Suggestion:20070926 More Dynamic Fights

	Closed
	This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Peer Reviewed.

20070926 More Dynamic Fights

Jon Pyre 23:25, 26 September 2007 (BST)

Suggestion type
Improvement

Suggestion scope
Combat

Suggestion description
I've played UD a long time. The other day while shooting a zombie, and later clawing a survivor with my other character, I mused that UD could be vastly improved if some spice were added to the more repetitive portions, such as combat.

I suggest improving combat in UD by introducing random events, which would provide both human and zombie characters with additional combat options. This new option would take the form of a special one-time attack. For instance a zombie player might see:

You stumble hands outstretched towards MaltonMan, who barely avoids being caught. Your momentum carries you rather close to SurvivorDude.

And the new attack option would take the form of a button that might say:

[Claw SurvivorDude +15%]

That button goes away if used, or if another action is performed. Taking the offer would use a hand attack SurvivorDude with a bonus to accuracy (note %s are just examples, so don't kill for 15 being too high/low). So the zombie now has the option of attacking a randomly selected survivor to get that bonus, or choosing to continue their attack. Their choice would vary on the situation. If they don't care who they attack, sure, take the bonus. But if they're trying to finish off MaltonMan before running out of AP, or SurvivorDude is a level 2 player while MaltonMan level 15, maybe that special offer isn't worth spending the AP.

Survivors would also have these kinds of offer, though to protect zombie anonymity I think it'd be best if the random bonuses just provided a bonus by choosing another weapon:

You swing your shotgun at the zombie and fire wildly, but you notice an opening for a quick slash from your knife...

[Knife Zombie +10%]

So maybe the survivor would want to attack with a bonus, or perhaps just sticking to the shotgun would be best.

Now these two types of bonuses are just what I could think up as examples but there could be all kinds of different bonuses. For instance an offer to try shooting with two pistols at once, firing two bullets with one AP but with a significant drop in accuracy. Or an offer to try tearing a deep wound in a survivor's stomach with a lower accuracy hand attack that does an extra point of damage. Or doing less damage with higher accuracy. Again, I ask you not to vote keep/kill on these random examples but more on the generally idea of "It would be cool if random roleplaying events happened during combat that would provide some interesting tactical choices."

Addendum

• These random events would not happen every time you attack. What percentage of the time is up to Kevan.
• Perhaps you would need to purchase a skill to have these random events occur. Or maybe multiple skills, each one increasing the chance of specific events happening (for example "Knife Prowess" would hypothetically double the occurance of that knife option above).
• You would always be able to ignore the option and just keep on attacking normally. Once used or ignored the option is gone forever, until it randomly happens again.
• The events given to zombies and survivors should balance each other out, so it makes fighting more fun without giving a boost to either side.

Voting Section

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped. # justification ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above may be struck by any user.

The only valid votes are Keep, Kill, Spam or Dupe. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

Keep Votes

1. Keep I hope I don't get any kill votes on being too vague, or because of the specific examples for options/bonuses or my corny flavor text. But I think having tactical choices to break up the repetitive nature of combat would be fun and vastly improve the game. --Jon Pyre 23:27, 26 September 2007 (BST)
2. Keep Sounds like fun. --Uncle Bill 23:31, 26 September 2007 (BST)
3. Keep UD is boring. People are fun. Lets make both entertaining.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:32, 26 September 2007 (BST)
4. 'Keep -- Yeah, it's kind of vague... But this is a great idea!! It wouldn't solve all the doldrums, but it'd help a lot, done right. Something similar could also apply to barricade smashing. Say you manage to get an arm through a hole, and can take a pot shot at a random survivor inside, and if there're badly wounded survivor inside, you have a chance to use feeding drag on them! Or some ability to allow you a one shot chance do a lot of damage to the barricades, but with some kind of penalty or something that offsets it... don't ask me how, I don't know, but you get my point... --WanYao 23:39, 26 September 2007 (BST)

   "The additional damage to the barricade with a penalty for a zomb damaging it could work like this : "You manage to grab chair's leg/a wheelchair/whatever and rip it from the barricade. Part of it collapses,falling elements hit you for X damage"--James beckerson 10:03, 27 September 2007 (BST)

