dogeared2

Invincible Nighthunter

Recommended Posts

Rais' Men do attack the Night Hunter if they're around in Old Town. Never seen them travel though. They seem to stay put on their buildings or loot or whatever and snipe with their rifles.

 

Funny how the game takes on a life of its own in these situations. Rais' Men could be used to even the score a bit in balancing terms or people might enjoy actually playing the thugs. The possibility of them having some thuggish objective that could play either way in a match, i.e. for or against survivors, given some state of the map or story and a multiple hunter scenario, would be a hilarious option, with cool strange bedfellow stuff happening that nobody could predict before a match.

 

Yes @Chaos_Deception, I too sense that broad potential if the game keeps attracting players, making matches more accessible, customizable in terms of maps, objectives, and teams, as well as simple to enter. And nice touch to bring up Rais' men and their glitch. It inspired the following lines:

 

Edit:

Just one example of a thuggish objective for Rais' Men, given say hard mode for advanced survivors, in line with the game's narrative would be that whenever Survivors overuse the UV lamp, they are telegraphing their position to Rais' armed bandits and thugs in the general area. To the thugs, a lot of UV means "there are high power batteries, equipment, money, weapons aka loot moving in this area: a lot of bling is afoot.".

 

Rais' guys would, consistent with narrative, be motivated to rob items from survivors' inventories, which would in turn motivate them to pack a bit more modestly and thoughtfully. Hunting the hunter would be a costly enterprise exposing survivors and their inventories to more serious risk. Doesn't zombie apocalypse mean that those that pack light and get the job done with a minimum of resources, are better at surviving than those dragging around an imaginary backpack of a house of stashed inventory?

 

This is just one thoughtless example that would address duping problems (at least a tiny part of it; a robbed survivor can't return to stash after being robbed to replenish supplies during match play), UV imbalance, refreshing story arc while building on it, weakening occurrence of "hunt the hunter", and weakening the appeal of going all-out constantly. Yes, I do love what's possible and hope that these kinds of opportunities (not my silly toy idea in this post here, which is more proof of concept that such idea can be appropriate in killing a few birds with one stone) are seized, instead of furthering inaction, which excesses of possibility and choice can also enable, unfortunately.

Edited by Chickeninja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought id add, I joined a game as the zombie two nights ago when a player was in the warehouse area fighting ries's men, I forget the mission but the warehouse with the parchute on top. All ries's men showed up as yellow arrows on my hud and they all attacked/shot at me, and it was pretty cool. That said, I think there should only be one hunter per match, anything else greatly changes the flow of the game. See, In a really tough match, I thrive on the comeback, those final few nests, the pressure to win, the dramatic music, etc. Two hunters would completely ruin this feeling for me and it would take away from the mode. Youre supposed to be outnumbered. And while you shouldnt be underpowered there should be a difficulty involved with a 4v1 scenario. Two hunters would ruin the mode in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another Idea to mix things up a bit. 

 

Make "Be The Zombie" Matches Darker. Thus making the Flashlight a necessity.

 

  • Flashlight and UV Light share the same Battery Power.   
  • UV Mode drains the Battery faster than Flashlight Mode.
  • Flashlight Mode is more visible to the Night Hunter.
Edited by Chaos_Deception

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one example of a thuggish objective for Rais' Men, given say hard mode for advanced survivors, in line with the game's narrative would be that whenever Survivors overuse the UV lamp, they are telegraphing their position to Rais' armed bandits and thugs in the general area. To the thugs, a lot of UV means "there are high power batteries, equipment, money, weapons aka loot moving in this area: a lot of bling is afoot.".

 

Rais' guys would, consistent with narrative, be motivated to rob items from survivors' inventories, which would in turn motivate them to pack a bit more modestly and thoughtfully. Hunting the hunter would be a costly enterprise exposing survivors and their inventories to more serious risk. Doesn't zombie apocalypse mean that those that pack light and get the job done with a minimum of resources, are better at surviving than those dragging around an imaginary backpack of a house of stashed inventory?

 

Eh I don't know about them coming after because of extended UV light usage. They don't seem so petty that they'd go after one guy with a light, especially at such a dangerous time as night. In fact I don't think they even attempt to do anything story related at night (I could be wrong).

 

Also the UV light is limited as it is with the startup cost and hunter's increased UV resistance. Add any more limitations and you'll be severely gimping survivors main form of defense. 

