The Problem with Leaders in State of Decay 2
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июн 2020
- Builder! Solve the apocalypse by building the huge thing!
Trader! Solve the apocalypse by trading the things!
Warlord! Solve the apocalypse by shooting the things!
Sheriff! Solve the apocalypse by protecting the things!
These are the 4 main pathways in State of Decay 2 representing some of the major ways of thinking a leader might have in the zombie outbreak.
Ever since the ability to demote leaders was added into the game, the role of leaders has become more and more diminished with demotions allowing for a "revolving door" of leaders until you have all the benefits you need.
And what about the active leader? How important is that decision? Are leaders now "bad" in State of Decay 2?
So many things to think about in this video!
Like this video if it was helpful or entertaining and subscribe to my channel for more State of Decay 2 content!
Twitter: / gitgudfox
Facebook: Git-Gud-Fox-... 
Игры
The thumbnail, for this video, came out a lot better than I was expecting.
Have you tried Age Of Wonders: Planetfall yet???
House, Money, Fisting, & Libra's aka my sign.
🤔 Not sure what the test is but i do be bringing balance to force & I do have money the rest I cant say that I have or do. 🤣
I agree with you Fox but it's possible they could add an evolved leader ability where each leader role can incorporate some or all of your great ideas.
Something they could implement inside of SoD2, not theoretical SoD3, is some kind of active leader unlock or bonus or something that is only available to the active leader.
@@GitGudFox I strongly agree sir 🦊
I feel like the world in State of Decay should be more of an ecosystem rather than being focused solely on your group.
I feel like that's what they tried to do with enclaves
@@-kold it didn’t work
@@mokushmasmo6009 yup
Similar to that of S.T.A.L.K.E.R with multiple factions interacting with each other wither through fighting or trading, allainces etc.
@@ThekaiserXD yeah definitely. I can’t wait for S.T.A.L.K.E.R 2
I do like the idea of leaders having perks for entire community -- builder reduces all crafting costs by 20%, sheriff upgrades everyone's fighting skillz, trader improves trading by 20%, etc....
Influence is more appropriate for Sheriff than fighting skills, to be honest. Warlord, on the other hand, should improve fighting skills since your role is supposed to be a tyrant, lording people with violent.
@@someguyonyt2831 i agree
Yeah
@SomeGuyOnYT A Warlord is more of an independent warmonger leader or an autonomous military/militia commander. They’re not necessarily a “tyrant”, but they often are…
@someguyonyt2831 to be fair, Warlords get the bonus of upgrading the fighting gym to do cardio, so fighting does make more sense even with whats in the game
I like every idea in this video, but I especially like the idea of AI growing and becoming allies. Sort of like the walking dead where they have Alexandria, Hilltop, and the kingdom. Have these huge powerhouses, instead one group helping many small groups
Takes effort.
thats nice.. but i think all of that will be available in SOD3 looool
@@kevinpatrick6967 I hope
That's a good idea then you should be able to attack ppl ND when you do have a hostility level when you come across strangers so they approach you friendly or hostile
This is brilliant! Undead labs please hire him as your concept guy please!
Agreed!
then the game becomes more of a State of Decay Frost edition. The problem with the game it that it is really short. If you do the things the game wants you to do then its over in about 30-45 min regardless of what dif you play on.
@@denker032047146 exactly
@@denker032047146 this is why they need the breakdown mode from the first one....
I've thought the leaders should effect the number, size and relationships with, groups of npcs. For example, with a sherrif as leader there should be an increased number of small groups nearby, most being friendly/allied but relying on you to help protect them from "raider" type npcs groups, which would occupy outlying areas, as well as zombie hordes. The idea being that you help protect these enclaves and they become allies and expand your region of control.
A warlord leader on the otherhand would result in fewer groups in the area, with most of them being small with and fairly neutral (not hostile, but not overtly friendly either,) with a small number of larger hostile groups a little bit further away from your base. These groups could raid you and the groups in your area of influence, with your area of control, and how the local groups react toward you is based on how well you ddefend the area the live (if ignored they could be killed off, or even start supporting a hostile group, increasing their area of control, while decreasing your's.) Moving to a new area/base would mean you either need to weaken or eliminate the competing enclave in that area, or risk facing regular strong attacks by the group on your new base.
A builder leader would set up npcs enclaves to be more cooperative with your group, in order for them to expand and grow, you would build alliances with other groups, similar to a sherrif lead group would, but more defensively than a sherrif, and you would be called on to help the enclaves with labor and manufactured gear such as specific ammo types, prepared food, drinks, healthcare items, repair kits, as well as to build and/or connect them to select facilities (sniper towers, generators, water tanks, hydroponic gardens, etc...) This would see nearby groupsgrow and/or merge, but still count on you for manufactured consumables, and of course this would limit your abilities to expand your own group.
