Suggestion talk:20071205 Constant Pest
Discussion Moved From Talk:Suggestions
This is content moved directly from Talk:Suggestions and is no longer an active discussion
Constant Pest
| Timestamp: |  Swiers 20:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
|
| Type: | Skill |
| Scope: | Zombies |
| Description: | This skill suggestion is a direct derivation from Suggestion:20071201 Wretched Watch. My version would be a normal zombie skill (costing 100 XP) and likely a sub-skill of Memories of Life, or maybe of Ransack.
If a zombie with this skill was inside a building, there would be a 10% chance that an attempt to build barricades would fail, being blocked by the zombie's aggressive presence near doorways, movable obstacles, and so on. If more than one zombie with the skill was present, the first to have entered enter would have a 10% chance of blocking construction, then the next to have entered would ALSO have a 10% chance, and so on. When a zombie did block a construction effort, a message would be given to all present saying that "A zombie blocked Survivor's Name from (moving a drinks machine / nailing up boards / other barricade flavor text)". Also, zombies with this skill would be placed at the top of the "attack stack", with the first to have entered the building being at the top of the stack. I feel that this version fixes many of the original's failings- it is still entirely possible to build barricades with a bit of persistence; even the presence of 10 zombies with this skill allows building to succeed 34% of thew time. It may seem like a free action, but is not really an action. Any single survivor being present inside a building prevents that building from being ransacked- is THAT a free action? Instead, what this does is shifts the focus of live seige combat away from the predictable "barricade, heal, kill, dump", and makes killing and dumping a bit more of a priority, especially if there are more than a few zombies present. (Note that the zombies causing the trouble are, by default, the ones that would get killed first, and that they also can be singled out for revives thanks to the message people are given when they block a barricade build.) |
Discussion (Constant Pest)
Very interesting. This would entirely revolutionize siege defense. Trigger-happy militants would be more important, while caders would be suppressed. However, lower the chance to 5% to force zeds to use organized attacks to get much done. --The Trichloroethane Potato SGP E! RQ! Winner 1! 21:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This is definately something I think zeds would really like to have and that would piss off survivors so I'm all for it.--Rjkk 23:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Better than Wretched Watch. BoboTalkClown 00:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
makes sense, zombies should be the first to go out my door.--Zach016 03:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This suggestion gets the Uncle Bill Seal of Approval. --Uncle Bill 03:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
good idea --
Anti Gorefest5
TMW!B! 04:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so if 10 zombies are inside, the computer rolls 10% on all 10 individually for each barricade attempt?--Pesatyel 09:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea, but only if it's 10% on 1 zombie, not on how many there are in a building. This suggestion would be good for making survivors think about how to do stuff, so attack, kill and not face the 10%, or to cut losses, cade, use up more AP and then kill. The only reason i say for 1 zombie, is that when yuo have a big seige on a mall or one of the forts, it may give server lag, and people would be less inclined to vote for it. Acoustic Pie 11:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- The server doesn't have to roll ten times if there's ten zombies with this skill. It can just calculate ((0.9 ^ number-of-zombies) * normal-chance-of-building-barricade) and roll once against that for the chance of success. It's just two calculations more. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Its a bit more complicated than that because of the message telling you WHICH zombie blocked the building attempt, but yes, there are wayt to reduce it to one roll. For example, for 2 zombies, there is a 10% chance of zombie one blocking the attempt, and a 9% chance that zombie 2 will block the attempt. So if you "rolled" a d100, you cluld say 1-10 means zombie 1 blocks the atttempt, 11-19 means zombie 2 blocks it, etc. Constructing a table like this to consult would in fact be faster than calculating .9z each time. The table could run out to 50 or so zombies (more than that, you can just ignore the chance that zombie's 51+ do anything) but obviously if there was only 3 zombies present, you'd ignore results for more than 3 zombies.
Swiers 19:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't need to say which zombie and to be honest, it shouldn't anyway to preserve zombie anonymity.Studoku 23:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd vote keep. You could just as easily make a table of .9^1, .9^2, etc. I'm sure it can be implemented to run quickly. - Grant 06:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- The idea is to nerf the zombies anominity if they block a barricade build, so that zombie can be take out. But I suppose maybe just having them all at the top of the stack, and allowing scannng, works well enough. Anyhow, selecting a zombie at random to report as being the one that blocked construction would work equally well. Swiers 01:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- The idea is to nerf the zombies anominity if they block a barricade build, so that zombie can be take out. But I suppose maybe just having them all at the top of the stack, and allowing scannng, works well enough. Anyhow, selecting a zombie at random to report as being the one that blocked construction would work equally well.
- Its a bit more complicated than that because of the message telling you WHICH zombie blocked the building attempt, but yes, there are wayt to reduce it to one roll. For example, for 2 zombies, there is a 10% chance of zombie one blocking the attempt, and a 9% chance that zombie 2 will block the attempt. So if you "rolled" a d100, you cluld say 1-10 means zombie 1 blocks the atttempt, 11-19 means zombie 2 blocks it, etc. Constructing a table like this to consult would in fact be faster than calculating .9z each time. The table could run out to 50 or so zombies (more than that, you can just ignore the chance that zombie's 51+ do anything) but obviously if there was only 3 zombies present, you'd ignore results for more than 3 zombies.
Thanks for basing that on my idea. This toned down version would go well underneath ransack. ----Secruss|Yak|Brahnz!|CGR|PKA|
|EMLN|Templates|RRF|RFTM|Crap|WHOZ|
|MU|GN|C2008|
|20:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Discussion above the line is from Talk:Suggestions and is no longer active.
Discussion on Voting
Discussion on Voting goes under here
Discussion on the suggestion page
Discussion on the suggestion as submitted goes under here
Re Spam
Nonauthor or additional Res go under here
WanYao's Vote
- Keep - very radical barricade nerf, and perhaps totally insane. i like.... but, while pgun's kill vote is retarded, i don't like the name, either... i think of this as something like Frenetic, or Accelerated Re-animation or something, i.e. the zombie is more active than others, somehow... this is kinda like naming our own Magic cards, you know? --WanYao 07:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd argue (if submitting this again) that its not a radical a barricade nerf- its actually faily moderate. It just lets zombies reduce the barricade build rate a bit when they move into a building. It in fact takes 12 or 13 of them to get things to the point where building barricades costs more than tearing them down. If there are 12 or 13 zombies inside your building, all of whom have the ransack skill already, you are likely quite dead even without this skill being added to the game. Swiers 03:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