 

What should happen is the UV light should be a tool defined for defense and not offense. It's not something you should be using to attack presumably the most feared creature of the night with and it certainly sounds silly when you compare it to it's story mode counterpart and the effects that version has on volatiles. The UV light should be used to ward off the night hunter and interrupt pounces. This can be accomplished by longer cooldowns and shorter durations to enforce more micromanaging or increased UV resistance to discourage giving chase (for instance a full charge is required to fully deplete the night hunters energy). Some of this has already been done but a little more tweak is need imo to make it unwise to hunt the hunter.

 

I thought id add, I joined a game as the zombie two nights ago when a player was in the warehouse area fighting ries's men, I forget the mission but the warehouse with the parchute on top. All ries's men showed up as yellow arrows on my hud and they all attacked/shot at me, and it was pretty cool. That said, I think there should only be one hunter per match, anything else greatly changes the flow of the game. See, In a really tough match, I thrive on the comeback, those final few nests, the pressure to win, the dramatic music, etc. Two hunters would completely ruin this feeling for me and it would take away from the mode. Youre supposed to be outnumbered. And while you shouldnt be underpowered there should be a difficulty involved with a 4v1 scenario. Two hunters would ruin the mode in my opinion.

 

My thoughts exactly. 

 

This is supposed to be a 4v1. You against the teamwork of four other minds. Addding an additional hunter ruins this dynamic. Not to mention you're now having that same team mentality being forced on you since you must work together with another hunter to accomplish you goal. That's just a regular team deathmatch to me which is not what I have in mind when I play the hunter. I want to be that sort of final boss, the obstacle that the other players overcome through clever strategy and coordination. That's just not possible with two hunters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh I don't know about them coming after because of extended UV light usage. They don't seem so petty that they'd go after one guy with a light, especially at such a dangerous time as night. In fact I don't think they even attempt to do anything story related at night (I could be wrong).

 

I'm not sure how this kind of statement does not argue against what it designates to be unrealistic behavior in a context of the game's fiction, as my post above was no argument for/against taste, nor was it an argument to promote any one specific idea's implementation in game.

 

Out-of-the-blue you introduce some objective moral dimension about right and wrong (huh?), where you correctly note that you could be wrong. Because I don't see anybody arguing that a game's fiction is objectively illogical, and therefore morally wrong. This makes little to no sense and seems to be based on confusing fictions with reality.

 

Also the UV light is limited as it is with the startup cost and hunter's increased UV resistance. Add any more limitations and you'll be severely gimping survivors main form of defense. 

 

Who said anything about forcing limitations? People are discussing game mode possibilities in an informal manner, where nobody wants to "gimp" anybody.

 

Why would my opinion, which isn't even topic in this case, that UV is overpowered, constitute "severe gimping" of survivors?

 

Did you forget to leave your axe in game perhaps? And... can't people make up their own minds?

 

What should happen is the UV light should be a tool defined for defense and not offense. It's not something you should be using to attack presumably the most feared creature of the night with and it certainly sounds silly when you compare it to it's story mode counterpart and the effects that version has on volatiles. The UV light should be used to ward off the night hunter and interrupt pounces. This can be accomplished by longer cooldowns and shorter durations to enforce more micromanaging or increased UV resistance to discourage giving chase (for instance a full charge is required to fully deplete the night hunters energy). Some of this has already been done but a little more tweak is need imo to make it unwise to hunt the hunter.

 

That's your opinion, and I agree with some of it, with exception of allowing you to set up straw men as nobody is arguing against any of these points. But you seem to want to pretend that.

 

As to the points themselves: they are quite obvious, with yours truly asking the question "Is UV offensive or defensive in nature?" a few days ago because I don't claim to know "what should happen"; merely asking people what kind of game they felt it to be, given story etc.

 

 

My thoughts exactly. 

 

This is supposed to be a 4v1. You against the teamwork of four other minds. Addding an additional hunter ruins this dynamic. Not to mention you're now having that same team mentality being forced on you since you must work together with another hunter to accomplish you goal. That's just a regular team deathmatch to me which is not what I have in mind when I play the hunter. I want to be that sort of final boss, the obstacle that the other players overcome through clever strategy and coordination. That's just not possible with two hunters.

