genetic perk that is only discovered when not shooting an infected person, thus one can gamble for getting one of these if one wants)
- Extra nonweapon or weapon equipment slot
Or even negative:
- Hungry guy (eats twice as much)
- Disease prone
- One less equipment slot (lost an arm!)
Medieval total war introduced me to the concept of character traits. after battles, or events, characters would gain +1, -2 etc to stats (eg: lilly-livered, zealot). this really helps fuel the role-playing element
Special traits from RSC:
- Scholar: +0.5 from school learning
- Afraid of weapons: Cannot equip weapons and cannot learn to fight
- Super Hero: Fighting is 10 but only if alone on a mission
- Allergic to dogs: Stats reduced to 0 when a dog is equipped in the mission's team
- Broken leg: Can only go on missions in the base and on squares bordering it
- Disobedient: Does a random mission instead of the one affected if alone on the mission
- Murderer: Kills his teammate if going on a mission without anyone else.
- Medic: Good chance to turn a death in mission fail into a injured.
- Taunt master: Can do taunt missions alone, leading all zombies (including horde) in the 4 adjacent squares to the mission square. Chance to survive= 100%-2xNb of zombies on the square after the move.
- Crazy Firearm tweaker: equipped firearm efficiency x4. Weapon destroyed after use+high chance of injury.
- Singer: All stats stuck at 0. +1 morale when on a team that does a successful mission. Equipped with unremovable guitar.
- Mr Clumsy: All stats start at -10 for all stats, impairing any mission he joins. Complains when sent on scout mission. has a secret maximum stat of 12, making him the best character to keep for next town.
- Martial arts training: +2 Attack when no fire-based weapon equipped.
- Farmer: +1 extra food per day when tending crops
- Stealthy: missions done alone (or with other stealthy) that do not involve killing zombies have 15% less risk.
- Noisy: missions that do not involve killing zombies have 15% more risk unless the original risk was 0.
- Mercenary: good starting stats, will "lose" his equipment every few turns, and leave the camp if said equipment is not renewed.
Some ideas for character "special" abilities could be:
- Gunsmith (chance to create weapons, and/or able to mount machine guns to defensive positions.)
- Trainer (able to function as a school, for one particular skill)
- Medic (faster recovery time from wounds)
- Schizophrenic (-1 happiness each turn; a negative characteristic)
- Scout (farther vision)
- Mechanic (fix certain special items, like the Car)
- Zombie keeper. Knows how to restrain and use zombies safely to perform certain mundane physical tasks, or perhaps even as soldiers for pure zombie-on-zombie violence. Gotta love it.
- Violin master. A completely useless skill, but it made you famous before the apocalypse :)
- Sickly (More easily contracts influenza or other pestilences; increased chance of perishing during missions and has a constant 0,5% chance of dying even if not doing anything. Symbol: skull and bones)
- Foul (Does not attend to personal hygiene, and thus contracts diseases often, and has an increased chance of afflicting them upon others; harder to accumulate reputation. Symbol: a fly)
- Rebellious (Increases chances of a revolts; decreases overall happiness if his/her leadership and/or reputation is high. Symbol: a clenched fist)
- Alcoholic (If the community includes a bar, the effectiveness of the character is lowered significantly. Symbol: a bottle)
- Coward (Will always decrease the overall chance of survival during missions; has a harder time learning leadership; takes a huge hit to reputation; might even decline to perform what is asked of him/her. Symbol: a rat? Maybe a chicken?)
- Unstable (Negations to morale; Might flip out during a mission, with a chance of killing someone or him/herself; Once discovered, takes a huge hit to reputation and most likely will be demanded to be kicked out by the rest of the community. Symbol: a clown)
- Loner (Has bonuses to survivability in missions if he is assigned alone, but his/her skills take a hit if he is accompanied. Symbol: a wolf)
- Vagrant (When assigned to scavenge, will produce foodstuff at a better chance than normal. Symbol: a shopping cart?)
- Brave (+5% to survival chance for the whole party in the same mission, but if someone dies, it's more likely to be him/her. Symbol: a shield)
- Fighter (If not assigned a ranged weapon, should get a bonus to his attack stat. Symbol: a dropkick silhouette maybe?)
- Sensitive (Increases leadership as a hidden effect; all effects on morale/sanity are doubled. Symbol: a teddy-bear
- Tough (Can survive lethal encounters even without medikits or doctors around; negative effects on morale/sanity are halved. Symbol: a brute silhoutte)
Perks should be assigned to their respective slots, as some are bound to be mutually exclusive. Maybe when recruiting persons to your community, some of their perks are not visible, so as to simulate the kind of hard decisions one must make when considering if these people should be let in (well, "foul" should be apparent I guess...). After all, you just can't be certain until you get to know the person. One possibility is also that the higher your character's leadership, the higher the chance to probe his hidden perks would be.
- stubborn (+survival chance when alone; -figthing when in group; tends to "just keep" 1 piece of equipment he likes (item shouldt fit his highest skill; u cant remove it or get the option to force him to give his beloved item away, which results in morale loss and/or him gettin a negative perk or event, maybe %chance depending on his/general morale and leadership of main char)
- item expert (e.g. shotgun crazy) if the same item is used for long time survivors got a growing chance to gain this perc. + skill if using this item(shouldt need long time/ low % chance so u dont end up having too much item experts and sitching items often doesnt become a bad idea)
- mall rat (can live in a mall; if allowed to do so he doesnt need a living quarter, his morale goes up,upgrades defense bonus of this mall slowly (maybe by 5 after 50 turns or sumthing; maybe finds a piece of equipment as a event. on the downside he doesnt do any missions xept from defense and needs food; only defends against horde attacks near his mall) optionaly with high leadership he has a %chnce to do a mission here and then(+ scavange in malls)
- bartender/priest +morale for bar/church
Prutton (talk) I think you could give every survivor a profession, something he used to do before the zombies. His profession could affect skills and missions. A scientist, for instance, is better suited for the scientist role. He needs to be trained anyway, as a scientist in this new world is way different from a scientist from the old world. About the leader: I think there should be only one leader, the main character. All the other characters should have a leadership stats, that would be used to recruit, lead missions, run churches and the bar.