Traders would similar to builders, but instead of building alliances with a medium number small, it would see you helping to supply a larger number of smaller npc groups with basic supplies, such as those in backpacks. Nearby groups would rarely become allies, and instead would just be friendly customers, but as mostly they could only buy the basics the size of their groups would remain fairly limited but your group could more easily grow larger
Along with these additions it would change the leader buildings to be things more closely tied to the leaders new roles, for example building would get get a couple building building types to allow the easier manufacturing of specific items, say an advanced kitchen, infirmary and workshop, and maybe a defensive structure or two. Traders would get a building or two to manufacture backpack type supplies. Sherrifs would get some sort of security outpost (an outpost you could teleport to to assist allied enclaves in that area,) and finally a warlord leader would enable building more heavily armored, and longer range, vehicle upgrade kits, to support the power projection this leader type would rely on.
Basically sherrif/warlord would be the offensive groups, with builder/trader being defensive, with sherrif/builder being more altruistic and interested in the good of the area, while warlord/trader being more greedy/self interested and theur mainly interested in benifiting their own group.
This would require a large number of tweaks to some if the basics in the game, and while it would be complex to impliment, it would make considerable changes to the overall gameplay, but not really increasing the complexity of gameplay itself, while increasing the value of replaying the game, as each leader type would have you working towards different goals instead of just giving you access to a different building. Warlords want to own the map, sherrifs want to protect it, builders want to rebuild civilization and traders want to enrich and grow their group and customer list.
I would play that game in a heartbeat. I could see the builder having to manufacture things at the base, load it into a van, and deliver and setup for profit. A warlord battling for control of area with valuable resources like ammo and food. A sheriff having a jail as it's leader building and maintaining law and order. A trader being the best at scavenging and supplying other leaders in the area with resources they need. It will make scavenging harder in the game but the trader will have the best skills to rely on them instead of a warlord going out doing it. You can kinda do this now is you knew people that is willing to role play on games like 7 days to die and others. Would love to see it on SOD.
I think that whichever way you turn this issue you will still have to confront the inability to alter the map layout, expand, shrink or even feel the need to do something other than smashing zombies. A builder that could create safe zone at the expense of materials or a trader that can set up supply lines or trading runs between enclaves with real runners going back and forth, and so on.
I was not prepared for you to say "Zombie-kun." Thank you, sir.
I do really love the management of SoD and the making of the survivors *stories* (like xcom) so I definitely agree with ya
the worst of the Warlord is. You can't just wage war.
And it's the same for the sheriff. You just can threaten communities.
It's the same system for every leader.
The only tiny difference are the leader missions. They are a bit different. But way not enough to make the game different.
This was a very good analysis of the Leaders and excellent suggestions for future features. Enclaves have to evolve. They just sit there like lumps. Once you’re allied, they do nothing. But if you turn down their main mission, then they’re neutral forever and you can’t pick up their quest later or do anything except threaten them.
Mercenary warlord: u fight for whoever is paying. Do this if you want to fight constantly.
Merchant of death trader: you sell guns and ammo to enclaves that are at war with each other or just simply trying to fight of the hoards.
Negan warlord: bully weaker enclaves into giving you supplies and clearing infestations for you.
A new idea for enclaves could be that they have set territory with their own leaders. Each leader will try to accomplish their goal with it being possible for ai enclaves to win the game.
A way they could add spice to changing leaders is that add the possibly for your group to split and devolve into civil war
Also maybe enclaves could actually consume supplies meaning that they will be scavenging as well. Also maybe have them be able to build up a base like the player slowing them to farm and stuff like that
Also prices of resources and tools/weapons could go up and down depending on how much of it their is and the demand for. An example would be if their is a war happening then price for guns and ammo would shoot up. On the flip side if one person has been spam making craft beer it would become cheaper to buy. Dynamic economy
I'd like to see something like powerful AI enclaves "claim" sections of the map with loot as their territory, and when you loot there, you can come into conflict with them, so you can choose to negotiate with them like a cut of the loot in exchange for looting in a safer area because they'll have patrols and guard checkpoints in the towns, or you could act against them and try to take their turf over.
I’ve always wanted state of decay 2 to have a more walking dead sort of feel just for the enclaves and leaders like you could have other leaders meet for discussion of trade have some battles over resources and as you said have enclaves grow then shrink, like for example a large group of ex military who are trying to cure the zombies but are using people as test subjects and you have to decide “well am i okay with this?” On top of that i’d say they add bandit camps/bandits in general they raid your camp or raid others and you can try to reason with them or just kill them
It would be cool if there was a few set spots that spawn raiders/bandits that could pose a threat a bit more than zombies that you can either join, offer tributes, or raid you.
