Suggestion:20100608 Generator Damage

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


Stop hand.png Closed
This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Peer Rejected.

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


20100608 Generator Damage

Warbird108 02:10, 8 June 2010 (BST)


Suggestion type
Generators should be altered to create a variety of logical, albeit not yet implemented, effects.


Suggestion scope
Survivors and zombies, buildings


Suggestion description
Generators are like candy to zombies. Aside from drinking up AP to destroy them that could just as well be used to down survivors, there are absolutely NO detrimental effects to zombies as a result of attacking generators; likewise to any destructive survivors. I propose that generators, when reduced to damaged status, should have a chance to douse the attacker or attackers in fuel (if fueled up), with a 30% chance to do so. In addition, when destroyed, the generator would have a 10% chance to explode (again, it would have to have fuel in its tank), dealing 5 points of damage to all attackers still present in the building, or 15 to any attackers doused in fuel. Supplementing this change, any generators damaged beyond dented would, instead of showing a solid yellow color on the building block, would have a striped yellow/light grey color, to indicate flickering/intermittent lights. This would be a red flag for survivors with toolkits/FAKs to alert them to a recent zombie incursion, and let them know that aid is probably needed/there is hostile zombie activity in the area; it would also let zombies see that their brethren most likely recently led an attack on the building, and that there are bound to be injured survivors/weakened barricades at the designated block.

Note: The "fuel leak" chance would only occur when the generator drops a damage level, e.g. from damaged to badly damaged, damaged to destroyed.

Note: The "attackers" referred to in the 3rd and 4th lines are attackers of the generator.

Note: None of the pitfalls of auto-attacking as laid down by the "Topics to Avoid and Why" section have been violated or even apply to this situation:

  • Would an infected person lose health each time they auto-attacked? Not Applicable
  • If every high level player could automatically defend themselves, this would encourage people to attack newbies first, which isn't really fair. Not Applicable
  • If characters can automatically shoot when they are attacked, shouldn't they be able to automatically heal themselves or even run away? If you make those changes,
    would the game be fun for the attacking side? Not Applicable
  • Zombies hardly care about HP anyway. Enhances my argument, actually. Zombies with Ankle Grab would only need to use 1 ap to stand back up
  • Why let the computer do the fun part of the game? The computer is merely adding a consequence for destroying generators, and isn't UD all about budgeting your
    resources wisely? A zombie could kill survivors, or destroy their generator, crippling them and any other survivors that happen to use the building later, with consequences.
  • It would be less fun to attack people if you were being automatically attacked back. Not Applicable
  • Would it use up AP/supplies? Imagine logging on to find the computer spent all of it. Not fun. Not Applicable
  • PKing is an important way to get rid of griefers. Auto attacks could weaken PKing? Not Applicable

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 be pretty silly if I voted no to my own suggestion, eh? Warbird108 02:20, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill Nerfing something that is in no way unbalanced, especially when it hurts the underpowered side in the game. They never lynch children, babies—no matter what they do they are whitewashed in advance 02:15, 8 June 2010 (BST)
  2. Kill - As others said, auto-attacks are a bad idea (as would have been pointed out to you on DS), and there's no reason to nerf the ability to kill generators. The very fact that they suck up AP to kill is the point (and don't forget about dark buildings, where killing gennies makes killing survivors harder). Also, the striped background idea sounds like a visual nightmare to me since you have text overlaying it (not to mention that it'd require Kevan overhauling the way the blocks are displayed, since he'd have to switch to using images instead of just straight-up HTML code). Aichon 03:08, 8 June 2010 (BST)
  3. Kill - Gives a free lunch to engineers. They already gain a vast advantage while one is set up, don't make it easier to generate generators than it is to smash them. --VVV RPGMBCWS 03:49, 8 June 2010 (BST)
  4. Yeah, as Misanthropy, don't nerf what ain't imba. -- 04:07, 8 June 2010 (BST)
  5. How does the generator differentiate between "attackers" and everyone else in the room? If 50 zombies and 50 survivors are in the room, and a zombie attacks the generator, do all 50 zombies get hit and no survivors? If a survivor attacks the generator, do all 50 survivors get hit and no zombies?--Pesatyel 04:11, 8 June 2010 (BST) I fixed the formatting in the suggestion "notes" and, on that subject, wouldn't the addition of said notes invalidate the voting?--Pesatyel 05:37, 9 June 2010 (BST)
  6. kill well more take it to DS really. I could get behind a slim chance of the generator exploding/short circuiting each time it is damaged but not as an area effect. --Honestmistake 16:17, 8 June 2010 (BST)
  7. Kill I do like the fuel-soaked idea though. User:Ferretferretferret Ferretferretferret 16:42, 9 June 2010 (BST)
  8. Kill Zombies do not need a nerf in this area--CorndogheroT-S-Z 12:48, 10 June 2010 (BST)
  9. As Misanthrophy. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs (status:Mudkip!) 22:38, 10 June 2010 (BST)
  10. Kill - Its bad--Michalesonbadge.pngTCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 22:42, 10 June 2010 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam You didn't define "attackers" at all, and auto-attacks (even by generators) suck. Should have gone to DS. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:39, 8 June 2010 (BST)
    Re: The "attackers" mentioned in the suggestion were thought to be implied as the attackers of the generator. I guess I didn't clarify. Warbird108 02:55, 8 June 2010 (BST)
    So anyone who hits a generator and sleeps with it winds up getting hit when it blows? What if they run away and return? How long is this data stored? What if it's repaired, then destroyed? Auto attacks still suck; that and many of those questions would have been given on DS. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 04:24, 8 June 2010 (BST)
    As far as I see, none of the auto-attack pitfalls have been violated in this suggestion, as given by the "Topics to Avoid" section. --Warbird108 00:39, 9 June 2010 (BST) One RE per vote. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs (status:Mudkip!) 22:37, 10 June 2010 (BST)
  2. Spam - apart from the fact that several bits are ill explained (as who exactly can get damaged), it nerfs mostly one side and just at one of the very, very few points where zombies can win the AP race. Unless some of the venues where survivors have a massive AP efficiency advantage are massively nerfed (as barricades or reviving), this one should never ever be implemented. -- Spiderzed 16:57, 9 June 2010 (BST)



Personal tools
advertisements