BoredGameGuy I think that the perks are good ideas. I have some more.
- Nerd - Cannot be sent to fight or defend the fort, but is very good at sciences. Could also boost morale by developing video games for the fort.
- Black guy - Increases the fort's morale by just being awesome.
- Drunk - Lives in a bar, increasing living space.
- Obese - Eats more food that anyone else in the fort. This is a negative effect.
- Stripper - Increases the morale in the fort. I don't think I need to explain why.
- Foreigner - Decreases the effect of missions he goes on as he can't understand English, but is very effective on his own.
- Beast - Send him on a mission on his own and he will have a danger of 10%.
- Bomb Expert - Used to make bombs for a terrorist organisation, and now makes bombs for you. There is a chance, however, that it may explode prematurely, and you lose him and a square of your fort.
- Chav - Spends most of his time in clothing stores looking for items that the black guy wears. Has to have someone in the fort with the black guy perk, and is completely useless.
- Butler - Will never rebel against the fort leader.
- Secretive - Nobody quite knows what this person does. He is also useless, and is like the strange doctor in Rebuild 2.
- Fundamentalist - Spends a lot of time in church. Liable to attack people who is agnostic/atheist.
- People allready talk about alcoholics but what about drugs / junkies ?
possibly add a set of drugs that boost combat effectivness, scavenge/scout, and or decrease certain skills. Possibly your survivors get addicted and need to get cured for 5 turns in hospital.
Recruitment should be harder if fort morale is low or if you've committed immoral acts; maybe you'll get an occasional event that says they refuse to live with cannibals. If morale and leadership is very high, nearby survivors should occasionally just join you.
Perhaps some recruitable survivors could appear as mini-factions of 1-4 blocks, who might even attack if you get too close without first winning them over with your leadership skills. Leaders do need more things to do.
Miguelinileugim (talk) What about too many survivors? In the first game the problem was that there were too few, what if the problem were that there are too much and thus food starts becoming too scarce to recruit everyone?
That is, you'll have to solve it the Canadian way, having recruitment criteria (manual or automatic) and only letting in capable survivors who will contribute to the colony while forcing the others to suffer and starve outside, just like Canada! :)
Awobbie Maybe if you are just starting out or you have a low morality (Another idea: Morality Scale?) you can recruit certain raiders or cannibals.
And some groups of survivors maybe fighting back?
Prutton (talk) Survivors settlement could have a threat level. If the threat is high, you could have to fight them and even kill one or two before being able to recruit the other survivors. Good leaders could be able to recruit without causing conflicts.
I think Rebuild's time scale will still be fairly short and people won't age noticeably. If there are kids then age does matter and there will have to be a line where survivors suddenly graduate and are adults. But I don't think people will die of old age. And if they can have kids... well it's mostly for flavor reasons and might make them happy or sad or out of commission while they deal with the kids. There's no reason to worry about passing skills on to the kids or anything.
(SeymourG) Pregnancy should be a very rare thing... That would just slow EVERYONE down. No one needs another mouth to feed who can't help out for another 18 years. But when it does happen, everyone's morale should go up a bit and the parents' morale should soar (Or plummet if they didn't want it. It's a personality thing).
(Dracace) For this you must change the day-time scale in wekk-time scale
(Wizzid) I disagree, a pregnancy will not slow everybody down if you have an established Base of Operations. If we go off some of the scenarios that have been talked about, pregnant women can be transferred to a safe house of sorts. Granted, it might end up being a rare thing, but this is also the end of the world. When it comes down to it, humans will still be human. meaning you are going to have random acts of violence for no other reason other than the acts of violence, people are going to party, be it because they are trying to forget or remember. Sex is still gonna happen and with that, maybe there are not effective forms of birth control ex: condoms, birth control pills, day after pill, so forth and so forth. Then with some of the factions that we are gonna be in the game, look at Rebuild 2 where there was the traveling bunch of women. Pregnancy is gonna happen unless we can come up with a reason as to why it will not. Also something to think of, depending on the exact timeline that will be put out there, 5-20yrs. Most of the survivors that are not with a group/faction are going to be at this point a loner. They may want to join but remain separate or they are just batshit crazy and you have to put them down because they are as dangerous or more so then a zombie. But if we think about this realistically, pregnancy might be the only way to expand your group of survivors.
- Children can help out. I started working on my family farm between 5 and 7 years of age. My son and daughters started working on the farm at 6. There's less they are capable of simply because they're physically weaker until around 14, but that doesn't stop them from helping. They can even do complex tasks, sometimes better than older farm hands.
- After playing The Walking Dead, and seeing what happened at Crawford, I think having people who are liabilities (like children) would be important for game depth, especially if we have a way to choose which survivors we want to force to leave and which survivors we even allow inside. That way, we will have to decide on how pragmatic or empathetic we want to be. (Although I'd rather not have a morality meter) Do we do as in Crawford and only allow those who can help inside? Or do we be empathetic and allow in the sick and wounded?
Well if you've actually seen the recent episodes, Rick does what's best for the group by keeping people out for the good of the group. Now they may not be sick or wounded, but still. And the baby. They all had to go on dangerous raids and they got kidnapped finding food for the damn thing. The Fantastic Michael Preston (talk).
(Zim1415) If there is aging, and we will have transitioning from child to adult, then we should have old age and death as well, Old people would be unable to leave the compound, except in emergencies, but could defend if they really need too. Also, they could be good mediators of any conflict within the group, and might be good scientists, as they remember how it was before the zombies. But when they died, it would hurt morale, but a peacefull death would hurt less than a violent one, anyone close/related too the elder who died would be greatly affected by it.
Having babies could be interesting. You could have special items, such as formula, toys, or vaccinations, that you have to find. Having children around could provide a use for the schools other than just specialized training.
Sarahnorthway (talk) Survivors will age but it will only be shown until they hit adult at age 14 (people mature faster when survival necessitates it). There will be some events that involve kids aged 7-13 wherein they can help out, but they can never go on missions. I don't want to deal with old age because it would punish people who play the longest.