5. Keep! - Please, please, please implement this! Combat is so very boring at the moment. And I understand perfectly why you left so many things vauge, because if implemented it will be changed by Kevan, this is just the fundamental basics of a brilliant addition to the game.--Seventythree^Talk 23:45, 26 September 2007 (BST)
6. Keep I likes it. --Howard Bentley 01:31, 27 September 2007 (BST)
7. Keep I like it, it gives a bit of variation to it, but just to make this clear for me, the combat bonus doesn't occur all the time does it?--Medico 02:22, 27 September 2007 (BST)
   • Re No, just enough to spice things up. And some of the events could possibly have increased %s if you purchase certain skills, as I outlined. --Jon Pyre 18:23, 27 September 2007 (BST)
8. Weak Keep - Needs more development, but I'm ok with Kevan deciding what's easily implemented given his knowledge of the code. Idea is kinda neat though, and it would, as stated, make combat more interesting. I'm a bit reluctant to actually vote keep on an idea that's not more solid, but .. --Pgunn 03:48, 27 September 2007 (BST)
9. Keep Sockem 04:43, 27 September 2007 (BST)
10. Keep - I like this idea. Needs a bit more work, but it's good enough to pass. --Druuuuu 05:16, 27 September 2007 (BST)
11. Keep - it adds more entertainment for both living and un-living, so it would be a gain for each player. Random appearance of these special possibilities guarantee that they won't be boring or happen too freqently for each side of the Malton's population.--James beckerson 10:09, 27 September 2007 (BST)
12. keep - More solid numbers would have probably got a change vote from most people meaning this would have gone to rejected. Assuming numbers could be found to make it acceptable it would then have been duped! This has all the info needed to be a sound suggestion and is also one of the most interesting I have seen for ages. --Honestmistake 10:12, 27 September 2007 (BST)
13. keep - If this idea makes the reviewed section, we can have a page where people can suggest random events, a bit like the page for clothing suggestions. The Mad Axeman 14:24, 27 September 2007 (BST)
14. Very weak keep - This suggestion requires more work... however, I do agree with the fact that the concept is what you are presenting, and leaving it ambiguous enough for Kevan to make up his own numbers. That being said, would it hurt to include a few percentages as Kevan can change it if it gets passed? --Ryiis 15:37, 27 September 2007 (BST)
15. Keep - It would make all those other weapons more useful. Great idea! --Abi79 ^AB 15:41, 27 September 2007 (BST)
16. Keep But sort out those percentages quickly! --DrBowman 16:04, 27 September 2007 (BST)
17. Keep - Great concept which deserves further development and consideration. I want to see more and would love to add further commentary in discussion area. --Shazzelim 16:11, 27 September 2007 (BST)
18. Keep - I love it. Kevan can make percentages and whatnot, suggestions is for telling him what the players think would be a good addition to the game.--Wooty 16:23, 27 September 2007 (BST)
19. Keep - I think it's fine the way it is. Attempting to list every percentage and attack type would be retarded, and then half the voters would vote kill because they thought it should be 1% higher or lower --Splicer 18:16, 27 September 2007 (BST)

    X-Treme Keep - As Splicer . Not signed. --^T 22:15, 27 September 2007 (BST)

20. Keep! - Ha, i think this would be an awesome impliment into the game, but i think you may need to nurse the percentages a little. Other than that i think it's a great suggestion! --Acoustic Pie 20:33, 27 September 2007 (BST)
21. Keep I vote on an idea for the idea, not the cursed numbers, and I happen to think this is a good one Rebel147 20:54, 27 September 2007 (BST)
22. Keep -Yeah... just make sure the bonuses are totally balanced. In fact, the bonuses should even be balanced so this doesn't result in an overall buff/nerf of combat across the board. --AlexanderRM 00:27, 28 September 2007 (BST)
23. Keep OK. I shot Zombie X. And again... And again... And again... Hmm, let's see if we can't spice this up a bit... And I agree fully with WanYao, Vagueness can be good. And this is one of those moments where it is. ~A`Blue`Jelly^TME*V*I*L*_? 01:38, 28 September 2007 (BST)
24. Keep - good--  Savant  Chit-Chat  20:57, 28 September 2007 (BST)
25. Keep - I never got why people require exact figures- surely they'll just be changed for balance anyways? --Karloth Vois ^RR 16:39, 29 September 2007 (BST)
26. Keep - If the author delineated every single occurence for every single weapon no one would read the suggestion out of sheer boredom. Kevan'll change everything anyway, if he even deigns to implement this. He knows more about game balance than we mere players do. The suggestion isn't vague, it's concise. --MrCoolantSpray 20:00, 29 September 2007 (BST)
27. Keep - THis could be less vauge, but it would take forever to make, and be shot down because of minor things if it was much more vauge. BoboTalkClown 00:00, 30 September 2007 (BST)
28. Keep - PLEASE spice up combat. Please. OllieQueen
29. Keep/develop - I love it. However it's just a vague idea, not a suggestion as we know them and like them. I would propose to make it a suggestion category, create a dedicated wikipage and gather ideas for these random events from all the community. Staszyk 22:41, 30 September 2007 (BST)
30. Keep-Continue - I noticed that you didn't list that many specifics (although the few examples were cool.), but I suppose you'll begin to work on that once this suggestion is approved. Personally, I believe this would be a good idea, if not for the flavor, but for the more variety in fighting.--Private Mark 04:30, 1 October 2007 (BST)

