Suggestion talk:20080127 Weighed Down v2

On AnimeSucks' vote

Kill - Totally goes against my POWER TO THE PKER campaign, as it would be a huge feral buff.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 03:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:What do you mean? How would this be a "huge feral buff", how does it significantly effect pkers, and what does your group have to do with this suggestion? --Pdeq^Talk* 03:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well considering that more than likely the feral are going to have no equipment, while humans are, and the scope of the suggestion says attacks against humans who have equipment. Ergo, it will be easier for zombies to attack humans who have equipment, which affects pkers because pkers are typically loaded up with guns and ammo, while a feral zombie who again will probably have no equipment will be harder to hit with melee attacks (assuming humans actually use that anymore), and my group stands up for the rights of the pker, and we demand no more zombie buffs until we get some pker buffs!--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 04:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The scope of the suggestion says "attacks against humans", not attacks against zombies. This would have no affect on the chance to hit a zombie. --Pdeq^Talk* 04:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay.. so it totally sucks for survivors then. Gotcha--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 05:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? It ups PKers chance to hit for most of the targets they choose. --Karek^maps?! 05:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It only affects melee attacks. Most pkers I know don't use melee attacks. They use guns, and thus would only mostly be hindered by this "buff."--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 05:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Karek, it could help a pker against a certain target when they've run out of ammo, but it does not affect gun attacks (since this wiki community does not like the idea of bullet dodging). --Pdeq^Talk* 05:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I forgot the melee only part. --Karek^maps?! 05:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, because of the votes on this suggestion, I had to limit it. Incidentally, that one inspired the idea behind this one, although they serve different purposes. --Pdeq^Talk* 05:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It does not "totally suck for survivors". It especially helps newbies, who don't have items yet. It also helps people who have run out of ammo/faks, whatever, which usually happens to most survivors on a regular basis unless they're sitting in a mall searching all the time. --Pdeq^Talk* 05:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

On Funt's vote

Spam - I fail to see the difference, except that now you've made zombies immune from it. Why's that fair? As before, retroactively punishing all survivors for carefully maintaining an encumbrance system that is already stricter (and fairer) than the previous space system is just shit, as well as buffing a zombie side who have been getting so buffed recently that they're now resembling the borg. No thanks. Not unless you reduce the weight of various items, or do something else to offset the punishment to the survivor side. --Funt Solo ^QT 22:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Your "except" is the main difference. The numbers have also been changed somewhat. Something to offset the punishment? How about the boost to all low encumbered people? --Pdeq^Talk* 23:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Re - there's no reason zombies should be immune to the effects - that's clear bias. And I meant something to offset the punishment to any survivor at 100% encumbrance. You see - there's already an in-game punishment for that: it's called not being able to carry any more. Now you want to make it worse. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Clear bias? Zombies are immune to the effect because voters on the previous version felt that most zeds would simply drop their items and be harder to hit. You can come up with any flavor explanation you wish for this (maybe zombies are stronger than survivors), but there's good reason behind the mechanics for it. --Pdeq^Talk* 19:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait - you define "good reason" as "zombie players wanted it that way"? Catch yourself on. Now, survivors currently can carry more than 100%, by careful manipulation of the current system. If you want to penalise them, that would be a good idea that everyone could get behind. As for zombie players crying "it won't effect us anyway" - yeah, I've heard that before. Like zombies don't care about their HP. Uhuh. Pull the other one - it's got bells on. Tell you what - try this one on for size: survivors don't care about bullets, so why not give them an infinite amount? See? How's that shoe fitting on the other foot, there? Comfy, still? --Funt Solo ^QT 21:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I define good reason as "players wanted it that way". Many voters on the last suggestion thought it would help zombies more than hurt them. As for "shoe fitting on the other foot", why would you assume that I'm exclusively a zombie player? Most of my active characters are survivors (not death cultists, not pkers, but pro-survivor survivors). It would be awesome for those characters if they could have unlimited ammo, but that's a stupid idea. Suggestions are about making the game more fun, not about helping one side in particular. --Pdeq^Talk* 21:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)