Id like to see a
Network Leader: Focused on training in communications, expansion & relationship building to form a community of allies that assist you or you assist to try to get the world back to normal by togetherness. Can train the community in Network protocols to become Network Agents.
Red Talon Leader: Focused on intense training to form survivors into Red Talon Recruits that are all about killing zombies, plague hearts & anyone or thing that gets in the way.
Raider leader: Basically the hostile on site community except you have 12 people & everyone else has from 1 to 3 🤣
nice but sadly it will not happen.... cuz "daybreak" LOL
That would be the only one players would use. People are the greatest resource in SOD2
Gotcha back! Here's one idea that goes along your ideas in this one; Red Talon and The Network should have bigger roles as well, and I think they can work it into this version instead of waiting for 3. Say that you like aggressive gameplay and agree with the Red Talon philosophy. Then you should attract those kinds of members and they should function better for you. The Red Talon traders should give you better deals. If you enlist Network characters, they should perform at a lower level for you. The Network traders should charge you more. Get me?
As it stands, the only difference between the traders is their inventory. They built in the two factions, but didn't do anything with them. I don't think it would be too difficult to address this.
I think we've All been screaming for a plot to joining The Network or Red Talon with an ending to lead into the 3rd game.
I love the base building. The most exciting part is when i move to a new base and i get to build everything back up
I'm glad you make these videos. Nice to see someone can condense what's frustrating into something intelligible without sifting through comment sections on any forum. Someone needs to help keep what could be a great studio on track. Right now... Jury's out on undead labs. Leaning toward sellouts atm.
I feel the agendas part should be a selection you make when you elect your leader. If you have 4 choices of agenda, that gives 16 paths over all. I also think there should be a persistent bonus for having that agenda. So if you have a Builder with Self-Sufficient agenda then there could be a -1 daily resource upkeep cost across the board, or Urbanizing agenda could grant +4 beds at no cost. It needs to be powerful to force people to really think about swapping out leaders.
The Agendas should have an end goal for each with a reward at the end, but not be the final mission. So for the Self-Sufficient agenda I mentioned, it could be to have a +2 daily income of all resources with full maxed facilities and with full utilities. Now it isn't that hard in SoD2, but the third game could/should have bases with more slots and features with with even more types of facilities that can be upgraded further. That would then require higher upkeep costs.
When I think of agendas, I think of something a lot bigger than basic bonuses. When I say an agenda, I mean some kind of gameplay goal only available to that agenda. The "good" Sheriff agenda could be to unlock the unique power to deputize selected enclaves into your law enforcers which allow you to create a coalition of towns guarded by your law enforcers. Agendas need to be like earth shaking elements to the game that allow you to play in a way the other leaders and agendas cannot.
I first realised that the leaders don't matter when there were no real consequences for changing them, this was in order to build all the different "leader" facilities.. It'd be good to have the leaders roles filled out more, for them to more critical to your community.
I wish they would do something with the Factions like Red Talon and The Network. Where you can only join one and each has its advantages and disadvantages and each side has a good and bad maybe something like the faction system in Fallout New Vegas
Where you can do missions on each side to get them to like you. Like Red
Talon is a really strong faction focused on destroying blood plague but uses humans pretty much as slaves and barely has any regard for humans in general
And the Network is all about helping people and rebuilding civilization but kill anyone who doesn't agree with them
The talons don't treat people as slaves.
@@johnkittz one of the big parts of the story is that they have labour/slave camps. If you listen to the radio calls a woman called Kami Diaz talks about it
I love the management strategy of this game as much as the survival, you worded it really well. Love being able to build your base, hope SoD3 expand on this as one of the main focuses.
The game you are talking about would be a hallmark in the zombie community
They gotta do like a huge map. If they brought out a third one and it was like a really big, dense city it would be so cool. Way it feels now is like a really rural, isolated area but there still happens to be hundreds upon hundreds of zombies just walking around the roads, makes 0 sense
Would love that similar to lifeline in sod1 the city was overrun and it felt really cool
I would love to see all the things you said and when multiple enclaves dont like you you have to defend your home like a zombie siege but with humans that rush your home
That is something I would love to see
You should make a discord sever for state of decay 2 players
The only issue with that is the Ai aimbots that are the hostile humans in game. While the AI aren’t too bad to take on in 2s or 3s, I’d be very hesitant to consider a 10+ hostile human AI siege on my base and my AI members as potentially fun. Personally, I think that would be the most grief-y thing the devs could institute in the game.
