Suggestion:20071218 New Server - Hardcore Mode

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

20071218 New Server - Hardcore Mode

John Rubin^{T! ZG} 10:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion type
Game improvement

Suggestion scope
A new server with a new game on it

Suggestion description

First of all, credits go to Honestmistake, Jon Pyre, and Ram Charger for giving the idea of this suggestion as well as   AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH!, Karlsbad,  Swiers, Karek^maps?!, Cap'n Silly ^T/W/P/C, Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS|, BoboTalkClown, and Whitehouse for taking part in the discussion that brought up this idea.

A short preface

I started having this feeling too - the feeling of boredom. I suppose the game gets boring when you realise that there is no long term goal. You just do whatever you do every day. Survivors search for stuff, use stuff, barricade, revive their fellows. Zombies open buildings and eat survivors. Every day is like a groundhog day. And whatever you do - things stay the same. There are 60% survivors, 40% zombies. Because Kevan makes sure the game is balanced and nobody wins.

And then a very bright idea came to somebody (unfortunately – not me): why can’t we have another server? With different set of rules? With rules that would really resemble a zombie apocalypse.

So, ladies and gentlemen, we proudly present you…

THE HARDCODE MODE

This is a different server. (The game might be set in another town for the sake of continuity.)

The rules are based on the rules of Urban Dead, but there are important differences.

1. Permanent death for survivors

Once killed a survivor can rise up as zombie and be revived. But after every revification the maximum number of HPs that the survivor can have is reduced by 10 HP (you cannot expect to die and be revived indefinitely). That means you can be revived only 4 times (5 – if you have Bodybuilding). After 4th revification (5th – with Bodybuilding) you will have 10 HP. If you die this time – you die. Your character is removed from the game.

2. Permanent death for zombies

A zombie can be killed and rise up unlimited number of times. However, a zombie can only have 3 headshots. Every survivor with the skill has a small chance to shoot a zombie in the head (the probability starts building up when the zombie loses more than 2/3 of its HPs and has the maximum probability when the survivors delivers the finishing blow on the zombie). A survivor with the skill can take a special Aim for the head that would cost more than a normal attack (say, 5 AP instead of 1 AP – again, this option only appears when the zombie lost more than 2/3 of its HPs) and has a chance of making a headshot on the zombie.

The headshot is an insta-kill. Once the zombie receives a headshot its HPs are reduced to zero and it has to spend additional 5 AP to get up. As above, a zombie can receive a maximum of 3 headshots. Once your zombie character receives the 3rd headshot – it dies and is removed from the game. (This is also applicable to survivors attacking other survivors – a survivor who receives 3 headshots dies permanently in the same manner as a zombie).

3. Resources are limited

Any building can be ruined for a limited number of times. I suggest 3 ruins. After the third ruin a building turns into ruins (and appears so on the map) and cannot be repaired. The exterior and interior description will be different though (for example, You stand outside a ruined hospital), and it is still possible to search for items, but the odds will be decreased dramatically (as in ruined buildings).

4. The game runs in rounds

Quite obviousely, with characters being gradually removed from the game it will come to an end at some point – either the survivors will be able to headshot all the zombies or the zombies will be able to kill off all the survivors. The side left “alive” is declared winners. After that the game is reloaded and a new round starts.

I believe it makes sense that all characters start at level 1 in the beginning of each round.

A player wishing to take part in the next round creates a character and put it on the waiting list (or put an already registered character on the waiting list). Once a round has started no new entries are allowed until the end of the round.

General comments and minor notes

Introduction of a second server (with the game reloaded once in a while) will allow some more bold ideas to be tested (if they work – they might be left, if they don’t – they are taken away).

The setting can be smaller than Malton – let’s say 5 x 5 suburbs initially.

A second server might mean additional costs for Kevan. One option is to make a paid entry to the server – in order to play on the Hardcore server you have to donate 5 or 10 dollars to offset some costs of new hardware/additional bandwidth.