Less of Them
Sarahnorthway (talk) It sounds like some people really want Rebuild 3 to become an empire-building game, and though that would be cool in a kind of Spore way, I want to keep the game small and personal like the Walking Dead. However, realistically it would be hard for a few dozen people to control a hundred city blocks, so I'm going to aim for the same number of survivors as in Rebuild 2, which was around 100 by the end of an average game. Still not super realistic but a manageable number. I'll add ordering, searching and filtering to the survivor list, and allow grouping people together into squads who always go on missions together. I still won't expect you to need more than 5 people for any regular mission. Mission results will be less in-your-face which should also help - see Interface.
(SeymourG) If that's the case, then you'd also have to cut down on the zombies, or make the characters far more skilled. I always kinda disliked how an "over run" place would only end up with 30 or less zombies dead. People could realistically kill a lot more than that.
(Internet Tough Guy) How about instead of cutting down and making the game smaller scale, make it larger scale? A longer time scale covering years/decades and a larger population, in the thousands or even millions (in the late game). And your job would basically be to rebuild civilization. You'd start small like in the previous games with a handful of survivors. You'd have your basic fort/base and you'd try to expand from there. But as you develop and expand, upgrade buildings and infrastructure, and as the years/decades pass your faction would grow into the thousands or even millions, and be made up of multiple citie/settlements.
(Dracace) With more people it is not possible to add in the game the micro-personification of the caractrs
The Fantastic Michael Preston (talk) Well ITG, here's the thing. It took humans (homo sapiens) about 250,000 years to go from not a lot to a billion. Even during the baby boom, world growth was at 1.8% per year. Therefore, it's gonna take more than 20 years to get millions more people (assuming only a few million people survived thus far.) We'd have to have every man and woman have 2 kids!
To accomodate this you'd need to cut back on the individual detail of each survivor. Instead of managing individual survivors, you manage the entire "civilization" on a macro scale. Basically assign a specific number of survivors to each task, and the game handles the rest. You'd still need to equip the survivors, but this would be handled automatically on a large scale. Basically you'd have production facilities/workshops that would make whatever weapons you have the materials and technical knowledge for, and then any "solider" survivors would automatically draw weapons from this pool, instead of you having to assign them manually. So if you wanted to make 10,000 of your survivors soldiers, you'd first produce the required weapons by assigning survivors to production of weapons. This would require materials that would either have to be scavenged (in the early game) or produced via resource gathering facilities. Then once you have the weapons, you choose how many soldiers you want, and how many weapons of each type you want to equip them with (as well as any other relevant equipment) and the weapons get evenly distributed to all the soldiers. Or you could create custom equipment sets and assign them to all the soldiers provided you have enough of said equipment. Or maybe you would create different types of units (squads, platoons, companies, brigades, divisions etc, depending on how far into the game you are and how much manpower you have) with different types of equipment (riflemen, grenadiers, machine gunners, medics etc.) and then decide how many of these units you want. When forming these units, the required amounts of each equipment type would then be drawn from your avaliable pool.
So to summarize, i would like to suggest that you basically make the game into more of a "civilization" type game. On a larger, more macroscopic scale wih a longer time frame.
I like the idea of making it more personal. If you make it more civilization-like than at best you can make a new civilization (or civ mod?). This game is unique because of its atmosphere and being personal. Making this even more personal is a very good idea even at a cost of reducing the numbers. Adding a personal history (background, missions, joining date etc.) would be interesting and make players easier to keep track of their "people".
Well it could still be personal, except it would only be personal for certain people. When you start out, you'd still have the same small scale personal group that you had in the previous game. But as you expand, this small group takes on more of a leadership and administrative role and manage the entire civilization. This small group would represent the "upper crust" of the entire civilization and could still be personal and micro managed to an extent, while still allowing the player to manage the "unimportant" masses on a more macroscopic level. Since this "civilization" type setting would play out on a much longer time scale it would also allow for the implementation of aging and children which wouldn't really work on the smaller setting with the slower time scale.
(Internet Tough Guy) I think the game should have more of a Walking Dead feel(minus the extreme insecurity) to it, as there would be a smallish band of survivors trying to fight for survival in a world full of zombies.
it would be great if we can set aside survivors to groups/squads. I always have an engineer team and leader team, but have to reclick all those names to do the missions currently
Well, in The Walking Dead (TV), Woodbury has 74 people in its population and they've only secured a few blocks of a town. I think that if you're reclaiming a city big enough for science labs, malls, and a heliport, then you would have a high population. Maybe if you had it so that the survivors occasionally were killed, especially if a herd came into their block and they weren't very skilled at all. It could reduce the number of survivors and be a bit more realistic. The other day, I had the herd come through the same block twice and the survivors, who were just level 1 scientists, were still alive somehow.
Karrachr000 (talk) I agree that a larger city would have a larger population, but I do not mind micromanaging the larger numbers. To appease those who would not like the larger numbers, you could add systems that can be toggled on or off that could have groups automatically go on scouting/scavenging missions, auto equip new items, or auto manage the defenders. This could be made easier with the character sorting feature talked about later on this page. As for the macro management, civilization aspect of the game, this could be achieved by randomly generating a 'world' map with a large variety of cities with different sizes, types, and population densities. The map could also include various roads, highways, rivers, etc. You choose a city to start with, and after you clear it, you have to start out and clear a route to the next city. You could improve these roads at an incredibly high risk and cost. Once improved, this could open up possible trade and reinforcement. From this window, you could also manage various general aspects of your freed cities, such as government type, research, trade, etc. Sure you could eventually play by complete macro managing the game, but you would not continue to advance.
(Dude) Ok, two things.
1:Holy hell, you guys completed the game with 100 people? I rarely have more than 30.
2:Maybe there should be two game modes, one with all of the micro-management and all that that makes the smaller groups fun, and one with less micro management. With more people, larger worlds, other factions being larger. If a normal faction is around 9 blocks around, then in this mode, they'd start at 9, but grow, and be spread out. By the time you meet your first one, they'd be around 18-24 blocks around, depending on how fast you spread, and by the time you meet your second, they'd be exponentially larger, until you have just one left to meet, and they take up two, three cities. Something crazy. Above all else, this game NEEDS an endless mode. Endless world generation. When I played Rebuild 2, right around the time I was starting to feel like I was going on a frickin quest to save the world (which was awesome, by the way), I hit a wall. Then I moved up. I hit a wall. Down. Wall. It was disappointing. If you do put in an endless mode, then once all of the main factions run out, I suppose you could put in generic factions, that use generated survivors as leaders. You could put in 1 of a few personalities for them.
