Suggestion talk:20071110 Mortars
| Timestamp: | --31337roxxor 01:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC) |
| Type: | a new item/fixture |
| Scope: | humans only |
| Description: | I think an 30 mm mortar would be nice for humans.
It would have to be assembled from four pieces, "Mortar Baseplate", "Mortar Barrel", "Mortar Tripod", and "Mortar Bolt", each found only in Armouries and take 20% encumberance. Each have to be laid OUTSIDE a building, and any non-complete mortars would show up as "Somebody has set up part of a mortar here." Setting it up inside will show, "The recoil from this might cause the building to collapse." Each piece has a 0.5% chance of discovery. It is immobile. Like a generator, it can be destroyed and repaired. It would also take "Mortar Shells" to fire, each taking 10% and found in Armories at 1% find rates. It would take one at a time. To aim, you would have to aim it to a building at least 2 blocks away and even then it has only a 40% chance of hitting the building. Otherwise, it will hit an adjacent building. You can't tell which building you fired upon. To fire. you click on the shell. It is removed from your inventory. You get, "You drop the shell down the barrel. With a boom, you see the shell explode far away." Once a shell hits, it deals a random amount of damage to people and zombies alike, and deals a little damage to barricades. It the building is unbarricaded, it will ruin the building. |
Discussion: Mortars
Sorry, but I don't think it's worth it. I think the only real way it would be used is if zergers used a bunch of mortors, blew a building apart, and used the main to clean up the survivors left. It's a little unbalanced and random anyway, takes too much inventory, and it's a mass attack: all three of which I personally frown upon. It just doesn't seem like something that should be logically added. Prof. Latirus 01:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Multi step suggestions are a no-no as well. Sockem 02:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
One thing that you've probably already found is that the wiki doesn't take kindly to military weapon suggestions; the realism (why wouldn't the military have taken them?) and the balance (pocket nuclear bombs) are hard to achieve. The wiki also kills any 'distance' suggestion. So this would probably never pass, just based on 'gut-voters' alone, regardless of the merit of the suggestion. Nalikill TALK E! W! M! USAI 03:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Whoo boy, where to start? Military Weaponry, Don't Create Multi-Step Skills (assembly), Area of Effect, Multiply it by a Billion (with a coordinated attack you could probably wipe out an entire mall in a matter of minutes). --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Why not mortars? apart from Nali's point about the gut reaction to this, you have realy got to take into account the multiply it by a billion rule. As with other weopons (swords, machine guns, mortars, sniper rifles, katanas, AK-47's, Uzis, Katanas again, longbows, crossbows and a myriad of other suggested weopons) there would be nothing fundamentaly wrong with them, but as soon as they where implemented, (even if they where limited to forts) within 5 days there would be thousands of people using them. I could accept that the military may have some mortors, or asssault rifles, and maybe a few collectors might have a a katana or two, but if you have thousands of people running aroud with them it's kind of hard to accept that. The reason that most of the weopons at the moment are fairly generic is that so, apart from anything else people don't have to strech their credulity too far to accept that a lot of people have them. It's not a major strech to accept a few thousand pistols, a few thousand mortars on the otehr hand? That is.--SeventythreeTalk 12:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- What if the mortars were fixed emplacements at the military bases rather than actual portable items, and survivors with the proper skills could spend a lot of APs to simply aim them in a direction, similar to how binoculars are used?--Franklin Marsh 17:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
That would, at least make some sense. However, I doubt that people are going to go for an Idea that creates a strong defendable position for either side.--SeventythreeTalk 17:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- As fixed emplacements, they can be damaged and Ruined- similar to something between generators and buildings. Repair or reconstruction would involve a hefty AP investment with Construction and a Toolkit. Plus, similar to gasoline for generators a Mortar Shell would have to be found in order to use the emplacements in the first place. And then you can factor in windage which will make the shells veer in all sorts of interesting directions when fired. On a really bad RNG, the shell might simply drop back down onto the building it was fired from.--Franklin Marsh 17:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Only if the mortar can be manned by a team of Centaurs. Also, if I put a sniper scope on the mortar, will it be able to shoot katanas? --Steakfish 03:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Mortars are not going to pass. Reason being people hate millitary weoponry. Fighting isn't even a big part of the game. --SeventythreeTalk 11:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Why the hell would survivors want to blow up their own buildings?????? WTF PINK centaurs. I mean a) this area of effect b) it WRECKS YOUR OWN BUILDINGS!! sheeeeeeeesh... Nukes, anyone? WanYao 14:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Still... I have admit the CHAOS this could wreak would be sooooo much fun, heheh. But can you tell? the players in the forts are SOOOOOOOOO bored... WanYao 14:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm a PKer and I support this message. BoboTalkClown 00:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
