Suggestion talk:20080401 Too Many Shotguns, Not Enough Shells
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
- Kill - point 1 - why? What prevents you from carrying 3, 4, 5 or 10 shotguns? point 4 - counterintuitive, auto action. It generally nerfs PKers (and prevents such amazing events). -- 00:05, 2 April 2008 (BST)
- Re - Since you asked, I'll respond to this. 1) What keeps a person from carrying 3,4, or 5 or 10 shotguns are two things - weight and cumbersome-ness. I can see how 2 shotguns can be strapped to a person's back or in a bag or something, but 3-10 is a bit insane. 4 (what happened to points 2 and 3?)) Actually it doesn't actually nerf PKers. It lets them carry significantly more ammo, just like any other survivor would be able to. It'd still be an even playing field for your PKing antics. The only one it really hurts are trenchies. And lets face it, they could use some hurting when they're not killing 20 dozen ninjas with their steely glares. (*gapes at the tommy gun*) -- Tselita
- Re - point 1 continued: You somehow want to forbid carrying more than 2 shotguns - you should do this by tweaking encumbrance (for example - say that shotgun will take 40%) instead of creating an artificial rule "you can have only 2 shotguns". Do you really think that carrying 3 shotguns is more difficult than carrying genny(s), radio transceiver(s) and fuel cans(s)?-- 02:02, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- - Okay, to be honest, I've actually used shotguns when my uncle would take me hunting. They are a pretty cumbersome type of gun. They're big, top-heavy and very long. Saying the shotgun would take 40% would not be reasonable in that, while it's very cumbersome to walk around with more than 2, they are not as heavy as 40% would suggest. With more than 3 they'd be falling off your shoulder or slipping out of your hands every few steps. What would be more appropriate - 3 shotguns? I know that encumberance was designed for not letting people take too much, but it clearly does not meet its intended goals. In UD we often seem to act like we have D&D Bags of Holding with what we carry around. Two or three, while arbitrary number-wise, seems to be the best mixture of practicality vs burden. You'd still get off 4 (or 6) shots, which would be enough to take down a zombie. As for the old 'is carrying 3 shotguns more difficult than carrying gennies, radio tranceivers and fuel cans... yeah, actually it can be, depending on how 'portable' the 'portable generator' is. Check out this link please. [1]
- re - huh... I'm still trying to say that if you wanna limit some item you should use encumbrance factor instead of creating additional rules. Following your rules: think about a baseball bat - you can theoretically carry 50 bats... Can you imagine a parson carrying 50 bats - I think no - so - we should limit possible baseball bat number to 2 or 3. Next - binoculars... you can carry 25... Almost impossible - let's limit it to 2... and so on... Yeah - I agree - that's silly, many other survivors deal with it by mentioning some bags/backpacks in their descriptions (with a backpack you can carry 17 shotguns).-- 02:02, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- re - To be honest, I'd like to limit stuff like that too. Carrying 50 bats would not only be ridiculous, it would be useless. Lets use Pool cues as an example instead, since they're a disposable weapon unlike bats. I'd think that carrying more than 10 pool cues would be REALLY hard. I'm also not sure about the idea that with a backpack you can carry 17 shotguns. I just intensely dislike how the way inventory works here is like how it works on a computer RPG game from the 80s like Bard's Tale or D&D with bags of holding. I had one suggestion get spamminated because a ton of people said that holding too many items doesn't make sense (my bodybuilding makes you stronger suggestion, where I tried to suggest that bodybuilding increase the amount of burden you can carry - it was massively shot down because people said it would be used to have people carry 16 shotguns, which everyone seemed to despise the idea of. They convinced me that doing just that -was- dumb, and now all those people seem to have disappeared and there's disagreement in the exact opposite direction. At least this time the people are being much more polite :) Back to my initial comment though, maybe 2 -is- too limiting, but 16 is definitely too much for one person to lug around. If I wind up having to bring this to talk:discussion, I'll see if I find some sort of compromise on this suggestion before I bring it back. --Tselita 05:48, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- re - huh... I'm still trying to say that if you wanna limit some item you should use encumbrance factor instead of creating additional rules. Following your rules: think about a baseball bat - you can theoretically carry 50 bats... Can you imagine a parson carrying 50 bats - I think no - so - we should limit possible baseball bat number to 2 or 3. Next - binoculars... you can carry 25... Almost impossible - let's limit it to 2... and so on... Yeah - I agree - that's silly, many other survivors deal with it by mentioning some bags/backpacks in their descriptions (with a backpack you can carry 17 shotguns).