1) passive: These would be more likely to do whatever it takes to make you get away from them. They wouldn't have too strong of attackers, but their defenses would be pretty good.
2) agressive: Pretty much the opposite. These guys might have something like maybe fences within their city, meaning that when a block falls, they already have a wall up, but that wall is visible from the world map before the attack... That is, if that doesn't happen already...
I can't really think of too many more without them being more generic than they already are, but you get the idea.
Also, reading the above guy, I like it. Thatsounds pretty dang awesome.
Counsel of Survivors
How about instead of a bunch of individuals, you have a bunch of people but you have a person in charge of them? like you could have a chief builder, and he's the only builder you'd see. same goes for soldier and the other peps. so you would still give orders to everyone (how many to allot to some task) but you would only interact with the chief builder, soldier, etc.
Here's my reasoning: -More unique survivors since you don't have to make a bunch of them -Each job would be affected by the chief, so faster building, lower morale, and you could prolly put in traits or somthing too -Gives more... personal feelings (i can't remember the right word) to each surviver you pick up.
So this would obviously make recruitment different from the other versions. can't just go find any two random people anymore. maybe make it so that it's just a generic 'two scavengers were recruited into the base' you could get the unique survivers by a 'feat of skill' from existing survivors during an event or during a recruit mission 'this person caught your eye, the survivors that were with him say that he is a skilled soldier'
Max24833 What about making a Lieutenant system, where rather than have to customize a hundred people, you and your Lieutenants, ie Counsel Of Survivors, are easiest to customize and more personalized to the player.
Prutton (talk) I really like this idea. You could get leader units (soldiers, scientists or whatever) or common units. Common units would be useless without a leader. They would only be used to increase the success rate of the leader, like an "equipment".
Erzengel (talk) Perhaps instead of less survivors to make the UI less cumbersome, the UI could simply be *made* less cumbersome. I would recommend features for searching, (user selected) sorting, and filtering of survivors. Perhaps the ability to make survivor groups. In my most recent playthrough of R2, I ended up "assigning" a lvl 3 builder to a lvl 10 builder, and they would do the construction jobs together until the lvl 3 was lvl 10. This got all the jobs done in 1 or 2 days. If I had a way to create such a grouping and reuse it for each mission, it would have cut down on a lot of scrolling through my lvl 10 builders to find my lower level builders.
Sorting character by name and by skill. Alphabetical A-Z or Z-A for characters. List skills by numbers and with each individual skill. 1-10 or 10-1 for solider, builder, scientist, leader, and scavenger.
Character sorting is half the fun! I like the idea's so far, minus the gas mask thingy.
MarmaladeKitten: Bring the Assign All button back and when you look over an equip list, when an item is equipped, let like a mouse-over option tell us which survivor has it. It gets a little hard trying to figure out in 100+ survivors who ended up with the rocket launcher right before I want to move on to a new city.
You should be able to change the name of any character, along with their story and clothing. Clothing could even be counted as an item, such as: This mission requires all members of the party to have gas masks.
I don't know if I would start something like that,seems like it could be a major pain in the butt. Instead you could just have the one's who are grouping together, maybe unhappy, and planning on leaving in mass to start their own city, without you of course :(
I've said this somewhere else, but for the sake of god, keep the customization at a minimum!
It's an incredible hassle to have to give missions to each one of your 50 survivors and it's an even worse hassle to have to equip each one of them with a single item.
Now imagine equipping 50 survivors with guns, grenades, ammo, medical kits etc. Even in Dwarf fortress they had a little common sense and made equipping automatic.
So, please, either create a super-cool automatic equipping AI (like I suggested ) or keep items to a minimum.
Randomizing Survivor Arrivals
Narukun94 (talk This is from my own experience playing Rebuild 2 that about 95% of the time I had soldiers moving into my town ( which I didn't mind at all :) } but thinking about it realistically soldiers would be quite the rarity even if it is 20 years after Z-Day and even scientists would be quite rare as well.
So here is my suggestion:
- 95% of survivors that wander into your town/city should be unskilled survivors(which would e a benefit cause you can make them be whatever you need them to be)Or Scavenger's and Builders
- 2-10% by chance should a soldier or 2 soldier's should join your town
- 2-10% by chance should a scientist or 2 should join your town
- 2-10% by chance should a squad of soldiers join your fort
(theomorphical) I noticed the same thing, i was half way through getting finished with the game on impossible mode and like every day i got like five million soldiers, not that their bad, but its so annoying, im like screaming "I NEED SOME FU**ING BUILDERS(or looters, leaders, ETC)" i think you should make more char classes so like (sorry for stealing your idea) teachers, mathematician, electritions ETC, but make some spec classes only usable if you spawned/the survivor spawn with the skill. so like more teachers will make teaching better (normally you would get 1.5 in the skill your teaching, you would get 0.5 more with every teacher, they are rare too) electritions will help builders install electricity to buildings if you researched electricity and you have wire(you get it from a survivor/gustav's caravan/mall survivors have a 10 to 75% chance to spawn with wire depending on class)and survivors that are in labs have a 50% chance to spawn with 1-3 science, 35% to spawn with 4-6 science, and 15% to spawn with 7-10. same with schools, police stations(spawn soldiers) suburbs(30% chance spawn all around survivors that have 3-6 in every class type accept special ones. and then you have a "ex-navy seal" which 1%-5% spawns in police stations and they have 30 soldier skill, 20 leader, 8 science, 3 scavenger, and 0 builder.
I think that, as time progresses, the visitors should actually become more skilled. There is no way that a Level 1 scientist with no skills as a soldier or scavenger has made it to Day 200.
You should also be more likely to find certain high-skilled people in certain buildings, like a soldier at a military base or a scientist at a science lab, etc.