@@sostrongineedmoreofyourmon974 They should lower the headshots where sharpshooters are the only ones who can achieve one quickly. Everyone else should have a lower percentage chance since they are not as accurate. It should take time to develop a person to be a sharpshooter. I think a certain amount of headshots before that option become available, not just kills. Plus boost our AI up some so they actually excel at their skills. If I have a sharpshooter he shouldn't be running up to melee someone.
I hope you're kidding. Just one enemy AI is already enough pain in the ass to aimbot at your head and one-shot you.
Love the ideas and content! Keep it up!
Undead Labs already has the groundwork laid for this with traits of people. They would just have to make different traits favor different leader types, like asthma would favor builder and trader because they'd be less likely to see combat, and would have access to meds. Also have the traits favor decisions the player makes, like group members that eat more losing favor with the leader when they give food away. Then, have demotion have consequences through a demotion mission, like the warlord could become hostile, and every member of the group that liked them would have a chance of becoming hostile as well. Sheriff demotion could have a random attack from outsiders, or something. Builder could lose resources or facilities, and trader could lose allies.
One fairly simple way to make leaders more important would be to require them for their buildings to function, not just to build them. I'd even go a step further and say it should work that way for ALL buildings and 5th skills.
If you get a computer guy to upgrade your command center to tier 3, and they leave, why would it make sense that someone else could operate it correctly? If you build a trade depot and the trade leader isn't in charge, why would the outside traders come?
It's not a solution, but it's a step towards making them less replaceable or disposable. If I know my meds hydroponics lab will stop working if EITHER my herbalist OR my utilities person dies (or leaves)... I'm gonna probably be a lot more careful to keep them happy and safe, since if I don't have a new recruit lined up and ready to go, I might be SOL for a while.
I would say they have not done this is because they wanted to make a game not a grind.
Nicely done dude.
Great ideas for fixing leader mechanism and enclave system/diplomacy mechanism
Trader=more traders coming through passively but enclaves can become mooch
Warlord=can draft from enclaves but more work is required for allied status
Sheriff=enclaves give better rewards but are more likely to ask for help
Builder=boosted build rates and reduced upkeep costs but boosted threat level
Your idea for different types of leaders based on their outlook is great imo and I made some of them based on it.I'l go over the builder (Also I think this should be called Optimistic/Pragmatic/Nihilist i.e. good neutral and bad/more evil)
Optimistic builder:You help people build their bases in exchange for resources so you can offer something like we give you 1 materials for 1 other resource.Since your base would be very safe as a builder you'd also get people coming over asking to join.Though some may get hostile if turned away and others would try to take what they can and leave so you can't accept everyone.
Pragmatic builder:Basically the current builder,you get some construction speed bonuses and -25% to materials upkeep.
Nihilistic builder:I'd imagine this would be an isolationist community who wouldn't wanna deal with others,you'd make less influence and have higher prices for trading and could only get nearby enclaves (close to your base) to allied/recruitable status.Hoewever you'd get big bonuses for everything base related,-50% materials upkeep -25% to all other upkeep,faster build speed and other minor stuff to character related things (+5 health+5 stamina)you'd also get traders more rarely as to balance it.
I think the sherrif and the warlord should be kinda different since they're already kinda in theese categorys (Sherrif-Optimist/Warlord-Nihilist)
I love these ideas and have some hopefully interesting ones I would like to suggest aswell! (I come from a background of loving zombie games with looting and fighting and even more than that I love games with character skill trees.) I think that adding a passive benefit to your currently active leader could have a GREAT effect on the impact of each leader. For instance, a Warlord may have a passive benefit called "tribute" where your group receives new weapons and ammo each day based on the enclaves and their current relation to your group(allied,friendly,neutral,hostile) and this would greatly benefit your group while also potentially causing other groups to dislike you. For the trader maybe you receive a passive influence per day gain to make trading more fluid and common without too much work and a small bonus to enclave relationships. The builder could have "self-sufficient" where your group receives an increased income of supplies each day with no effect on other communities. the sheriff could cause more active effects like "call in backup" maybe where friendly enclaves will come to your location and you can give them a general command to help you deal with a current issue(like plague heart, hostile survivors or others). This last one was the hardest to come up with but I feel it could be fairly useful. I think that adding a mechanic that gives your leader a 'morals' bar (good and bad like in mass effect or star wars knights of the old republic) that is impacted by your decisions would be great. And depending on its current status it could effect the surrounding enclaves and their relationship to you as well and have a slight difference in the active bonuses your leader could provide.
Total agree with you. Along with what you said more option in bases or able to expand into the surrounding buildings. Out post should have build customized areas as well as manned. for example 2 to 3 build option manned with you faction those build option things like beds, defenses, watch towns, resources building.
-Gas station supplies gas, but can build watch tower on the roof, defenses walls and gates to drive your cars into safe zone. You would have it manned with say about 3 to 4 people 2 for defense one to sort out the resource. Beds would naturally generate there.
- Farmers would produce food, ingredients for meds, defenses walls, extra beds.
- medical building can produce medicine with resource supplied by the farmers, also produce other things like chemicals to make bombs and ammo.
- gun shop produce ammo supplied from the medical outpost/ warehouse. Also build weapons.
- warehouse produce build products,
- military out post supply ammo but also have watch towers that can detect zombies/ other faction in radios of the out post.
- shops out post could work like shops giving you day currency.
Your main base should be a fortress that can produce all of these. However to secure the map you need your outpost to secure areas of the map subdued other faction, destroy pladge heart.
Other faction will be doing the same thing, causing large scale wars/battles (the noise of it would attract large numbers of zombies, turning into three way fight where as people are die they turn into zombies and join the zombies ranks)
Pladge hearts should get harder and bigger as you get rid of them. the last one of the map should be loads blood zombies, loads normal Zombies. Large number of juggernaut, ferrels, screemer, blooter. As long as theres one pladge on the map they can regenerate around the map, specially if the zombies win a battle with 2 faction.
With your idea of leadership and the games base ideas the game would massive. End goal of the game would be destroy the zombies threat, destroy/ally (trade)/subdued other factions.
Management and strategy plan for sure!
Love your perspectives on SOD2. I knew leaders felt lack luster but I never really put too much thought into it.
I really think you should try city skyline, it's a complete management game from managing happiness in the city to being able to enforce different policies ,you also got budget management
I just got into this and I'm soooo addicted. Thank you free games!!
@@jmroz311 lol me to i love watching biffa and overcharged egg for tips
As always I really enjoyed the video and appreciate the LOGICAL thought as to how the game can evolve. I still watch your videos but I honestly rarely play the game anymore. Like you I like management games but I equally like zombie games (left 4 dead) as well. That said, the game has nothing more to offer in either category than mindless random challenges that are akin to the challenges you see (hopefully not) on tik tok. I could grind Daybreak for the only achievements I am missing...but why put myself through such torture? New guns and clothes equates to nothing more than a band aid for a game that has bled out. Undead Labs seems content on remaining in the minor leagues afraid to committing to the hard work required to play in the majors. Holding on to the fame they have achieved with a discord community they enjoy hanging out with and pandering to in order to still feel relevant. The live streams they used to do, but stopped due to the fact that streaming from the comfort of home for an hour a week seems an impossibility during political upheaval, has always been full of really awkward people giving excuse after excuse as to why they can't be better. I love State of Decay and it is my favorite game but when it fails to keep trying then I have to say "It's you not me."
I love those Ideas. I think I would be Malcom Renyolds type leader. Crew above all else, no matter my feelings towards them
I love all your ideas! I think that once you complete the level and difficulty you should be able to build the leader building anyway without having to chose that leader again. Also maybe add Human sieges that attack your base and make it more difficult.
Every Single word Spoke to my soul !!! 👏👏
Do civilization 6. It is a country/world builder and managing your cities, troop movements and resources
I do play Civ6 when I have free time. I play Stellaris too which is sci-fi Civ.
Trader becomes warlord: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further
You have great ideas 💡
I wouldn’t want your ideas 100% b/c I’m there 80% for zombie apocalypse…but your ideas are gold!
be cool if there was a goal to have all the base on the map and if your a trader you get to set up trade routes from base to base aswell if your the warlord take all the base it about take control of the map and if the people don't like you your base start to get attack by people and half way through the attack the zombie start to attack as well
I love these ideas
I think in SOD3 the leader of your camp should be your own custom character
I could not agree more, the leadership mechanics feel like they were shoehorned into a game that was not designed for them as an afterthought. A mile wide an inch deep is the most accurate description I think you could give the strategic and command systems in the game. Imagine if you will a game where you use the command station to issue commands to your outposts and other bases, also if you have the builder perk your outposts should have power damn it.
I've recently started watching your videos after getting into this game and I really like watching you play and hearing your thoughts on things. I'm very similar I think although I am a big fan of zombies but I love the whole management/combat/community mechanic. It's like everything I could ever want and I really hope they continue to add to this in the third game.
I like apocalyptic management which is why I like games such as XCOM.
It could be zombies... alien invasion... it could be a robot AI uprising... any kind of situation where it's stressful and up to you to try and turn the sinking ship around.
That's what I really like. I like being given a bad situation and using brains to turn it around.
Awesome discussion 👏🏼 👌🏼 👍🏽 great minds think alike 😉
This is an amazing idea. I hope you are passing this along to the devs
The leader system could use a morality system. You’re type of trading leader sits between neutral evil and chaotic evil. I think what you’re thinking of is the 3 personality is honest, neutral and corrupt. I think some leaders can’t have certain traits like, the warlord. He can’t be lawful good. Lawful, neutral and chaotic evil possibly. Sheriff would be stuck good but still have the lawful, neutral and chaotic side. Being a corrupt sheriff is pretty much a warlord. The builder and trader would be a bit harder to define. They probably would be neutral good, neutral evil or true neutral. I did my best to think about each profession to make sure it doesn’t clash. If you think about d&d style, evil doesn’t necessarily mean kill everyone. It can just mean being an asshole or corrupt.
Great points to consider
Creo que soy el único español que ve tus vídeos y aunque no hayan subtítulos me entretienen mucho sigue asi
Great ideas here.
This is good stuff 👍 I definitely agree with this 💯%
That "zombie-kun~" got you a like and a sub
Completely agree with everything in this video. State of Decay is unique because of the management mechanics, choosing what characters to take depending on their skills, how to constantly manage the resource scarcity crisis and ultimately how to persist and thrive despite the overwhelming zombie threat. The biggest piece missing here is the interactions with other survivors which is why i love the diplomacy/leader management aspect you mentioned, it would really expand the game and give NPC humans more of a purpose within the game other than influence farms or a place to run to when a feral is chasing you. You can tell they attempted this in State of Decay 2 so I really hope they continue to expand on this in State of Decay 3.
Love your ideas. One thing I'd like in the game is outposts are replaced with bases. Instead of resources being magically created via outposts and facilities, you truly create resources by building respective bases and you are not managing one base, but different kinds of bases. So lots and lots of facilities, lots of variations in strategy.
So instead of taking a fuel outpost, you need to choose a leader with an agenda to provide fuel to the communities. This would trigger a series of missions like find multiple survivors (friends enclaves) that have the knowledge of drilling, knowledge of making drilling equipments then you cleanup a drilling site and get them to build facilities that will provide gas.
Killing plague heart repeatedly gets boring quickly. So maybe to beat the game you do it only once in a single map. After doing that, you are required to do these missions of building different bases to create different types of resources by choosing different leaders.
As a pure post apocalyptic, zombie management game, I would recommend Rebuild 3, the commercial version of the old Flash games (1 & 2). Much simpler graphics, but much more control and actual management. That's one of the things I've never liked about the SoD2 leaders; there is no leadership.
I'm about to restart the game after playing a day or 2..
My train of thought is there manys leader like you have said..
I think you should be albe to have multiple bases other then the home base...
They also be safe places for your self..
Like the biker bar you could keep your mechanic shop there to keep your cars worked on
This would be fun to play while you are working to further your agenda and doing mission you would unlock specialized mods that can only be used by a specific leader or weapons that are only available to that leader.
Something similar to Mist Survival would be interesting.
I'm on day 82 currently in nightmare zone and I never had a leader, nor did I ever feel the need to swap bases besides the big map.
And my Builder leader stuck didn't continue the Legacy Mission besides "Safe at Home" and "Useful Utilities" even after Plague Hearts were wiped out 🤣
You should try the Tropico franchise. I loved number 4, though I think they have 6 now.
Unfortunately, I don't think Undead Labs has the talent to do something like this. Though I wish they did.
Oooh Zombie-Kun, made me get coffee in my nose.... thanks lol
Current leaders should have active skills to incentivize people from demoting so often, or at all. Trader communities would have a huge discount on items. Builders can make/create a lot more materials from scrap and vice versa (maybe more). Sheriffs can recruit at a faster rate. Warlords could have a damage buff and access to special weaponry. Anyway, keep on keepin on brotha.
I know I’m 3 months late but I think you’re spot on with all your ideas. As a fellow strategy enthusiast I definitely feel there’s aspects of ai from other games like civ that they could use in state of decay like agendas. Your approach I think is more of a ‘hard’ approach I think to implement such wholesale changes to the ai would require a new team. It’s possibly more likely they’ll go for a soft implementation such as introducing penalties for switching leader and making certain actions(that aren’t missions) affect your standing with enclaves. Love your videos as always!
what kind of a noob takes the rusty screwdriver from the heart? lol
This is a great suggestion. I'm a builder at heart but I can't think of an additional dimension to building things that immediately creates exciting conflict and opportunity. Which is why I thought of improving leaders through passives.