-- 02:02, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- - Okay, to be honest, I've actually used shotguns when my uncle would take me hunting. They are a pretty cumbersome type of gun. They're big, top-heavy and very long. Saying the shotgun would take 40% would not be reasonable in that, while it's very cumbersome to walk around with more than 2, they are not as heavy as 40% would suggest. With more than 3 they'd be falling off your shoulder or slipping out of your hands every few steps. What would be more appropriate - 3 shotguns? I know that encumberance was designed for not letting people take too much, but it clearly does not meet its intended goals. In UD we often seem to act like we have D&D Bags of Holding with what we carry around. Two or three, while arbitrary number-wise, seems to be the best mixture of practicality vs burden. You'd still get off 4 (or 6) shots, which would be enough to take down a zombie. As for the old 'is carrying 3 shotguns more difficult than carrying gennies, radio tranceivers and fuel cans... yeah, actually it can be, depending on how 'portable' the 'portable generator' is. Check out this link please. [1]
- Re - point 1 continued: You somehow want to forbid carrying more than 2 shotguns - you should do this by tweaking encumbrance (for example - say that shotgun will take 40%) instead of creating an artificial rule "you can have only 2 shotguns". Do you really think that carrying 3 shotguns is more difficult than carrying genny(s), radio transceiver(s) and fuel cans(s)?-- 02:02, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- Re - Since you asked, I'll respond to this. 1) What keeps a person from carrying 3,4, or 5 or 10 shotguns are two things - weight and cumbersome-ness. I can see how 2 shotguns can be strapped to a person's back or in a bag or something, but 3-10 is a bit insane. 4 (what happened to points 2 and 3?)) Actually it doesn't actually nerf PKers. It lets them carry significantly more ammo, just like any other survivor would be able to. It'd still be an even playing field for your PKing antics. The only one it really hurts are trenchies. And lets face it, they could use some hurting when they're not killing 20 dozen ninjas with their steely glares. (*gapes at the tommy gun*) -- Tselita
- re - So you want to add some weird limits for all items... and it seems that you forget that you can still tweak encumbrance. Instead of changing game mechanics (additional rules) think about changing game constants (for example - shotgun: 20%, shell 1%). Any artificial limits are counterintuitive and will get kill votes. -- 10:57, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- re - Not weird limits. Rational limits. And unfortunately, tweaking encumberance too much in order to obtain those limits often comes out with insane weight comparisons, because it seems the % are geared more to weight than how easy it is to carry it all. But I'm thinking of going with Jamie on this - it's a game and maybe I shouldn't be obsessing about that.--Tselita 17:46, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- re - If you want to introduce your system you have to also deal with people carrying multiple items - for example one shotgun, 2 baseball bats, crowbar, 2 fire axes, cricket bat, length of pipe and 2 tennis rackets. How are you going to do this? The only possibility is introducing another factor to limit it... And that's what I'm trying to say - you want us to have 2 systems doing the same, instead of correcting possible errors in 1 system. -- 12:10, 4 April 2008 (BST)
- re - The 1 system though is inherently flawed in that it allows stuff like that to begin with. To correct it with encumberance changes would bring up a different flaw being unusual or illogical encumberance values for different items. Why would anyone need 2 bats or 2 axes or 2 rackets (Actually why would anyone need 1 racket or bat even :))--Tselita 16:07, 4 April 2008 (BST)
- re - One of my alts is carrying a bat, another a fencing foil - why ? - for fun. When you are redesigning something you have to think about all possibilities, even those improbable. -- 17:42, 4 April 2008 (BST)
- re - The 1 system though is inherently flawed in that it allows stuff like that to begin with. To correct it with encumberance changes would bring up a different flaw being unusual or illogical encumberance values for different items. Why would anyone need 2 bats or 2 axes or 2 rackets (Actually why would anyone need 1 racket or bat even :))--Tselita 16:07, 4 April 2008 (BST)
- re - If you want to introduce your system you have to also deal with people carrying multiple items - for example one shotgun, 2 baseball bats, crowbar, 2 fire axes, cricket bat, length of pipe and 2 tennis rackets. How are you going to do this? The only possibility is introducing another factor to limit it... And that's what I'm trying to say - you want us to have 2 systems doing the same, instead of correcting possible errors in 1 system. -- 12:10, 4 April 2008 (BST)