New Class Ideas
From Skyrimmaulsass: I think that for some new classes, there should be:
- Criminal(obtained from police stations)(causes trouble if you let him out of the cell, if he stays in, he makes new weapons)
- Police Officer
- Fitness Instructor
- Prostitute (Buy them from Gustav or a new merchant)
Also, Some new troublemakers should be added like:
- Zombie Worshippers
- And some military should also be hostile because of crappy government
Also some new survivor classes:
- Teacher: A lower form of scientist class/skill about Lvl. 1-4
- Hunter: A lower form of soldier class/skill about Lvl. 1-4
- Picker: A lower form of scavenger class/skill Lvl. 1
- Survivalist: An all rounder (offer than science)Lv5.
These would be more common to be wandering into your town/city.
- I really liked the 3 class system of Rebuild 2 but I think you should put a limit on it because I have had a Lvl. 10 solider, builder, leader. Like your first class/skill should be at 10 or so secondary should be at 5 or so and your third should be at 3 or so. But if you do not desire your said first class, you could go to the school and replace it with another on at a price such as going to Lvl. 1 of whatever class/skill you chose to replace it with.
- Umm branching Class/skills like if you max out a scientist you can make them a nurse/doctor which helps out with diseases, A Architect for builder and so on...
- Delta Force Soldier - a highly trained specialist soldier you can send on solo missions in place of a full squad to complete objectives by stealth. Such as rescuing a stranded person or recovering important data.Saarkin (talk)
- Librarian - Someone you can put to work in the public Library after you reclaim it. This person will be responsible for cleaning the library up and along the way occasionally they will find copies of training guides and how to books to help your survivors relearn important skills. Those skill books will allow new items to be researched in the labs.Saarkin (talk)
Awobbie Extra Ideas
- Priest - Works as a Catholic Pastor. Some Can be converted to other religions with work.
- Rabbi - Works as a Jewish Pastor. Some Can be converted to other religions with work.
- Pastor - Works as a Christian Pastor. Some can be converted to other religions with work.
- Cultist Priest - Leads a Cult. Some can be converted to other religions with work.
- Apologist - Can be used to convert Rabbis, Priests, Cultist Priests, or Pastors.
- Mental Patient - Escaped from a nearby Mental Facility. Can be killed, brought back/accepted, or left/sent away. Encountered randomly.
- Psycho - Escaped from a nearby Mental Facility. Will attack your people.
- Psycotherapist - Can help captured cannibals, zombie worshipers, or psychoes, or found mental patients.
- Children - Boosts Morale.
- Homeless - Has good survival skills and a good knowledge of the streets.
Xiaolaoshu (talk) I kind of prefer some simplicity of soldier/scavenger/scientist/builder system, at least in terms of training and management. I could see adding back the survivor class, meaning someone without training in one of those 4 fields. Survivors would not improve or improve slowly in one of those fields without training. To customize a bit each person could have a trait or two that adds a bonus or penalty. A doctor or nurse might add to hospital or community health, a priest might give +1 moral at church, a farmer could add to farm production. On the flip side, penalties for people who are cowards or greedy or whatever. I would like to stress simplicity and not have dozens of trainable professions with a myriad of skill combos. Just a small modifier that comes with the survivor.
Sarahnorthway (talk) I need a new set of nicknames for survivors eg Sarah "A-Bomb" Northway, in the same style as the original ones which were references to games and zombie movies and in-jokes and some just sounded badass. For Rebuild 3 survivors might have to earn their nicknames by leveling up (it was only possible to gain a nickname in Rebuild 2 if you lost an eye). These were the original ones:
(Anyone could have these): A-Bomb, Ash, AT-AT, Baghdad, Bear, Beavis, Beer O'Clock, Bikini, Blackhorse, Boise, Bonehead, Books, Bucket, Buddy, Butter Knife, Buttons, Cheetah, Cherry, Chilliwack, Coach, Crybaby, Cuppa Soup, Denver, Dinosaur, Dirty, Dogface, Doughboy, Edmonton, Faraway, Fatty, Fishhead, Fishfingers, Flex, Frisbee, Full Frontal, Goodguy, Grannypants, Gravity, Halifax, Hatchet, Jalapeno, Jimbo, Junior, Junkie, Kamloops, Kingston, Kit Kat, Prime, Tweedle, Knocker, Lightbrite, Lucky, Malaria, Meatloaf, Montreal, Mosquito, Motown, Mouse, Nanaimo, Napoleon, Nasty, Nemo, Nineteen, Nugget, Oilcan, Okanagan, Packer, Peaches, Pickle, Piledriver, Pillsbury, Popsicle, Pretty Boy, Red Bull, Red, Roach, Rope, S-Mart, Samus, Sauce, Shakes, Shoeshine, Short Round, Shucks, Sixstring, Slacker, Smoke, Snotty, Soap, Spokes, Spoon, Squeaks, Storm, Strawberry, Surrey, Tallahassee, Taz, Teatime, The Aussie, The Brain, The Canuck, The Dawg, The Freak, The Fuzz, The Geek, Taco, Carebear, The Islander, The Kiwi, The Pince, The Plow, The Spice, The Turk, The Zest, Triffid, Tweety, Two Inch, Sloppy Joe, Pattycake, Wallaby, Wannabe, Wiggles, Winnipeg, Wiseguy, Wolf, Wichita
(Only soldiers could have these): Hammerhead, Animal, Rookie, Butcher, Torpedo, Lone Gun, Wolf, Chaingun, The Gun, Bear, Flex, Thor, Rambo, Batman, Quickdraw, Superman, Pyro, Bullseye, Gloryboy, Trigger, Fridge, Gun Bunny, Halfback, Jarhead, Jet Li, Lone Gun, Maggot, Magnum, Maneater, Meatboy, Mud Puppy, Sledgehammer, Sploder, Sploitz, Pacifist, The Captain, The Hammer, Z-Bomb, Goober
(Only scientists could have these): Bones, Specs, Four-eyes, Frankenstein, Jekyll, Einstein, Igor, Doc, The Doctor, Brainiac
(People who lost an eye could have these): Cyclops, One-Eye, Winky, Winks, 2D, Popeye, Patch, The Pirate
So far for new nicknames I have:
- "The Man"
- 20 Cats
- Fancy Shoes
- Hat Trick
- Pig Pen
- Half glasses
- 2/4 eyes
Chewy, Sideways, Slick, Two-Shoes, Square Head, Sticky, Mad dog, Riffraff, Rickety, Leaky, Sleepy, Dafty, Crusher, Thresher, The Letch, Toothless, Dreamy, Sparkles, Tickles, Sweety, Fully Automatic, Slurpy, The Bod, Smiles, Grins, Fuzztooth, The Squid, Squiddy, Pinky, Rewind, Rocket, Tasty, Dribbles, Turkey, Chicken, Eleven (in-joke), Teeth, Tongue, Break, Breaker, Flick, Weedy, Flambe, McStabbins, Serrated, Inferno, Whirlwind, Tornado, Typhoon, Hurricane, Tsunami, Tidalwave, Earthquake, Meteor, Genocide, Rotgut, Runaway, Itchy, Doze, Trace, Clover, Lucky, Fin, Die, Dice, Deadly , Crowbar, Snowman, Stitch, Sawsbuck, Matchstick, Eggs, Biscuits, Quarters, Cans, Hearts, Diamonds, Clubs, Spades, Noir, Trigger, Klepto, Zanzibar, One-Two, Hefty, Nibbles, Taker, Hook (Possibly for someone missing a hand?), Eyeball, Fingers, Sweaty, Broken, Cracked, Crazy, Numb, Numpty, Noddy, Stoner, Zed-Head, Dead-Head, Nails, Niner, Fiver, Bloody, Bloody, Bullet, Sling, Slinky, Salmonella, Salubrious, The Thug, Crackers, Lashes, Luscious, Potato, Killer, Rings, Malloy, Wizard, Wizard, Weaksauce, Wobbles, Terminal
Some spanish-sounding ones!