 

Nobody here wants to force a second hunter into the game mode without the choice/consent of people to do such. You argued "purity of game mode" the other day, but I don't find it convincing, as it seems irrelevant: all people seem to be doing here is arguing fun possibilities for future. You can claim as much purity flavored game play as you'd like if you can even define that beyond stating some obvious points about 4v1. 

 

Note perhaps that I don't "argue matters of taste"; even if I may argue about taste. Your taste is your business and such arguments waste everybody's time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here is another Idea to mix things up a bit. 

 

Make "Be The Zombie" Matches Darker. Thus making the Flashlight a necessity.

 

  • Flashlight and UV Light share the same Battery Power.   
  • UV Mode drains the Battery faster than Flashlight Mode.
  • Flashlight Mode is more visible to the Night Hunter.

 

 

Good points.

 

Every one of them.

 

And to throw a bone towards the awesome survivors that keep playing, camouflage could be buffed just a bit. It's hard to think of what one could do to make survivors' lives better, as they don't just have every possible item, they probably have an almost infinite amount of them. Diamond-Platinum weapons? Jewelry? What else could be done? I like the chainsaw idea somebody threw around here some time ago... :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way most players use camouflage is a joke.  I see that ? go up and I go after them.  They give themselves away with the flashlight beam.  Then when you get close they seem to glow red.  The red makes them stand out even more than the white image.   If you don't see them they'll UV you giving away their position.

 

Camo is only good for the rank beginner who sits still watching the players giving the camouflaged player a chance to sneak up of them.  Doesn't work but once.

 

An alternative to implementing camo would be make them invisible if they are not moving and a streak or smear when they do.  That way they can hide when a NH is near and only give away their position by moving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how this kind of statement does not argue against what it designates to be unrealistic behavior in a context of the game's fiction, as my post above was no argument for/against taste, nor was it an argument to promote any one specific idea's implementation in game.

 

Out-of-the-blue you introduce some objective moral dimension about right and wrong (huh?), where you correctly note that you could be wrong. Because I don't see anybody arguing that a game's fiction is objectively illogical, and therefore morally wrong. This makes little to no sense and seems to be based on confusing fictions with reality.

 

I'm sensing some hostility here...

 

I'm not arguing morals or the fiction of the game. I'm responding to this bit:

 

Just one example of a thuggish objective for Rais' Men, given say hard mode for advanced survivors, in line with the game's narrative would be that whenever Survivors overuse the UV lamp, they are telegraphing their position to Rais' armed bandits and thugs in the general area. To the thugs, a lot of UV means "there are high power batteries, equipment, money, weapons aka loot moving in this area: a lot of bling is afoot."

 

That's a huge leap in logic to me. I'm not sure why they would think "equipment, money, weapons" from some random UV light frantically waving in the dark, if anything I'd see that as danger. Not to mention these lights pale in comparison to the ones that power safe zones, where there's sure to be some real loot around. 

 

If Rais' men were to be included then to me it'd make sense if they were just patrolling around or looting drop crates like they usually do although it would be strange in the context of story for them to be doing this at night considering how terrified everyone is of the night (for legitimate reasons).

 

 

Who said anything about forcing limitations? People are discussing game mode possibilities in an informal manner, where nobody wants to "gimp" anybody.

 

 

You did, right here:

 

This is just one thoughtless example that would address duping problems (at least a tiny part of it; a robbed survivor can't return to stash after being robbed to replenish supplies during match play), UV imbalance, refreshing story arc while building on it, weakening occurrence of "hunt the hunter", and weakening the appeal of going all-out constantly.

 

All these things mean gimping the current survivor meta.

 

Not that I disagree with some of them but adding another limitation to the UV light on top of start up cost and increased cooldown in addition to the hunters UV resistance buff is too much (this would make micromanaging a nightmare).

 

The UV light isn't as bad as it used to be. The range nerf allows you to stalk from ledges without being run off, the start up cost prevents the stupid blinking technique that doubled the life of one charge, and the increased cooldown means you have slightly more chances to pounce after a survivor depletes your energy with the last of their UV light. These are all things I've noticed in my matches after the patch and they've been great improvements.

 

My main issue now is that the UV light is still used as a weapon, another addition to the survivors endless amount of tools and a very deadly one at that. If they could tweak the things I mentioned above and made the notion of hunting the hunter non-lucrative then it would be perfect. 