---

Please vote for the idea in general. If you like the idea, but think that certain numbers would work better – vote Change and put in the Keep section along with your comments.

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 - it would do something about the monotony. --Pdeq^Talk* 11:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Keep/Change - I would like there to be some minor changes, but I like the general idea. Well done!--Seventythree^Talk 11:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Keep/Change - A hardcore server would be interesting, but I think permadeath after 3 headshots is a bit too hard. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Meh - Ew. Yay. I don't know... BoboTalkClown 11:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Keep I think your permadeath occurs a bit too quickly, especially for zombies. There are certainly lots of things that would need fixing but I would play a character on a more challenging server if one existed. A+ for concept. I'm voting keep so Kevan reads this and takes it where he will. --Jon Pyre 14:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Keep - Needs work, but I like the spirit of the idea--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 15:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Keep - There was a game that I used to play called "Utopia" which worked in much the same way you are suggesting. Basically, every round would be different, as the developer would make mostly subtle changes to tweak the system. This is something worth while; if something is found to work well on the 'extreme' server, then it could initiate change in the 'regular' server. --Ryiis 15:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Keep/Change - Needs some work, but I will not list it here at the momment. This would be a great thing for Kevan to at least test, but doesn't necessarily have to be a permanent new server. I'd like to see how this type of thing would turn out in reality. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Keep - it needs lots of work to balance things, but i like the idea --~~~~ [talk] 19:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Keep - As part of my first vision/suggestion, I concur with actual death and the use of rounds to declare a winning/losing side. I don't know if a new server is needed if the concept becomes endorsed. Clearly you just can't adopt true-death with the system as is, but with some forethought/changes, it would allow for real survivorship or zombie conquest. Imagine the novel concept of actually surviving or perhaps not ;) --Ram Charger 20:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
11. Keep - I think it'd be an interesting gameplay for other survivors to participate in, but i'm not too keen on donating $10 for it though. Acoustic Pie 21:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Keep/change - I can see a few balance issues but they can be resolved, either now or after the first round. It's a great idea.Studoku 23:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
13. Keep - Sure, if you don't like it, don't play it, it's that simple, besides, it would be a testing ground for new items / skills so Kevin could see how it would affect Malton --Blobdude^{Talk TM MC} 23:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
14. Krazy Keep - So cool, I made my brother wet his pants. --Officer 123satsitx 00:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
15. I LOVE YOU - this suggestion made me skip around the house yelling tumultuous phrases of overwhelming joy! I thought about exactly the same thing, this is it.....our rescue. --the wallaby^♥ 00:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
16. Keep Why not? If it's on a separate server, then I am cool with it. --Darth Lumis^{T! A! E! SR} 01:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
17. Change I like the idea of a second game, with permanent deaths and permanent consequences. I don't like any of the other stuff you suggested. I think it needs major reworking, but it could be a good idea. --Heinrich Loche 01:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
18. Keep - Boredom hit me ages ago. Give me this! --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 07:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
19. Keep - I would be all over this! Sure it needs a little tweaking, but I would definitely pay money to play this. --Uncle Bill 09:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
20. Change See discussion page. ----Secruss^|Yak|Brahnz!|CGR|PKA||EMLN|Templates|RRF|RFTM|Crap|WHOZ||MU|GN|C2008||21:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
21. Keep/Change - Make it so you need to pay to have alts in it, not one character. Some of us don't have much money to spare after paying for the internet... --Howard Bentley 23:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
22. Keep - I'd pay money to play this without a doubt. --Bastetmeow 09:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
23. Keep - Loving the rounds idea and everything else so, without further ado, HELLS YEAH! --Elbowhead 20:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
24. Keep - Oh. My. Keven. Yes. Even if it had to be a paid server, I mean that way keven might even start to pull a profit on it, and it wouldnt force a fee on people who dont want one. Keven, if your reading this; I beseech thee, do this. --Kuddles 04:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
25. Keep - Realistic and unique. Will add more adrenaline to fights, could also make the fights with automatic retaliation? --Josh508 22:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
26. Keep - As above. --Heretic144 22:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
27. Keep - Sounds like a dangerous place,and as above above. --Anti Gorefest5^TMW!B! 07:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
28. Keep - I like this a great deal. It would be a great place for testing new ideas, and even some bad ones. In any event, it'd be alot of fun to play and I'd be willing to pay $5 a month in any currency to help with the server cost.--John Blast 17:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
29. Keep/Change - Very nice suggestion, but I don't like the idea of being forced to pay money. I mean seriously, I'm betting the majority of UD players are teens. Teens don't have credit cards. --Hhal 16:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
30. Keep/change - For a long time I was neutral on the issue, but I've thought about it and think it might be a good idea. I put some changes I'd make on the discussion page. Agree that paying money would be a bummer.--Ms.Panes 06:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
31. Keep/Change- Make a new category in Character Creation for the Hardcore server. Try refreshing characters between rounds. MY best account is fine in the regular server.--Shotstol 16:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
32. Keep - I am allowed to vote for my own suggestion. -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 14:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Kill Votes