There'd have to be some kind of grand project to work on. The Builder needs an ethical dilemma to reveal conflict.
The Good Builder: Wants to build something that benefits everyone at the cost of not being as useful to his own community.
The Neutral Builder: Builds things.
The Evil Builder: Builds a gulag and enslaves weaker enclaves to get cheap man power (eats less food doesn't directly reduce morale etc) so he can build his amazing thing he wants (probably a gigantic statue of himself).
You have think about what the Builder's goals are and where those goals run into moral dilemmas.
I agree with your thinking. SOD2 has all the infrastructure to transform from a "simple" post-apocalyptic survivor management thing to a fully fledged RTS where the zombies themselves eventually take a backseat and just become part of day-to-day reality - not a threat, but a nuisance you can't ignore, but doesn't govern your life and strategy.
The real challenge have always been, are and will be other people. Especially the ones with diametrically opposed agendas to your own - can be either good or bad, because YOU can be good or bad.
Add into the equation your inability to actually PAUSE the game, even during planning, management and silly things like changing the wardrobe, and you've got yourself a totally new level of immersion and urgency. This alone is quite unique to SOD - when you pause, you PAUSE, you can't do much. For anything else, you always have to look over your shoulder!
Having said that, I'm afraid the devs might just decide to punish the player for switching leaders - like losing the leader's special facility's bonuses or some such......
Exactly and well stated - the 4 leaders are good they just need to be more compelling.
I agree with you Fox, the leadership role should have more emphasis in their active role - beyond access to a building - that the player will miss if they demote the leader.
I was dying when he said "oooohhhhh, zombie kuuun!" in a high voice
Hey fox are you having the glitch where in the base management screen the text doesn’t show when you hover over various facilities?
I am not Fox but I am too.
The funniest thing is you can simultaneously build up the 4 leader facilities by just starting to build it and demote the leader right after it and promote another type, it got pretty ridiculous.
A 'afraid' or 'avoid' standing would be interesting and not too hard to implement - a way the Enclave warns others that are Hostile or Cold towards you so that they would cooperate and plotting against your community and also more interaction of the own members and scavenge missions.
I think I hate the sheriff legacy the most. Going into it the first time I expected Negan from TWD to show up and begin terrorizing the other groups while conducting regular raids on my base lol.
leader is required to finish legacy and thats it,you are right.
i do like the idea that while having the same type of leader, it sort of gets complex because it genuinely depends on what type of leader the guy you promoted is
in the end it makes survivors not be too similar to one another and adds variety
like of course this kind gentleman you recruited to your community and became a sherrif would be a do gooder good cop, while this criminal you recruited to your community and became a sherrif would be a corrupt cop
Both of them are sherrif but the way they go about things are different
I think the leader system is a good idea, but Undead Labs didn't take it far enough.
Leader gives u the boon…and you get different boost depending on who it is what do u mean?
I never play action games but I play state of decay because of the management factor too. Action part is just a bonus
I’m new to the channel so when I heard u say u like subnautica i was like ur my boy now 😂
This is what SOD3 Will be with the Power of the Série X
I recently replayed State of Decay 1, the one thing I can say that really caught my eye, your survivors develop a friendship with your other survivors when you invite them to follow you. Leading to different greetings and reactions to sickness, injury, or death. I had one of my female survivors get caught by a feral and horde and she ended up dying. When I jumped back to base, the survivors who were “friends” with her were depressed and some were crying, those who didn’t know her well had nothing to say or something like “we need to start dealing with these infestations unless we want to keep losing people.” It’s a small mechanic in the first game and it’s completely gone in the sequel, I would love to see this expanded on in SD3.
SoD1 was overall a better game than SoD2.
Yeah i was dissapointed That you can Just swap leaders and keep their specialized building by only a minor loose of morale. I waited 13 days in my dread campaign because i taught it was definitiv. And it Hurt the replayability in my opinion
"I'm sure there's some sort of zombie dating sim out there... "
Me: ......
Anime girl voice: "Oh zombie-kun~"
Me: Ah hell nah he didn't!!! 😂 I'm crying
As a zombie game state of decay isn't very good. It's the base building that's fun.
Yeah. I get bored after playing one day. It's basically the first in-game week that feels exciting.
"Oh, zombie-kun" killed me. :D
I think if someone gets kicked off of leader they should have long Multi day - 50 morale penalty.