Soldado, creyente, tarado, muerto, maduro, estirado, rojo, pirado, mexicano, sinnombre, matador, refinado, estático, alto, enclenque, patada. El Fuego, El Cantante
(For missing eyes)
Pirata, tuerto, vigilante.
Maybe you could add general he could teach civilians to become soldiers,architect he would teach other how to become builder etc.
Cliques & Creeds
Sarahnorthway (talk) Interesting idea. Not sure I like the thought of people worrying about whether they're skaters or hipsters after the apocalypse, or of micromanaging cliques within your fort, but it would be funny to add these to survivor backstories or events. I also do like the idea of your entire fort having some kind of general creed that sets them apart from other factions, but I feel it would be more along the lines of:
- We like to eat people-----lol...
- We don't like to fight unless it's necessary
- We like to trade with other factions with skill and honesty
- We like to attack other factions and steal stuff
- The strong should dominate the weak
- Everybody gets an equal vote
- Women are for having babies and repopulating the planet, nothing else
- Technology will save us
- The zombies aren't so bad, really, just misunderstood
(and of course not everyone in the fort will agree to the chosen creed, which would lower their morale)
(Hatsya) I just thought of these, giving room to teenagers, cliques, and their would-be contributions:
- Geeks: they are obsessed and often have superior knowledge or devotion to something, usually aren't fashion-conscious, may be introverted, and they often do well in school.
- Jocks: live for athletics, tend to be popular with many of their peers.
- Skaters: skateboarders who came along and borrowed the long hair and slacker trappings of the surf scene, but they have always been more rebellious.
- Outsiders: may be socially challenged and just doesn't fit in, or they may be independent and feel no need to join any one group exclusively. They may become the target of bullying.
- Hipsters: make a big effort to assemble a wardrobe that seems effortless. Guys and girls alike go for tight jeans, flannel shirts, Buddy Holly glasses and vintage clothing. An appreciation of independent music and a taste for fringe movements defines them.
- Scenesters: ever eager to fit in. They're dedicated followers of fashion, devoted to a particular band, club or style. They dress in tight, fashionable clothing, wear sunglasses and sport wild but styled hairdos (think striped, streaked or spiked). Social media platforms are totally essential to them. Scenesters sometimes get labeled posers or wannabes.
- Preps - you know them by their logos: Lacoste, L.L. Bean., Abercrombie & Fitch. Popped collars and polo shirts are standard, and their grooming tends to be impeccable. Today, they tend to be the latest incarnation of the in-crowd: the popular kids. Sometimes they overlap with jocks, especially when it comes to sports. Maintaining the right image may even make them vulnerable.
- Nerds: they’re the first kids with their hands up, and they always have the right answer. They might not have the fashion sense of other groups, and they usually prefer chess to hoops. Nerds are smart, but they sometimes have a hard time socially, as many teens still think being academically gifted isn't respected by peers.
- Otakus (western context): They could appear more outlandish than nerds, for some of them might be wearing their favorite character's clothing, but able to rudimentarily craft items.
- Mean girls_ the 2004 movie "Mean Girls," starring Lindsay Lohan as a girl negotiating the jungles of teenage subcultures, put a new label on this type of teen. High heels, short skirts—whatever the latest fashion is, they're into it. They form exclusive cliques, and gossip is their native language. They crave popularity, often because they feel insecure. Yet they have a hard time with genuine relationships.
PRO: ??? CON: They have higher chances of death, expect production delays if you assign them in productive jobs
- Emo kids: an emotional roller coaster. Their emotions are reflected in their appearance: black clothing, streaked bangs, tattoos and piercings. They maintain a strict fashion sense while insisting on their individuality. The emo style has its roots in punk culture, which tended to be more rebellious, and goth, which was gloomier. Watch these kids for signs of depression or bipolar tendencies. They may also experiment with self-injury and cutting.
PRO: It is an achievement to turn these self-pitying rascals into productive members of your society CON: They are more likely to jump first in a zombie fiesta, or die in purpose!
Fugitive Unknown (talk)(User: Fugitive Unknown - First time I've used a system like this, forgive me if I'm not doing this right) I think if you do something like this, it should develop organically and behind the scenes. Maybe have a characters personality and cliche tied to the way they make reports on missions they do ("Like, OMG, I got blood on my uniform!") Rather then directly having a label of what cliche they belong to. It would make it less obvious that you've reduced the characters to archetypes if this stuff is handled strictly behind the scenes.
You could also toss in a few random events when you got "enough" of a clique together. Kicking in a few random events if you have enough people of a certain Clique (like the Otaku asking you do to an anime festival or the Mean Girls start bullying someone like crazy) might be a good way of adding personality to the groups.
