Suggestion:20080109 Flavor Weapons Logic Change

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Stop hand.png Removed
This suggestion has been removed from voting for revision.

Suggestion Navigation
Suggestion Portal
Current SuggestionsSuggestions up for VotingClothes Suggestions
Cycling SuggestionsPeer ReviewedUndecidedPeer RejectedHumorous
Suggestion AdviceTopics to Avoid and WhyHelp, Developing and Editing

20080109 Flavor Weapons Logic Change

BoboTalkClown 22:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion type
Weapons change

Suggestion scope
Players with baseball bats and hockey sticks

Suggestion description
The baseball bat now does 3 damage, and the hockey stick does 2. My reasoning is that you can hit harder with a baseball bat then with a hockey stick, and the cricket bat already does 3, so let's keep our logic contigous, if not concrete.

EDIT: Removed for changes. BoboTalkClown 22:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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. Author Kiwi- I like kiwis. BoboTalkClown 22:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Keep - I think some of you are misreading his post (or he worded it weirdly). What I got from this is that at present, the damage of a baseball bat is 2 and the damage of a hockey stick is 3, while it should be reverse, In which case, I vote keep. --Private Mark 23:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Keep -Because I like this suggestion.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  00:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Keep - Hockey sticks would probably break anyways. --  AHLGTG 00:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Keep - Not really based on a per-blow idea, but rather a damage-per-time one. Attacking someone with a baseball bat would permit a kind of "continual flow of blows" - I can't imagine attacking people as gracefully with a hockey stick, where if you get the angle right and are careful you might get maybe a third of the time-damage efficiency. I may be easily swayable on this though (as I've never seen someone use a hockey stick as a serious "want-to-kill-you" weapon) --Pgunn 12:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Keep - Because it is the little, obscure suggestions that make this wiki tool the splendid circus parade we all love to waste our time with. Thank you. --the wallaby 13:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Keep - A little ambiguous, but I think I understand. Hence, I vote keep. --Hhal 18:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Keep - Batter up!!! and I also like kiwis--GunFox13 20:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Keep-Baseball bats make nice murder weapons.--Shotstol 23:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Keep- Note- Cricket Bat does 3 damage. UCFSD 17:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill- Unnecessary and the added thickness of a baseball bat would probably allow it to cause more damage anyway.Studoku 23:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
D'oh, misread it as bat doing 2, stick doing 3. I stand by my kill vote though- it's a faily pointless suggestion.Studoku 10:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. Kill - these are field hockey sticks, they can do at least as much damage as a baseball bat -- boxy talki 00:13 10 January 2008 (BST)
  2. Kill - The last thing I want is to have dumb Postal fans killing me with a Baseball Bat because it's slightly more worthwhile of a weapon. --Vandurn 00:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Kill - I've played hockey, and those things realy hurt when you get whacked by them! Plus a hockey stick is longer, so you'd get more of a swing out of it, and smaller impact area I beleive would mean it could potentialy do more damage. Also, the reason why a hockey stick does more damage is because it has 4% encumbrace, compared to the 2% of the baseball bat (according to the stats page, anyway).--SeventythreeTalk 00:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Kill - Smaller surface area + apathy = kill --TriPolarClicky! 03:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Kill- The change in the system with such a simple switch is a useless waste of time for more important matters at hand during this suggestion.--Krisgo3 06:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Kill - Changed from spam. See my struck spam vote below for reasoning. Seriously, it's not too far to scroll down. --Uncle Bill 05:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

#Spam (?) - According to this page, baseball bats already do 2 damage and hockey sticks already do 3. Were you meaning to change one of these numbers? --Uncle Bill 23:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)It took me a while to figure out that you were changing the 3 to a 2 and the 2 to a 3. I'm changing my vote to kill, because I'd still rather whack someone with a hockey stick than a bat... but at least it's not spam anymore. --Uncle Bill 05:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. Spam - There is no suggestion, you say?--Karekmaps?! 23:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Spam - I think I know what you want to say, but your not saying it.--'BPTmz 23:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)EDIT: now that it's fixed, i still dont think it's true so spam it is.--'BPTmz 00:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Spam - as i said on the suggestions talk page: A baseball bat has a much larger surface area than a hocky stick, and thus it would do less damage to something when it hits it when compared to an onject with a small surface area, like a hockey stick. Its basic physics. Why do you think knives just slide into people while other things, like chairs, dont? Also, Cricket bats are pretty heavy. Comapre a baseball bat and a cricket bat some day. You will see why they are so much better a weapons. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 00:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Spam - THATS WHAT SHE SAID!!! (Alas, I am referring to Grim)--/~Rakuen~\ 03:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Spam - As Grim. Also, cricket bats are quite flat. They do more damage than baseball bats because you hit with the thin edge, not the wide side. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Spam - your suggestion is badly written (forcing people to look up other pages to figure out what you meant is not a good start) and you've failed to recognise the balancing factor of variable encumbrance, along with other people's view that the current set up is fine as is. Did you go to the talk page with this? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 13:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Spam - I'm not exactly sure what you are suggesting. Please be more explicit in your suggestion. --Z. slay3r Talk  17:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Spam - Stupid. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 20:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Spam - Physics wins. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 09:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools