New L4d2 Game Mode, what would you like?
- Thread starter linktoinsanity
- Start date
Limited ammo/time hard modes: or just optional events which is completed give the team a bonus stash of goodies.
Virus/Infection mode: in conventional map with one special zombie who has to infect people, last survivor wins but gets more points for living longer, etc (think halo3 style zombie modes)
Perhaps a more conventional deathmatch stlye of game: Vastly increased zombie health and dmg, when a zombie gets three kills in a row they can spawn as a tank or something like that (think that was an avp2 thing)
Virus/Infection mode: in conventional map with one special zombie who has to infect people, last survivor wins but gets more points for living longer, etc (think halo3 style zombie modes)
Perhaps a more conventional deathmatch stlye of game: Vastly increased zombie health and dmg, when a zombie gets three kills in a row they can spawn as a tank or something like that (think that was an avp2 thing)
I like your idea mate I can actually see this happening. It would be interesting to see all 4 against each other as well, but have the choice of team or loner play
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 9,003
- Location
- Kent
Not for another 6 months at least. Plenty of time to get your money's worth out of L4D, and the L4D community will probably continue for months/years after the release of l4d2 (pure speculation, but most likely true).
Yeah i like this, your team of 4 has to defend a small house, could even increase the scale to a number of teams defending a small village town or fort.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 5,162
- Location
- South Wales
or how about taking it to the next step?
Game mode editor
of course something like this would probably be left to a prequel if it even got implemented
Game mode editor
of course something like this would probably be left to a prequel if it even got implemented
Q F T!
My L4D mates don't start until late (> 11pm) so it's often 1-2am before we finish a full game (after all the ****ing about in a lobby trying to find a decent server)
Get a grip.
You want people to ask for permission to leave your game? What happens if they crash? What happens if they have a r/l interruption? What happens if they just happen to be losing but are annoyed at having to play against complete arrogant tools? What happens if somebody is at the door, or the phone rings?
You have absolutely way of knowing why somebody might quit a game, and even if you did, why on earth would you want to force people to play against their will.
Even if you were stupid enough to bring such a system in, the antidote to it is simple; you merely leave yourself logged in, but do nothing. You'd get slaughtered as a survivor inside a couple of minutes, thus ruining to experience for your team. So they would 'quit' (i.e. just leave their player in the server but do nothing as well) so the wining team would lose all credible opposition. So the server would end up being full of players who did nothing just waiting for the opportunity to leave a server without a penalty.
Apart from being rather arrogant, your suggestion is also on the moronic side.
Defending a small house sounds suspiciously like Survival mode - or were you envisioning something different?. A larger force defending a whole settlement sounds promising. I would suggest a fairly defendable location though, with plenty of ammo, but a larger horde. Perhaps a wide outer perimeter, with a smaller inner perimeter, and a central core - so players can fall back as they need to. Perhaps with key rooms/buildings to defend.
I also like the idea of the TFC/Hunted Map where you have to defend a VIP. You could give the VIP melee weapons and some other skills (explosives, hacking or lockpicking) so that they have an active role as well but are distinct from the other 'normal' combatants.
I like that it took you until your last line to begin to realise that my suggestion wasn't exactly meant to be taken seriously in anyway, even though you had just spent several paragraphs trying to second guess an obviously unworkable system... well done r-tard.
Last edited:
You cant really increase the number of players in the game. It's called Left 4 Dead for a reason. Watch the original pre-release videos from valve, they wanted to keep it small and intimate and they've plenty of other games that offer 32 player servers.
The Idea of stopping the Infected from infecting uninfected (nice sentence) is kind of interesting, though. The AI for the uninfected would need to be top notch though.
The Idea of stopping the Infected from infecting uninfected (nice sentence) is kind of interesting, though. The AI for the uninfected would need to be top notch though.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 907
I was thinking it could be the L4D survivors in a match against these new ones, I see that as potentially happening in the future regardless.
How dare you make such a comment! Blah blah blah, internet justification, blah blah blah, trying to assinate your clear off the cuff remark, blah blah blah, serious post, blah blah blah, ...
...ooooooooh....upon reading your comment 50 times through I can NOW tell you were not serious but in actual fact joking!!!
Phew! Glad I didn't write a tirade of a post with personal attacks included, to try and argue against a comment that was made for the lulz!!!
Unlike others...
Last edited:
Yeah, sorry... I missed your smilies and other indications that it was a joke post, and was probably overly swayed by that fact that other posters agreed with you. My bad.
I don't think 32-player servers would work in this game, but I can see teams of 6 or 8 working in come contexts...
Nice idea, but I can't even begin to imagine how it would work. Can you imagine the fun that griefers would have? An endless supply of friendly NPCs to take pot-shots at?
I quite like this idea, but maybe expanded a little.
Sort of like a conquest type scenario, a team of soldiers (between 4-8) are dropped in and have to capture a series of objectives to push the "line" back.
e.g. clearing out houses, blocking sewer exits, that kind of thing. Each of the objectives is a spawn point for infected, and when then soldiers capture them, they can no longer spawn there. The soldiers can only capture the points in order, so no sneaking round the back to take the last point in 2 mins. Kinda like in Frontlines: Fuel of War.
The infected win by killing all the soldiers, the soldiers win by capturing the last spawn point.
I'd also say have no ammo/first aid scattered around the map, instead have some kind of fallback point (the soldier starting area) which has infinite spawns of ammo and first aid (e.g. a supply drop). BUT the infected can destroy these dispensers, meaning the soldiers will have to split their forces between taking objectives and defending the supplies. The fallback area would be pretty well defendable however, e.g. mounted guns and limited access.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 856
i would like 8 players 1 is the tank everytime u kill one he becomes a tank aswell until tanks destroy the whole 8 last one is the winner
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,869
- Location
- Landan.
Massive maps. Then different teams of four start at different points in the map and have to fight their way to each other. Then once they've met up - fight a final horde and a few tanks et al.
The next map the two teams might have to separate, and the players get to choose how many go on what team etc.
The fun will be in playing with a team of four of your mates, and then having to join another team of randoms. Good way to make friends online, as sad as that is
The next map the two teams might have to separate, and the players get to choose how many go on what team etc.
The fun will be in playing with a team of four of your mates, and then having to join another team of randoms. Good way to make friends online, as sad as that is