I like the concept you are introducing...first of all I am just like you, I love the strategy from SoD. I really don’t care for killing a lot of zombies, but I do care for having enough resources, weapons and crafting my survivors to really be a community...Now I have another idea, lets put on the position that you have to move to another map, lets have the option of move with another 2 survivors and create a new community but leaving a deputy in charge of your last community and have the opportunity to trade with them (Trader), maybe help them occasionally solve problems with other enclaves (sheriff), resist invasions or call them to kill enemy enclaves (warlord) and create some structure (Im not sure of this one) for the use of the builder...In this scenario you can create a new leader...that manage more than 1 enclave (different maps) and be like a Conquer/Unifier depending on how you manage the different enclaves creating differences between the community members (maybe some will like more attention or be more anger for sharing their resources, etc.) In general I think SoD have a lot of potential to keep on growing and I am really hoping for a new game that includes even more options
Hell yes sir. Such a good game and it has endless untapped potential which is amazing considering how much the devs have improved it already.
i like the ideas about getting the AI to do more then sit in their houses and do nothing til they need you for a mission. i had some ideas for the leaders and id like to know if this is just my opinion or if other people like these to.
Trader: while u have a trader as ur leader you get a discount (maybe something like 10-20%) while trading, Also when u call in a trader you have a chance to get a superior version. For example u call in an ammo trader. and either a Echo trader or Red talon trader might come instead. this would only happen with the leader active, so demoting them u could keep calling in basic traders but would lose these benefits. IF they added a negative, perhaps since ur a known trader people might steal from you more knowing u have an abundance of supplies for trade.
Builder: as a builder perhaps u get reduced construction costs or superior versions of more buildings then the other leaders. Or even maybe add more building slots when u have a builder leader, perhaps these facilities fall into disrepair without the builder in charge. Or as a builder have the ability to upgrade your walls/doors. as a downside perhaps you get attacked my zombies more often cause of ur bigger base.
Warlord: With a warlord you could have unique specializations for skills involving cardio, fighting and shooting. changing out of the warlord wouldnt need to get rid of the unique skills but say stops them from reaching max rank. Also as a passive everyone could have more stamina and HP as a result of extra training. But everyone also suffers a constant morale penalty again for the intense training.
Sheriff: (this is the one i had the hardest time with) With a sheriff u could make friends with certain enclaves easier due to their respect for someone maintaining law and order, characters could say have unique wits skills. Any enclaves u allied with would become neutral if you demoted the sheriff. but since ur a lawman other enclaves might be more prone to be aggressive or straight up attack you perhaps while your scavenging.
These are all just rough ideas that came to mind as a way to make leaders better imo most of these i THINK could be integrated into this state of decay 2 rather then waiting for 3. i agree with the point of when u promote a leader u should not want to demote them, and if u do as Git gud fox state it could cause turmoil, perhaps in the form of a moral penalty for a while until things eventually settle down, u could either make it a large penalty for a shorter period or a smaller penalty over a longer period.
Wait. There's a demotion mechanic?
The problem with leaders in this game?...
Anyone can be a leader!
That's where this one failed. I don't much like the different leader plots either.
I reckon this game would've benefitted more if there were just One leader you have/choose and all those endings for the different leaders happen in your playthrough with your one leader:
Wave after wave of enemy enclaves storm your base along with a zombie horde or 4 like in the Builder finale.
After you pick up the pieces, you can choose to go and bring the war to their base like the Warlord.
Wipe them out, and then end the game like how the Trader playthrough ends with the last of the enemies trying one last time to kill you and steal your shit.
They should take some notes for their leader mechanics from fallout new Vegas with the faction aspect. Although I think it'd require bigger maps and more people on said map
I think a really simple win would be that your leader gets a second Hero bonus from one of their other traits.
I agree the leader should have more to it. Though choosing a leader also effects the Legacy Boon if you actually care about those.
It'd been nice if they gave each leader a different ending too.
Hey 🦊 I've been gone a bit but I'm back. 🙂 Work got super crazy and I've had no time for anything else. I'm just going to jump in the new SoD series.
Welcome back! Don't worry about it broski. These videos will be here here forever... I think.
To kinda argue your point, the leaders are how you beat the game, and the missions you are describing seem to be just a far better version of what we have now. How would these changes make leaders matter for the people who are going for an endless playthrough as opposed to a person playing to finish the game? Or would all playthroughs effectively be endless playthrough where you can continue to play in the world after you complete your legacy's objectives?
I don't even want "legacy" objectives. I don't really think that SoD should be about "beating" the game unless you have a really specific narrative to tell in a story driven campaign.
The whole concept of SoD is that you're just stuck in the zombie apocalypse, and now you have to build a community to survive. There is no implied end goal. You just play until you're satisfied with how long you've played.
Stellaris, for example, has ways to "win" the game, but they're so arbitrary that people just basically play the game until they've accomplished what they personally want to, and the game is challenging enough to make that take a while to do.