A good developer can balance out his game without resorting to chances. It’s just one of the factors people could like or not. It isn’t so much that any non-frustrated player can’t beat the luck, it’s that I have to. > You both also slightly misinterpret my meaning. Churches and bars need to be found first (start-up luck, beginning) and parties cost you food (getting to 50 food is only possible with positive food income, or after many turns of scavenging). At a point where you’re already past the beginning you’re talking about. Aside from that, antivenom is developed very late in the game. I’m countering that these random events give it replayability. > Huh? That wasn’t the point I’m making at all. With that said, I’m still interested in the exact chances of events happening. Those who love intense variation can go for that, and those who don’t can let it smooth out.
#Fort zombie download mediafire plus
Of course, the other way around would be that suddenly you gain 5 tiles to your fort, additional 25% happiness, and plus 50 maximum food storage. Or that people at 50% happiness randomly decide they’re no longer into it, and you can’t start missions for the next 10 turns. I’d love to see Rebuild where you could slide it all the way up to the maximum and there’s a chance if you lose a random survivor, it was actually everyone’s hero, and everyone in town gives up (= game over). Heck, you could even add a slider which affects the amount of variation. No more variation, but still exactly the same average. Giving your people HP instead of a chance to die will remove the intense punishment for luck (5% chance to lose a soldier instead will mean you simply lose 5% HP). Averaging it out will make for a fair distribution. You both also slightly misinterpret my meaning. Huh? That wasn’t the point I’m making at all. > You control this with partys churches and bars. > You control this with researching Antivenom “It doesn’t give me replayability to see people die of zombie bites”
0 kommentar(er)