1. kill while i love the idea of an end game I think this misses the mark in too many ways. Survivors with freerunning would be safe until cultists cut all the fences/padlocks and all of them would be safe for the best part of a week while the zeds chewed on each other to gain enough xp for MoL. Might be fun once or twice but it would come down to luck rather than skill and be all but over for most players within about 3 weeks with a slow finish for the rest scouring the city for each others. I would predict a survivor win everytime... provided of course that they could be bothered playing hide and seek for a few months! Perhaps making revives and headshots cause 1 perm HP damage but allowing maxed characters to buy them back at 1HP per 100XP coupled with a set game duration of 3 months before the military sweep in would give a bit more of an edge while reducing the "bad Luck" bias. --Honestmistake 12:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
   • Re - I thought about your initial idea of 1 HP loss for every revive. My survivor character died 26 times since August 2006. That means I would still have 34 HP after 16 months. My zombie character died 371 times since July 2006. If it was a headshot only in 1/3 of cases my zombie would be long dead. So I think 1 HP is too small a loss for survivors compared to zombies. As for fences - they might (probably should) go away. I liked the idea of a set game duration. -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 13:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)?
     • re Good point. Make it so that only zombies can buy back the extra health and that would go a very long way towards balancing it out. Remember that by the time survivors have headshot the zombies have already had a good few weeks to start chewing survivor HP's down :) --Honestmistake 17:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Kill - Let us be concentrating the Almighty's resources on our current single UD universe. Savvy? ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 16:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Kill I post this with a feeling of guilt. Work on this and I would gladly donate 5 dollars. (Especially with the weakness of said currency to the pound). What would happen with inactive players? Would they disappear as they currently do, only to reappear and claim the glory of being '17th player left alive'(TM). Being how zombies die much more, (than a survivor with intelligence) Its difficult to find a balance. How about zombies can ONLY be headshot, and move that skill down to say level 5. Look im suggesting.--Rosslessness 17:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Kill - but only because it doesn't really belong in the UD Suggestions system. I'd play a game like the one you described, but it'd would be just that, another game. If you've the skills, why not make it? After all, UD itself is based on another game. --Pavluk ^{A! E!} 18:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Strong Kill I am a big advocate of new scenarios and the new server idea but this is just so simplistic it's stupid! It brackets it down to survivor humans good, zombies bad. There's no multiple types and the whole thing is open to abuse, therefore, with fire and centaurs I kill it. Iscariot 20:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
   • Re - Thank you very much for your incomprehensible and incoherent comments! I suppose envy does cloud one's mind. :D -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 21:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

   • I'll admit that I've done sod all with the page I made, but lots of work does that. I'll try and make a start on that just to please you if you wish. I don't know how you found my comments incomprehensible, ShadowScope managed to see what I was saying. To help you, I'll spell it out, you idea presupposes that survivors are one great unified group that wear white hats and fight valiantly against the evil zombie hordes. Your idea is like Communism, fine in abstract theory but obviously flawed the second you use a real world example. Survivor groups in Malton have shown us that there is no black and white conflict between survivors and zombies, the real conflict is between survivors and their egos, read through the Wiki to see the amount of suburbs and malls that have fallen just because stubborn pride has stopped two groups working together. Iscariot 01:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

   • Re - Thank you for explaining me what my idea presupposes (presupposes - damn, I didn't know the word actually existed). No, I don't think I meant anything like that when I wrote my suggestion. I do not assume that zombies are evil or that survivors are good. It might sound trite, but zombies are zombies and survivors are survivors. Zombies should eat brains, survivors should try to survive. I sincerely hope that with a real threat like permanent death (at least, for a current round) survivors will concentrate on survival, not on fucking about as they do now. More fun for everyone. And please don't tell me shit about suburbs or malls falling because of somebody's pride. They fall when a large enough zombie group arrives. Has nothing to do with survivors' egos. -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 10:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Only one author reply allowed per vote. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

   Eh, I hate ad homien attacks that you made on Iscariot. But anywho, I think Iscariot made a good point...UD isn't just a war between humans and zombies, PKers and Death Cultists play a huge role in subverting the 'ideal' of an apoc, and showcasing the real enemy is not the zombies but Man itself. Plus, humans and zombies still got infinite lives anyway, because if they die, they just create a brand new character and aid their side. Or are you thinking of not allowing new players to register accounts in the middle of these 'games'...then I could very well turn this Kill to a Spam. And without any presistence in the game, then there is no point to play. Why bother fighting in Malton when you know that a reset will come and wipe away your progress?--ShadowScope 22:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC) EDIT: And obivously, the new server will cost Kevan lots of money to do, and if there is no demand, why bother? John Rubin, why not make your own game?

   • Re - Oh, I absolutely loved ad hominem attacks that I made on Iscariot. As for UD - it's a zombie apocalypse. It's not a PKer apocalypse or Death Cultist apocalypse. UD does not have zombie bots for a reason. The real enemy for a survivor is a zombie. At least, in UD. There are now 11 thousand standing zombies. I don't think we have nearly the same number of PKers or Death Cultists. Anyway, the suggestion has nothing against PKers or Death Cultists. It never said "PKers or Death Cultists are not allowed". And yes, I was suggesting not allowing new players to join the game once a round has started (hence the waiting list). So please go ahead and turn your vote from Kill to Spam. And obviously, the existing server cost Kevan lots of money to do. But he still did that although he did not know whether there was a demand. And yes, he can get some idea whether there is a demand (see the waiting list). -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 10:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
     • Re-That's the thing, is a real zombie apocalypse fun? That game didn't feel fun for me...at all, especially with the part of no resets. And death cultists actually feel more fun than zombies. But whatever, you are restricting new players from playing in a round, thereby earning my Spam vote.--ShadowScope 19:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

6. Kill - I'm not trying to be a downer here, taking your server a little farther away with my vote, but this is a little crazy. I mean, if we're going to keep in context why not have headshots permakill anyone and everyone? Also, let's have faks be unable to cure infections! Superzombies! No no. Implementing this would cause a wave of other crazy suggestions. --Vandurn 14:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - Three reasons. 1) I just hate the idea of a new server. 2) Doors make the early game a shooting gallery against zombies. 3) After 1 skill (MOL), Zombies can start permaing humans. Humans need 11 skills (You can only buy headshot as your 11th level at earliest), thus while the initial game will be human oriented, once zombies get MOL humans are fucked, even more so once they get ransack. Nice idea in theory, though i dont like it, but it would never, ever work. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
   • Re - Thanks for your comments! Well, I agree with you that if it is implemented with all rules that UD currently has, it probably will not work very well. But I couldn't put all the tiny details into a suggestion - it would be 2 feet long and nobody would read it. I am just interested to see what people think about the idea of a second server in general. But thank you for your vote anyway! -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 11:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

