Idea for How to Bring Back Deadly Missions

Hi all,

So I read through the discussion on deadly missions and it seems the concerns of the developers could be easily addressed.

(Skip this paragraph if you already understand the developers concerns.) Basically, the problem is that *many* people didn't fully appreciate the risk of a deadly mission and ended up loudly complaining about losing their survivors. Let's not rehash all of the opinions on this issue, but I'll tell you from experience, when your new to the game and have been pouring all of your resources into 1 or 2 survivors, when you lose them it can be difficult to motivate yourself to keep playing.

Anyway, all of that being said, here is my idea.
1. An extra disclaimer before entering the deadly mission.
2. You can "rescue" survivors by paying gold (or maybe spending those new tokens that are promised in the next release).
2a. Only allow this after the mission but before returning to the world map
2b. Only allow this in the moment, when the character dies
2c. Allow this for anyone listed in the memorial.
(I am a fan of option 2a)

Another cool idea I had was to combine the deadly mission features with outposts. Namely, instead of rescuing a lost survivor you can opt to "harvest" them for a much smaller cost. These "harvested" survivors would be added to your walker pit and help with the defense of your outpost. They would be different than normal walkers and have a level/abilities with some relation to their level and abilities when they died. That way all your hard work isn't completely lost.



  • Coach280Coach280 Member Posts: 8
    What bout all the people like myself that are 8 deadly missions before getting 500 gold I spent so much time and survivors and not to mention all the good I used and get no payout what a ripoff
  • DCBMETDCBMET Member Posts: 392
    I had suggested it before, but instead of deadly missions, deadly walkers would be a fun twist. It would force players to strategize more. They could appear in any mission. A normal deadly walker could net you a silver chest and a deadly tank or armored gives you a gold chest.
    A survivor would be 'offed' only if that walker dealt the deathblow/or won a struggle. It might even bring some relevence to the wrestler trait on armor!
  • FLWillFLWill Member Posts: 71
    I like this idea, and basically any idea that would allow me to complete the Risk and Reward that I'm only 15missions from completing.
  • Thatguy87Thatguy87 Member Posts: 1
    You could have an option on the side missons, you could choose deadly or regular, and if you choose deadly, you have better odds of getting silver and gold crates, so there's a bonus for choosing deadly missons
  • TheMajorTheMajor Member Posts: 6
    Deadly missions need to be back in the game in update 1.10!

    It's really simple, add another disclaimer or use the new tokens or gold to revive!

    People are not stupid, if they're complaining that they have lost a survivor it can only be because of a glitch... Not because they was not aware it's a deadly mission!
  • mgrams91mgrams91 Member Posts: 1
    I think it would be smart to just change it so only one survivor can die per deadly mission.. this way if a glitch happens or otherwise you can't lose your whole team.. and in the event that more than one person goes down you get to choose which one dies kinda like when you flee.. and then your other survivors just go to the hospital as usual.. this way the deadly missions are still deadly but not a slaughterhouse..
  • LightfeetLightfeet Member Posts: 1,062

    Disagree with #2 as resurrection shouldn't get part of new deadlies. There already is more than one warning at the beginning of deadlies, which should be sufficient.

    @mgrams91 As there is a FLEE option that gives you the opportunity to lose only 1 survivor it's up to you whether you decide to stay and fight at the risk of losing all 3 survivors. Why should NG give you the option to choose one survivor, if 2 already died? That does't make sense in a deadly mission.

  • PR0DJPR0DJ Member Posts: 834
    The only 2 reasonable options here:
    1. Replace deadlies with something hard to beat but not literally deadly.
    2. Make the "dead" survivor lose 1-3 levels but still alive in hospital with heavy injury.

    Or both simultaneously.
  • LightfeetLightfeet Member Posts: 1,062
    @PR0DJ #1 could be an option, but I would bet that this solution would lead to lots of whining threads in the forum. (missions are to hard blah blah blah....)
    #2 isn't an option in my eyes. Deadly is deadly...
  • PR0DJPR0DJ Member Posts: 834
    1. Why whining if it is a replacement for deadlies with higher chance to find a better gear like was in actual deadlies?
    Too hard - don't f***ing start that mission.
    Started hard mission - don't f***ing whine if you lose.
    Simple is that.
    2. They will not return dedlies with permanent death of survivors, read the reasons why they removed it:
    Read what @OldGoth and @eetu said.
    But this option can solve all problems.
  • bumshoebumshoe Member Posts: 322
    Just bring back deadly missions as they where and get rid of the increased gear. It's like adding water to orange juice because people complain the acid hurts their tongue.

    Have appl juice then. Increased gear has not given me anything leading only viable option trading goods. Which could be the root of this change to start with. Push players to group events for items and away from the game.
    When soft cap comes I quit the game.
  • OldGothOldGoth Member Posts: 297
    Some of the options we're discussing are changing permadeath to "really long time in the hospital", unlocking permadeath a whole lot later than before (and obviously with more communication), and making it only possible to lose a single survivor on one run. But no decisions either way yet.
    [Deleted User]Lightfeet
  • PR0DJPR0DJ Member Posts: 834
    OldGoth said:

    Some of the options we're discussing are changing permadeath to "really long time in the hospital", unlocking permadeath a whole lot later than before (and obviously with more communication), and making it only possible to lose a single survivor on one run. But no decisions either way yet.

    Lose 1-3 levels is better punishment for messing with deadlies than "really long time in the hospital".
    And idea of "losing" no more than one survivor - is great IMO.
Sign In or Register to comment.