- re - Not weird limits. Rational limits. And unfortunately, tweaking encumberance too much in order to obtain those limits often comes out with insane weight comparisons, because it seems the % are geared more to weight than how easy it is to carry it all. But I'm thinking of going with Jamie on this - it's a game and maybe I shouldn't be obsessing about that.--Tselita 17:46, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- re - So you want to add some weird limits for all items... and it seems that you forget that you can still tweak encumbrance. Instead of changing game mechanics (additional rules) think about changing game constants (for example - shotgun: 20%, shell 1%). Any artificial limits are counterintuitive and will get kill votes. -- 10:57, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- Many more modern portable generators are VERY light, actually, and have handles and straps for easy carrying. They range in weight from 12 pounds with a handle to 120 pounds and wheeling it around. If the game lets you carry several at 20% each, then I'm leaning towards the idea that they probably weigh around 27 pounds, like the one in the link. Shotguns don't. They're frigging pains in the neck to carry, though I will grant maybe the number should be 3, not 2. Radio transmitters are likewise rather lightweight nowadays. Lighter than generators. The point is a moot one though, I'm making this suggestion for shotguns. We can discuss the benefits of carrying 4 generators and a christmas tree another time. Just because there are 2 glaring errors in a situation does not mean you must ignore both equally. You fix the errors you can, and leave the ones which have no ability to be fixed for gameplay.
- re - Your genny is nice... but remember that it powers lights inside a whole building, NecroTech computers, lab equipment, 1 radio transceiver and a Christmas Tree - I think it looks more like:
- -- 02:02, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- re - I don't think the genny should look like the one you are showing, because then you are right - there's no way you can carry more than one of those. But the game -does- allow you to carry several, so I have to assume it's not that mega-big one, but a portable, smaller one which has the same voltage, like the one I showed. I think a genny like the one you are showing would last a whole lot longer before it runs out of fuel than the one in my picture :) --Tselita 06:01, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- re - this image is from wiki. It's just an example - I think that most generators are smaller than that above, but much bigger/heavier than yours. You should assume that all items found in Malton have average properties.-- 10:57, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- re - I don't think the genny should look like the one you are showing, because then you are right - there's no way you can carry more than one of those. But the game -does- allow you to carry several, so I have to assume it's not that mega-big one, but a portable, smaller one which has the same voltage, like the one I showed. I think a genny like the one you are showing would last a whole lot longer before it runs out of fuel than the one in my picture :) --Tselita 06:01, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- re - Your genny is nice... but remember that it powers lights inside a whole building, NecroTech computers, lab equipment, 1 radio transceiver and a Christmas Tree - I think it looks more like:
- point 4 I don't use shotguns IRL so often - but I think that removing shells isn't so easy (as easy as dropping items). It shouldn't be a free action.
- - k, like I said, I have used shotguns, though only for hunting (I'm not actually fond of killing Bambi, but I like shooting guns. A standard double barrel shotgun is actually extremely easy to load and unload. You do a quick flick by the top of the cylinder, where the handle meets the cylinder, and the shells pop up a bit for easy removal. And it's not a free action. It's a substituted action. Instead of using the action to pick up the shotgun and try to figure out where to put it in your inventory, you're using that action to remove the shells instead.
- re - Well... I won't discuss it cause it seems that you have much more real life experience with shotguns-- 02:02, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- - k, like I said, I have used shotguns, though only for hunting (I'm not actually fond of killing Bambi, but I like shooting guns. A standard double barrel shotgun is actually extremely easy to load and unload. You do a quick flick by the top of the cylinder, where the handle meets the cylinder, and the shells pop up a bit for easy removal. And it's not a free action. It's a substituted action. Instead of using the action to pick up the shotgun and try to figure out where to put it in your inventory, you're using that action to remove the shells instead.
- Pkers - shotgun gives you an ability to deal huge damage in a short period of time if you spend an extended period of time on preparations. By nerfing shotgun you won't decrease number of people PKed, but you'll make PKing less funny. And... about tommy gun - I think that everyone except Eugenie was using shotguns to prepare targets... but you have to ask her :)
- - Again, this isn't nerfing shotguns. In fact it would make it easier to shoot other people because even if you miss a lot, you'll have a lot more ammo to try to kill the poor sap.
