Thread: Starcraft Crash

I don't mean you have to save them by taking them with you; just touch them and then it added points to your goal of becomming better (and you can do other things to added points too, but that was just one way of getting the points), and sorry for posting a command thread.. I didn't see anyone else with the same idea so far, so I thought I ask on what others thought about the idea.

ruin the concept of the Left 4 Dead franchise<-- I have to say... that's going to kill l4d faster than my way... 1 I played for a while and the got bored... and then I played 2 and got bored faster... everything too much the same even with melee added...

More monsters can't be the way to go to make it any more funner anymore...

I'm a programemr tho so it's not that hard that I know it just takes time. Also, I'm trying to make the idea better for later use, so your input helps.

"In Left 4 Dead 1/2, the point is to make it to the saferoom couple times, then the rescue vehicle. I don't see how getting points would do anything. I doubt they would have a "Spend points for weapons" or anything. I guess it could add to the story line, but I don't think it'll fare too well."

That's why it gets boring perty fast. I think for lfd3 we need to break it up into watching what we kill and or how we play to make sure we live as group. The points could go into states and weapons base on the player's style (same for the infected players) with base states for a start (so zoey wouldn't have a lot of life for example) making realisem that much more harder and funner.. With the other npc surivers, we could have them build up a friendship variable that grows the more you help the the lost surviers that in the end will help you fight the zombies off or make it so that other lost surivers don't attack you for the same stuff.

Plus don't forget about the map idea... what do you think? 8 player map that made each team do something to help the other team? I was thiking maybe even at the end have a really big boss monster (bigger than the tank) so we can bring in even harder and more massive/cooler fights.

Again, just ideas for lfd3... something I like to see and maybe even for my game I'm making...

Versus is where it's at. Fuck a campaign man. I don't want to "beat levels", I want to beat people.

Originally Posted by takeyb0i2

I don't really like the idea of incorporating RPG elements into L4D. I'm not really a fan of RPG elements. But, I do agree that L4D could use a bit more depth, but there are many ways to incorporate that without including RPG elements. You could, say, use a situation where the saferoom is dead ahead, but the quickest way to get to it is lined with highly explosive and flammable chemicals and a bunch of randomly place CI where one misplaced shot would mean the end of the group, while there is a longer route that's free of environmental hazards but taking this route triggers a horde.

That's just one idea; there's COUNTLESS ways to add depth to a game to add not just challenge, but thought; not brain-straining thought, but thought as to whether your team can handle a certain challenge or not, and if they can't they're still presented with alternate routes that offer different challenges, and not just easy ways out; maybe one route forces the player to make it through a dark, narrow area loaded with CI and SI, while the other route leads to a tank battle in a wide, open area, while yet another route forces you to walk through a flooded sewer area. You'd have your usual L4D run-and-gun routine, but with much more possibilities that don't break away from the game's original focus; you still need to go from point-A to point-B, but how you go about that route is up the group.

Yeah Versus wise this makes a lot more sense and would add a significant amount of time to Versus players "mastering" a map. Now you'd have to know which way was the best with which players, and it would take longer to memorize maps.

Pretty sure for DarkC, DC, and Parish, I could play the entire campaign ass-first.