 

Nobody here wants to force a second hunter into the game mode without the choice/consent of people to do such. You argued "purity of game mode" the other day, but I don't find it convincing, as it seems irrelevant: all people seem to be doing here is arguing fun possibilities for future. You can claim as much purity flavored game play as you'd like if you can even define that beyond stating some obvious points about 4v1. 

 

Note perhaps that I don't "argue matters of taste"; even if I may argue about taste. Your taste is your business and such arguments waste everybody's time.

 

Survivors set the game mode, not the hunters. They choose when and where and also how prepared they are beforehand (duped inventories). If you throw in a second hunter option guess who chooses it? The survivor. So you ARE forcing those who would rather play lone wolf to because if the survivor wants there will be an open slot for a second hunter to join at any time, just as it is with additional survivors joining the game.

 

The future of this game mode doesn't rest on making drastic changes/features/enhancements, it lies in the balancing of the mode which has been the biggest issue since day one. Devs have been slow to make changes because they don't want to disrupt the flow of gameplay but in doing this there have been tons of frustrated people who stopped playing. If the game had timely balance patches from the start that addressed the most common issues today (that by way have existed since day one) then I guarantee this mode would have a thriving community.  The day we have this game will be the day things start to turn around.

 

They should leave the new additions for a sequel where they can spend more time reworking all of the problems that aren't easily solvable this time around. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sensing some hostility here...

 

There is none, even if you seem to want to elicit such by constructing straw man arguments or spliting hairs on details using your linguistic and psychological skills. I fail to see what point you're trying to make.

 

Game modes and parameter changes that allow everybody to play the game according to their taste while maintaining an active, playing, and as you say, thriving community is a more central concern of mine, and with the good ideas in this thread, other threads, and the dev tools community, a nice possibility imho.

 

Perhaps unlikely, but who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is none, even if you seem to want to elicit such by constructing straw man arguments or spliting hairs on details using your linguistic and psychological skills. I fail to see what point you're trying to make.

 

Game modes and parameter changes that allow everybody to play the game according to their taste while maintaining an active, playing, and as you say, thriving community is a more central concern of mine, and with the good ideas in this thread, other threads, and the dev tools community, a nice possibility imho.

 

Perhaps unlikely, but who knows?

You sure? Because I don't ever remember attacking your character/argument and yet you keep insisting that I am. All I did was give my opinion on parts I disagreed with and politely stated my reasons. Would you rather me have said "no this is stupid" and not give any reason at all? Because that's an actual attack. It seems to me that you've misconstrued my words more than I've yours.

 

And I'll restate my earlier point: survivors choose the game, not us. The best we can do is filter out matches we want. Even then options can be changed on a whim and we can't do anything about it. So unless they take control of the match from the survivor then you aren't going to get parameter changes that everyone will like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sure? Because I don't ever remember attacking your character/argument and yet you keep insisting that I am.

 

I'm not sure anybody is interested in my character, nor have I made some formal argument, lol. You're making that up in confusing the chat which was about cheats/invincible Night Hunter and drifted towards the question of future possibilities of the game, with some normative game ideal you seem compelled to want to push on us.

 

I have no interest to misconstrue the splitting of hairs or straw men. People can do as much of that as they please, and yours truly being not convinced does not imply some personal attack you wish to conjure in pretense of defending obvious points like:

 

And I'll restate my earlier point: survivors choose the game, not us. The best we can do is filter out matches we want. Even then options can be changed on a whim and we can't do anything about it. So unless they take control of the match from the survivor then you aren't going to get parameter changes that everyone will like.

 

I'm not hell-bent on "getting the parameter changes everyone will like"; you confuse this with merely shooting the breeze with people who are inspired by the game to do the same.

 

If you want to continue with implications that my silly, enthusiastic, toy suggestion above is going to be dogmatically enforced and ruin the game mode, and to make this personal instead of about the game, you can keep splitting those hairs. I still don't see any substance, which is not an attack, but as honest a contribution as you mixing up logic within possible fiction with some personal psychological axe you seem to have the need to grind. There's no interest to engage that kind of discourse on my end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure anybody is interested in my character, nor have I made some formal argument, lol. You're making that up in confusing the chat which was about cheats/invincible Night Hunter and drifted towards the question of future possibilities of the game, with some normative game ideal you seem compelled to want to push on us.

Making it up? You keep throwing out the strawman fallacy which is the very definition of attacking someone's argument or character to make yours more appealing. No where do you see me doing that. I took your statements as is and haven't insulted you once.