    Keep - I like it, but you should develop it further! --Paris V-W 17:28, 13 October 2007 (BST) Vote past deadline

Kill Votes

1. Kill - Develop the concept or don't suggest it. You can do that on the Suggestions Talk page.--Karek^maps?! 23:41, 26 September 2007 (BST)

   "Please don't delete my non-author comment! But I have to say that this is something that one person probably can't develop a good version of alone. And, since Kevan is the designer of the game, I think he has a better idea of what would work and what he'd be able to actually implement in the code. So leaving specifics up to him is a good idea... Getting too specific would actually water the idea down. This is a case where I actually favour ignoring rules on "vagueness" that otherwise are in place for good reason. Consider that when voting. --WanYao 23:48, 26 September 2007 (BST)" Now it's an author comment :) --Jon Pyre 23:51, 26 September 2007 (BST)

2. Weak Kill - I what your saying Wanyao, but It needs to be a little bit more complete. It's just too vague. --Sonofagun18 07:01, 27 September 2007 (BST)
3. Change - Excellent idea, but please let other people help you develop it further. -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 07:03, 27 September 2007 (BST)
4. Kill - not so keen on it, as its already easy to miss important details. I suspect this would just confuse newbies and be meaningless to more experienced players.  Swiers 13:43, 27 September 2007 (BST)
5. Kill - only miniboosts. i would like if such random roleplaying events would also give mininerfs to balance things out --~~~~ [talk] 14:22, 27 September 2007 (BST)
   • Re I avoided giving mininerfs because I wanted to give players the ability to opt-out. As structured the suggestion presents a different choice with a pro and con and players can ignore it if they like. Nobody would select a mininerf unless this suggestion made the event something that happens to you, rather than something you choose to do. It's not a bad idea, but I feel that this suggestion is "Randomly Presented Options" and your idea is a different suggestion: "Randomly Occuring Misfortunes" --Jon Pyre 18:27, 27 September 2007 (BST)

   response on talk page --~~~~ [talk] 15:25, 29 September 2007 (BST)

6. Kill - I like the idea but I agree that it needs more work and also perhaps a system for things to go badly wrong "Your gun jams and you cannot fire it this round", or something like that anyway.--Etherdrifter 15:41, 27 September 2007 (BST)
7. Kill - I don't like it. --Nikitis 23:04, 27 September 2007 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - because you've left crucial percentages "up to Kevan." The idea itself has some good points, but it needs to have all the numbers put in place by the author before it's ready to vote on. --Pavluk ^{A! E!} 23:34, 26 September 2007 (BST)
   • I think that precision is important in some types of suggestions, but in others like this the concept is more important. This page is just an expression of what the community would like in a game, not a request for what will specifically be implemented. Kevan pretty much never follows the numbers people provide in suggestions. All this suggestion would do is let him know: "Hi Kevan! Um, we think random events like these would be cool. If you think it's a good idea and you have free time for it. Thanks!" --Jon Pyre 23:40, 26 September 2007 (BST)

   True, but putting the numbers in lets people decide whether or not they think your suggestion is overpowered. --Pavluk ^{A! E!} 23:43, 26 September 2007 (BST)

   Re I agree, which is why I tried providing plausible figures in the examples. But I'm sure Kevan, if he ran with this, wouldn't use any bonuses ridiculously unbalanced: [Special 3 Shotgun Attack +80% FTW!]. The numbers should be high enough to matter, and low enough to not dominate combat. I trust Kevan to know what appropriate numbers would be more than myself. --Jon Pyre 23:48, 26 September 2007 (BST)

   Sorry, I still believe you need to put all the numbers into a suggestion. It's outlined in the Suggestions Dos and Don'ts, see here. Ultimately, everything is up to Kevan, the Suggestions voting system acts as a filter for what goes to him for reading. One of the requirements of the system is that suggestions be complete, which this isn't. --Pavluk ^{A! E!} 18:22, 27 September 2007 (BST)

2. Spam - Important section of suggestion missing, specifically the percentage occurance, hence the suggestion is incomplete and spam worthy. And yes Pyre, it bloody well is important. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 23:47, 26 September 2007 (BST)
3. Spam - As above. --Steakfish 00:40, 27 September 2007 (BST)
4. Spam - Incomplete and vague. The idea is good though. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 06:18, 27 September 2007 (BST)
5. As Grim. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:15, 27 September 2007 (BST)
6. If we allow people to submit "vague" suggestions, then the easy way to get into Peer Review is to create the "Let make Urban Dead more fun" suggestion. Everyone wants UD to be fun, so it should be kept, right? The numbers are the only way of making sure a suggestion is balanced, for ideas are a dime a dozen.--ShadowScope 01:41, 28 September 2007 (BST)
7. Spam As Grim. --Karlsbad 03:32, 7 October 2007 (BST)

---