   "Oh, yes, there are plenty of major problems, but instead of answering them or trying to defend it (Because i cant), ill say something mysteeerious that implies something that i didnt include in my suggestion while trying to look all calm and in control" Translated that for people reading this. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

   Yeah, you got me. Go get yourself a cookie. -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 12:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Only one author reply allowed per vote. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Spam - I thought you were going to create an ultimate goal for THIS game. Go write your own game, if that's what you want to do. Also - this game does have goals. "Take Fort Creedy". There's a goal. Plus, in theory, the zombies could win. All they have to do is kill every single survivor, and then camp out every single NT in the city, and stop syringe manufacture. Game over. Zombie city. Come to think of it, why have none of the zombie uber-groups gone ahead and achieved this goal? It can't be any more difficult than taking down Caigar, shurely? --Funt Solo ^QT 11:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
   • Re - I am sure that such an intelligent person like you thought about why the survivor/zombie ratio always stays the same no matter if there is a major coordinated zombie activity in the city or there is no such activity at all. An obvious answer is that Kevan manipulates the search and barricading odds to make the game more favorable to zombies or survivors. No matter how coordinated the zombies are and no matter how stupid the survivors act it will always stay the same. No wonder that the game has over a million registered characters and only 3 per cent of them are still active. -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 12:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

   • Re - Or it might just be a natural drop-off. Time was, Ultima Online was a big deal. One day in the future, World of Warcraft will be a dusty relic. And, if Kevan is really pulling the strings as much as you insinuate, then why's the ratio not at 50:50? I'm serious when I say "create your own game". Why not? I've got this cool idea for a Mad Max style one, where instead of zombie/survivor, you get around death by...well, that would be telling. --Funt Solo ^QT 13:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Spam - As Grim, and 1 survivor can bring all survivors back, it's how this game works and it means that survivors can never technically lose. If zombies don't have to contend with barricades the same is true for them to. --Karek^maps?! 15:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
4. What's next? Super unbeatable extremly hard expert level? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 20:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
   • Re - As you can see I am not suggesting a change of rules on the running server. I don't suppose anyone would force you to play it on a new server. If you don't like the idea you can stick to Malton, can't you? -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 21:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

   Overpopulation is not a problem. OK...maybe it is in real life... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

5. Spam - If you suggested a second server with a larger or remade map or something but have a time limit, then I could understand. However, reading your comments on Grim's vote, it just seems you were interested in just the idea of a second server and not any of the other stuff you posted. That's what it looks like to me anyway. --Amanu Jaku 23:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Spam - Where even to begin? If you want to create a new game, that's fine, but then create a new game. That wouldn't be Urban Dead. I've never even voted spam before, but... damn. Sheana/Gogolnik ^{(T HD-T TMZ)} 01:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Spam - After reading Funt and Grim's Spam votes, I feel that spam is better than kill, sorry man... --/~WOOT~\ 18:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Changed to Spam due to clarification, that he will restrict new players from entering.--ShadowScope 19:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Spam - At first I was on the threshold of whether or not to support or kill your idea, seeing as it was a good one, but with major holes. Now that you've stated that newbie players will be restricted, I guess i'm jumping on the bandwagon. --Private Mark 19:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
   • Re - I do not think it would be such a huge problem since I thought rounds would be quite short (with pretty quick permanent deaths and, perhaps, time limit - as Honestmistake suggested). I think new characters could still be allowed to enter the game within a week or two from the start of the round, but no more than that - otherwise, perma-killed players would just bring in new characters and that could drag for a long time. Anyway, thanks for the vote (even if it's a Spam). I am happy to see that, so far, more than half of the voters liked the idea in general. -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 20:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)