 

 

I'm not hell-bent on "getting the parameter changes everyone will like"; you confuse this with merely shooting the breeze with people who are inspired by the game to do the same.

I never said you were but it's certainly something you endorse since I've seen you talk on it in many cases. All I'm doing is offering another view on the matter, it doesn't have to be one that's in complete agreement. If you're going to post your ideas in an open forum then expect some resistance from time to time.

 

If you want to continue with implications that my silly, enthusiastic, toy suggestion above is going to be dogmatically enforced and ruin the game mode, and to make this personal instead of about the game, you can keep splitting those hairs. I still don't see any substance, which is not an attack, but as honest a contribution as you mixing up logic within possible fiction with some personal psychological axe you seem to have the need to grind. There's no interest to engage that kind of discourse on my end.

Never said it was going be enforced. I'm speaking on your hypothetical "what if" scenario and listing the issues I have with it. But hey if you're not going to take your "toy suggestion" seriously then I guess I won't either and save everyone the time of having to read my pointless responses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not serious, just a lazy gamer having fun.

 

You can play serious cop-moderator as much as you like but this distracts from people posting their good ideas.

 

That is what this is about for me: fun, informal exchange. You're right @jcks, you can save everyone that kind of time. Hopefully, you're the kind that follows their own advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[snip]

 

What should happen is the UV light should be a tool defined for defense and not offense. It's not something you should be using to attack presumably the most feared creature of the night with and it certainly sounds silly when you compare it to it's story mode counterpart and the effects that version has on volatiles. The UV light should be used to ward off the night hunter and interrupt pounces. This can be accomplished by longer cooldowns and shorter durations to enforce more micromanaging or increased UV resistance to discourage giving chase (for instance a full charge is required to fully deplete the night hunters energy). Some of this has already been done but a little more tweak is need imo to make it unwise to hunt the hunter.

 

 

[snip]

 

This is supposed to be a 4v1. You against the teamwork of four other minds. Addding an additional hunter ruins this dynamic. Not to mention you're now having that same team mentality being forced on you since you must work together with another hunter to accomplish you goal. That's just a regular team deathmatch to me which is not what I have in mind when I play the hunter. I want to be that sort of final boss, the obstacle that the other players overcome through clever strategy and coordination. That's just not possible with two hunters.

 

For one, I think the developers needs to get a handle on modding the game for co-op/BtZ matches.  But if they can't or won't do something about the infinite, no-cool-down, extended range grappling hook, then nothing else is going to matter.  I know I can't grapple hook all the way across the map without it giving out.  It' seems like some folks can out do NHs at the "Spiderman thing."

 

For the other, given that Techland isn't forcing folks to have invasions turned on or allow co-op with invasions turned on, I don't think they'd force NHs to play co-op against humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the way the game is setup forces you to accept that option. Because survivors are hosting the game per say (but not all the game resources, those are shared). They control match parameters such as location, difficulty and number of players. If there were to be an option for additional hunters then that would be something they control just because of how the game is setup. When we're invading we're just joining someone else's game like regular online co-op except we join as an enemy.

 

Basically if we can't choose how many survivors we want to fight then I don't see us being able to choose the option for additional hunters. Sure we can "choose" through filtering but like I said that can change mid match at the survivor host's discretion.

 

The only way I see this working is if the hunter had to invite another hunter in order for the slot to be filled. If the survivor has the game set to friends only though this becomes a problem.

 

This is another reason why I say this mode should have been standalone, then all these things would be possible. It'd keep ragequits to a minimum, eliminate duping, and give host control to both parties instead of one side controlling everything. There could also be custom maps that would be stress tested beforehand for glitches such as spots the hunter can't access or gets stuck in.

Edited by jcks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point.  But as a hunter I sure would like to be able to summon assistance in some matches.  No telling how many hours I have in the BtZ mode, but I'm Mutant 3 level 49 and ranked as a Carnivore.  I still have a hard time with some folks.  My last match for instance had two Challengers and a Contender.  As soon as one of the players recognized my name he summoned an Ultimate Survivor.  I gave them a run for their money, but only got two lucky spike kills and was killed 11 times during the 14 minute match.

 

Ultimately, the reason I record my matches is to see what is working and what isn't.  I study other matches.  I watch tutorials for hints, tactics, and strategy.  I just watched Chickeninja's "Lazy pounces" and now I'm too embarrassed post any of my "skilled" pounces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now