Suggestion talk:20070914 Build Barrier

Implementation of decay for barriers

This should be similar to the coding required for fuel consumption of generators and therefore possible. However, I have no coding skills myself so I don't know how much server load it would generate. FmrPFCBob 22:37, 14 September 2007 (BST)

Blocking LoS

This I think would be prohibitively difficult to program and provide little addition to gameplay. As points of example the fort walls do not affect LoS nor do any of the cities buildings including large structures like the malls or stadiums.FmrPFCBob 22:37, 14 September 2007 (BST)

I kind of like the LOS tradeoff game balace wise. I think you should keep at it and keep the discussion going. Johnny Lunchpail 17:32, 15 September 2007 (BST)

After more thought I realize it might work. Something similar to the way being inside a building keeps you from seeing outside. Plus binoculars have LoS rules too and they would gain greater functionality if this were implemented. It is still likely to cause significant server load but I'm also considering other changes that might be offsetting. But ultimately a programmer (Kevan) would have to figure that stuff out. I just hope to keep tweaking and changing the idea to make it doable. FmrPFCBob 23:50, 16 September 2007 (BST)

Diagonal Movement?

According to your suggestion, barriers can only be built in the four cardinal directions. Problem is, in Urbandead it is possible to move in eight directions. How would the proposed barriers impact on diagonal movement? -- Pavluk ^A! 13:21, 15 September 2007 (BST)

I added a note to clarify shortly after your vote. Since you were correct I used the quick fix of deciding all three blocks are considered blocked. It's not perfect but I can see this idea isn't going to fly anyway. Even with future changes based on the feedback I'm getting it'll probably still get voted down. But I'll keep trying, thanks for your input. FmrPFCBob 15:06, 15 September 2007 (BST)

i made this suggestion on another one but it got rejected shortly after before anyone decided to tell me if it was right or wrong so here's how it went:

1. if a building (what you are passing over) is between two streets, one barricaded then just let them go

2. if a building (what you are passing over) is between two streets, both blocked, do not let them move and give the message "the way around the building is blocked" and have the option to enter(because you could get through windows)[explain why not moveing onto the actual square below]

3. if a street (what you are passing over) is inbetween two buildings, then you just don't move(if it is barricaded)and get a message "the way is blocked" and are put out front like the normal barricade

4. if a street (what you are passing over) with a street to the right and a building to the left, both streets must be blocked to disallow movement

5. if three streets beside each other (one on left, one on right) all three must be barricaded

and to finish it off (i believe i covered the bases, correct me if im wrong) if you want to pass over the barricade, then when you are within one square of the barricade it gives you the option to pass over, and places you on the block directly on the other side "the street to the NW is barricaded", with the option "move over barricade to the NW" you never actually move onto the square as that would be hard to implement what side you are on once on the actual square itself, although i may be wrong.

to desinate which streets are blocked, it could also be turned a different color, like the lights on buildings

--Zach016 22:01, 18 September 2007 (BST)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion_talk:20070903_Barbed_Wire_Fencing_2.0"\

Someone want to take me up on this? Im really interested if this style could work --Zach016 01:14, 20 September 2007 (BST)

Why it's not a workable idea

Like I said in my vote, this idea is overpowered. If you tame it down to the point where it isn't, it will no longer be worthwhile. To understand why it's overpowered, start a level one Zombie. Now just walk somewhere. You'll notice that it costs a Zombie without Lurching Gait 2 AP to move one block. That's a significant penalty to start with. Next, find a building with barricades... any level of barricade, doesn't matter. Now, attack the barricades. See how many AP it takes you to remove one full level of barricade (if you can even manage to bring down a full level). The odds are, it cost you at least 10 AP (probably quite a bit more) to knock down that single level. Together with the 2 AP just to walk, that makes 12 AP (probably more). With your barriers, entire suburbs could be covered. Imagine having to pay 12 or more AP JUST TO MOVE TO THE NEXT BLOCK. Then you would find that the block after that has a barrier too, and you would quickly find the game completely impossible. Penalizing Zombie movement more than it already is is a terrible idea. Even if the barriers only cost 1 AP to knock down, it would still be terrible. The only way to make it fair would be a 0 AP cost to knock them down, which makes the whole thing worthless. --Steakfish 23:35, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Thanks for the input. I knew this would be an uphill battle but I really think it fits and if there's a way to make it happen I'm going to keep trying. Something that came to me reading this (and other votes) is the possiblilty of multiple barries in adjacent blocks. Its not how I envision them but I know it could happen, so I thought if a block could be limited to only having one barrier. It would prevent any block from becoming walled in and limit how close the could be placed. Making them weaker to some degree might appease a few more people and garner more support. So, I have some ideas to try out for version 2. FmrPFCBob 23:46, 16 September 2007 (BST)

One of the general rules for suggestions is "Multiply by a Billion." The idea is, imagine what would happen if EVERY character capable of using this ability used it at the same time. Imagine a barrier (even just a single one, in a single direction) on every block of every suburb in the city. This would cripple anyone moving around outside (mostly Zombies). I'm not a programmer, but I'm sure that so many barriers, each needing a "strength" variable and a "direction" variable, would overload the server. It's not even too unrealistic to assume that somebody would be able put a barrier on every block. There are more Survivors than Zombies, and no character, regardless of level, ever has better than a 25% chance of damaging a barricade. This means Survivors could build barriers faster than Zombies could tear them down. I don't think the barrier idea will ever work, but you'd be a little closer if you didn't use the same mechanic as barricades. --Steakfish 01:42, 17 September 2007 (BST)

Sure, anything would be helpful. FmrPFCBob 03:43, 22 September 2007 (BST)

Coulden't it be made so that it can only be put on the edge of suburbs? changes it up abit for defending only a whole suburb instead of several little areas --Zach016 01:18, 20 September 2007 (BST)

I guess its possible so I'll give it some thought while I work on the next version. Personally I like the idea of smaller defended areas but whatever will fly is okay with me. FmrPFCBob 13:30, 20 September 2007 (BST)

Don't take my suggestion to heart, it's just to try and prevent problems like the above, personnely i'd rather it be for smaller area's too.--Zach016 23:14, 20 September 2007 (BST)

I can give you a much more detailed rundown of the best version we ever came up with when we were dicussing it before (it was on the developing suggestions page, which isn't archived, so you won't be able to find it anywhere else), if you'd like. We got rid of the barricade mechanic and had some other stuff, but it still didn't work, which is why we didn't take it to the suggestions page. --Steakfish 02:15, 22 September 2007 (BST)