I don't know if you're the self-proclaimed queen of game-coding or you just know a few tricks, but I have a general ideas about the survivors AI according to their complexity:
- Manual a.k.a mindless: Like in Rebuild 1 and 2, you control them, nothing more complex than that
- Free will: Manual but there are many hidden parameters a.k.a free will that may make things easier or harder for you, for example if they're going to put in risk their lives for nothing or things like that. Plus, they would have some initiative in form of random events that may make things easier or harder
- Dynamic personalities: Manual but they would have complex and developing (and hard to balance) personalities that would affect every aspect of the game, you won't be able to send suicide survivors anymore! Plus, this may allow players to like some characters or be sadistic with them (is fun! []) of course, this would only be possible if there were two types of survivors, complex ones you have to take care of (leaders and such) and clones that are only differentiated by their skills.
- Freedom: Automatic, every character does what they want according to their personality, pretty much like in Majesty 2, you might set priorities, reward and punish and supervise, but every character would be free to do whatever they want with little control over them. Of course, this requires supreme coding skills and a lot of time, but is it cool? Has it been done before in a flash game? Try it and shine!
Dynamic personalities should be based on hidden variables and every character shouldn't have a complex bio to take into account for every survivor, and freedom should free you too to not care too much about every single survivor and to care about the entire colony.
Please, Dwarf Fortress is cool and all, but it's gameplay complexity is so extreme that it scares me, and I consider myself a hardcore player. Try not to complicate Rebuild too much with personalities, taking into account the likes and dislikes of every character may count as strategy, but I personally enjoy more to view the big picture and take important decisions than to micromanage if my survivors like cola or potato chips.
Woolfe (talk) Personalities made the game. The little snippets of info from the characters as they succeeded/failed in missions was gold. Having that change based on who was actually performing the mission would be great. The personality quirks are the sort of thing that can be ignored and the game just played as a pure game, or can be used to add the character depth to make it more personal. Hmmm that looks like an interesting mission. I might send Sarcastic Susan on that one. Lets see what SHE says when done. etc etc.--Woolfe (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Personality as a side thing that doesn't really influence gameplay is cool, personality only for a very limited amount of survivors that affects their results is very cool, but personality for every survivor that affects their results implies micromanaging every personality trait against each of other of each survivor of each missions.
Pretty much a minmaxers nightmare and not the best way to create a balanced game.
Woolfe (talk) Again I disagree, but it might be that we are approaching the same issue from different directions. I think personalities should be there, and should to a degree affect thing. A very independent character for example, may choose to go and farm without me directing them, conversely they may decide that when I direct them to go and farm they actually want to go reinforce the barricades.
But at the same time I don't want to spend the entire game managing "Veronica's" attitude towards "Betty" when I should be out there killing Zombies.
The trick is getting the balance right, so that it doesn't feel like "micromanagement" (which incidentally is a poor term, because it is totally subjective). I found the equipping process in the original to be annoying at times, BUT that wasn't because the idea was broken, it was because the interface was limited. A better interface would likely improve on that, and make it less onerous. Thus allowing management, without making it feel like "micromanagement".
The idea of saying to Bob, go build a wall, and then Bob picks up an available "tool", uses it and then puts it back afterwards is good. But you should also be able to say to Bob, I want you to have this tool. And then Bob never puts it back.
Minmaxers exist, you will never stop them doing what they do(and in some ways the harder levels of this game require you to minmax to a degree). All you can really do is make it so it is not too obvious, that way only the truly hardcore will minmax, the other players will just enjoy the game for what it is.
Well, in case I didn't say it before, I'm definitely a minmaxer, as you know the sort of guy who spends 50% of the game with a crappy gun and the other 50% with the complete arsenal, just in case I didn't say it before.
Anyway, you mean such a complexity of personalities and free will (equivalent to "freedom" in my classification) that you wouldn't even have to mind or micromanage survivors, just to take decisions and let every cog of the colony work for the common good?
I don't know if that's possible, that seems way too complex, maybe she could try it, but seriously, that's extremely hard to do in a game of this kind. But well, dreaming is free and sometimes dreams become reality...
Sarahnorthway (talk) So... I have considered giving the survivors free will, using a Dwarf-Fortress-esque model where you create missions but don't assign anyone to them, and survivors regularly take a look at the fort's "todo" list and pick a task that matches their skills and personality. Yes it'd take a lot of work to write this system but it would mostly be in balancing the game to be playable and not super frustrating. However, I think it would radically change how the game felt and played, a lot more than switching to realtime alone (and free will would need realtime to feel right).
In terms of flavor, personalities are obviously a winner. In terms of effects, it might be better (and certainly easier) to just have occasional events where the lazy guy refuses to work, or the greedy girl steals rations, or the depressed guy threatens to kill himself and you have to talk him down.
Prutton (talk) I think you could add a feature to make some characters act automatically. The only automatic action in Rebuild is defend the town. What if you could send some soldiers to patrol, decreasing the threat of surrounding areas? It could have a low risk, to make it more interesting. Another one could scout automatically, one random neighbor square a time, maybe. This would really help the game.
Discussion: Macro vs micro management
The point of any strategy game is to make decisions, those decisions must take into account different variables and above all other things they shouldn't get repetitive or the player should wait too long to see the results of his actions.
So, macromanagement is perfect as it has to take a lot of things into account and as it will be reflected greatly in the game it is the best form of strategy.
In the other hand, micromanagement has little effect in the game, and sometimes it has to take very little things into account, so it ultimately gets boring, repetitive and mechanical.
Here are some examples of cool and fun macromanagement:
-Techs -Policies -Defense -Diplomacy
Here are some examples of lame and boring micromanagement:
-Equipping survivors -Assigning work to survivors -Tactical RPGs of any sort -Real time strategy (usually)
So, please, resist the temptation of creating a mixed grand-strategy and tactical RPG game, because it's very likely that you'll end up with a game where you have to spend 30 minutes micromanaging your survivors and manually fighting zombies while spending only 10 minutes managing your colony.
Woolfe (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Wow... Totally disagree with you. Did you play Rebuild 2? Equipping survivors and assigning them work was kinda the point. You keep mentioning dwarf fortress, and in a way what you are describing is more like DF than Rebuild2. In DF you don't directly control things. You instead say I want someone to dig a hole, then someone hopefully comes along and digs a hole. In Rebuild2 you, you point at Joe Bloggs and say go dig a hole. Oh and here is a shovel that will give you a bonus to completing the job. For me Rebuild was a game of assigning tasks, weighing up the use of person xyz to do this task, versus doing that other task, versus defending your fort. If I have a soldier do I use him in the combat missions because he is better, or do I start giving him builder jobs to train up his building skills etc. Do I attack that farm at 10% chance of success but leave my base at 28% danger? etc etc etc I also love Tactical RPGs. However I am unsure whether a tactical rpg would be right for rebuild. This game was always a more strategic game to me.
I find most Diplomacy to be deadly boring, because the computer invariably is a poor diplomat. I found the Tech in the originals simple and interesting. The intention appears to be to make it more complex, in which case I am for the making it more realistic with techs being rediscovering how to make simple everyday tasks work in the new world order. (eg What materials are more zombie proof than others, and how can I improve them. Or how to collect clean water. Or How to configure a solar panel to make use of the power)
Personally the best part of the game is not to calculate the best way to use your survivors, but to take very important decisions that will affect the game dramatically. For me assigning X survivor to Y mission is fun for a couple of hours, then it becomes repetitive and mechanical, I prefer by far to choose research, do politics or diplomacy, and in general participate in any sort of random event.
So, for me a game where everybody is free and you just take decisions and set priorities would be the most fun for me.
About diplomacy, it is definitely boring when the AI is bad done, I don't think is too hard to balance it, let's give it a chance at least.
About tech I really really like the concept (almost as much as politics), a complex tech tree with ~30 techs would be my dream.
About policies, I mean politics. Managing the big picture of your colony, deciding what's right and what's wrong, if people should farm and defend or scavenge and attack, if experimenting with humans is worth the risk, if war is a solution etc.
Personally, managing big data against a political decision is like heaven for me, I don't exactly want to turn Rebuild 3 into a government simulator or a 4X, but is either that or turn it into a micromanagement nightmare, a tactical RPG or even a maths game where you have basically to compare numbers and abstract personality traits to make unexciting decisions.
Sarahnorthway (talk) For Rebuild 3 I do want more emphasis on macro-management (thus the new policies system and bigger tech tree), but the heart and core of the game will still be assigning survivors to missions and eagerly awaiting the day-to-day outcome. I'd like defending the fort to be more tactical (defend specific buildings), but I don't want to overcomplicate deciding who goes on missions. It should be an acceptable strategy to only equip your A-team and a couple scavengers, and leave everyone else home on guard duty.
Prutton (talk) I think you could use something like "focus defense". Half of your defenders fighting skill would be global, and half of it could be distributed in the cities. If an attack hits a block with focus, it gets bonus defense, as if the soldiers were waiting for it. Otherwise, the attack gets you offguard, defending with half of your power.
The survivors should have personalities like often depressed or happy go lucky or clumsy and would effect others like maybe the happy people will cheer up the saddies while the saddies get everyone else down but you can boot them but if you their family would come or they'll get revenge
Idea: Personality types
What about randomly assigning survivors personality types? For example:
- Bonus to military power
- Penalty to skill learning (other than military)
- Bonus to skill learning (but military and leadership)
- Penalty to military power
- Bonus to leadership
- Penalty to skill learning (other than leadership)
Awobbie Some more ideas.
- Bonus to leadership
- Penalty to military power
- Bonus to Luck
- Penalty to intelligence
- Specific to Psychos, Cannibals, Mental Patients, and Zombie worshipers.
I've read about making skill trees (just like tech trees) and I think they would be awesome, if done well they should be too much hassle, and of course I mean 8 to 16 classes maximum, not 50-100.
However, as with everything, this would make the game insanely complex and intimidating, approximately 0.2 DFs (DF is a unit of measure I invented to measure how overwhelming a game is, 1 DF equals a Dwarf Fortress)*
So, there's an easy way to solve the problem, start the game with only ~3 classes, a couple of simple buildings and simple gameplay and start making the game more and more complex. Rebuild 1 and 2 were simple enough to be understood without having to figure out too much, if you expect Rebuild 3 to be more complex it must have progressive complexity.
Maybe Dwarf fortress would have been a hit if they made simpler versions to accustom the player to it instead of throwing 1 DF at them.
(*) Of course I'm joking :)
Sarahnorthway (talk) What you're describing sounds like the perks system I'm considering, where survivors get rewarded for reaching level 5 or 10 in a skill by getting some related bonus, eg extra attack skill if they equip a shotgun, or extra food when assigned to farm. It would be cool if you got a choice and had to pick from a list of perks. But a whole tree of perks/subclasses might be overkill.
I think that 5 levels of specialization from "basic" to "genius" with 2 "choices" every time is more-or-less the ideal complexity for this matter.
Fugitive Unknown (talk) Idea - How about a counsel for when the fort gets really big, say, 25 members or so. Something required when your little band of survivors starts to look like an actual community and people start clamoring for democratic representation? It would make sense that some of the more popular characters would want to advise you on the best way of doing things (for a good example of this, check King of Dragon Pass, a game I have endless respect for).
Popular Cliques might get a seat, or maybe the highest ranking members of different base classes (highest leader, fighter, scientist, builder...) each might have different ideas on what the camp should concentrate on, or could advise you on what they think about the various big decisions you can make and how to approach it. The guy in charge of security is obviously going to have a different perspective than the camp's defacto doctor/health officer.
Idea: Survivor Necessities
- I see that there is farms to continuously collect food, and that there is the ability to scavenge for food, (and you may say water as well), but shouldn't there also be some method of collecting water as well? Perhaps, the initial technology that commences this would be a simple fireplace to boil semi-fresh water, and upgrades may branch from that.
- Additionally, shouldn't there also be some sort of sewage to control? I know that is the least pleasant human need, but it could provide a challenging experience. This also ties in with sanitation, such as in showers. If there isn't already a system of disease that does not include the zombie-virus, then perhaps it would be a good idea to add one, (especially if you are looking to increase difficulty).