- re - We both know that it is :) Currently the best possible combination is: shotgun x 15 + pistol x 3 - it gives us 390 maximal damage points with 48 AP. Most PKers don't want to kill as much harmanz as possible (ie. one harman every day) - they want to do it in a funny way (5 trenchies in a row once a week) -- 02:02, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- Okay maybe it does a -little-. I have a hard time arguing against killing trenchies. I'm also not really a big PKer (I only have a zombie and a necrotech scientist) but if that's the goal of most PKers (quality of kill over quantity of kills), then you win this tiny part of the discussion. But I again want to emphasize my goal isn't to nerf shotguns, it was to make them more useful, but in a practical way. And that tommy gun almost gave me a heart attack until I realized it was a red rum joke page. --Tselita 06:01, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- re - I have only 1 PKer alt, so I have really limited PKing experience. But I think PKers don't think about practical use of shotguns... -- 10:57, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- re - I think that's probably what annoys me about PKers. Probably the only thing that really does. When they aren't being practical in how they go about their killin'. That being said, I do respect some PKer groups, like Red Rum. They're funny. Plus they allied with survivors against the Dead because game still being playable trumps murder as usual. Maybe I'll make a dedicated PKer and see how I like it, but as things stand, especially with the Dead around, I don't even like playing my Zombie anymore. Big Bash was powerful and fun for zombies, but at least it wasn't game-breaking.--Tselita 15:32, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- re - One PKer shooting 3 trenchies and explaining why may be more valuable than a dedicated barricader.-- 17:32, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- re - I think that's probably what annoys me about PKers. Probably the only thing that really does. When they aren't being practical in how they go about their killin'. That being said, I do respect some PKer groups, like Red Rum. They're funny. Plus they allied with survivors against the Dead because game still being playable trumps murder as usual. Maybe I'll make a dedicated PKer and see how I like it, but as things stand, especially with the Dead around, I don't even like playing my Zombie anymore. Big Bash was powerful and fun for zombies, but at least it wasn't game-breaking.--Tselita 15:32, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- re - I have only 1 PKer alt, so I have really limited PKing experience. But I think PKers don't think about practical use of shotguns... -- 10:57, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- Okay maybe it does a -little-. I have a hard time arguing against killing trenchies. I'm also not really a big PKer (I only have a zombie and a necrotech scientist) but if that's the goal of most PKers (quality of kill over quantity of kills), then you win this tiny part of the discussion. But I again want to emphasize my goal isn't to nerf shotguns, it was to make them more useful, but in a practical way. And that tommy gun almost gave me a heart attack until I realized it was a red rum joke page. --Tselita 06:01, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- re - We both know that it is :) Currently the best possible combination is: shotgun x 15 + pistol x 3 - it gives us 390 maximal damage points with 48 AP. Most PKers don't want to kill as much harmanz as possible (ie. one harman every day) - they want to do it in a funny way (5 trenchies in a row once a week) -- 02:02, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- - Again, this isn't nerfing shotguns. In fact it would make it easier to shoot other people because even if you miss a lot, you'll have a lot more ammo to try to kill the poor sap.
- Pkers - shotgun gives you an ability to deal huge damage in a short period of time if you spend an extended period of time on preparations. By nerfing shotgun you won't decrease number of people PKed, but you'll make PKing less funny. And... about tommy gun - I think that everyone except Eugenie was using shotguns to prepare targets... but you have to ask her :)
- Generally - you want to make shotguns very similar to pistols - imho it's pointless. -- 06:56, 2 April 2008 (BST)
- - No, I don't want to make them like pistols, not at all. In fact, you could argue, quite easily, that carrying around a ton of shotguns so you can fire them in rapid succession without taking a break to reload is making them similar to pistols, which can fire many times in rapid succession. Based on your own logic, my way would work better and make Shotguns different than pistols more than just 'they do twice the damage'
- re - Shortly - your idea: 2 shotguns, 1% encumbrance per shell. So - for 6 AP you can deal max 30 damage. Pistol - 30 damage for 7 AP. Looks pretty similar. Encumbrance - "carrying" 30 damage as shotgun shots costs you 3%, "carrying" it as a pistol ammo costs you 2%. So it's about 14% more AP efficient and 33% less encumbrance efficient pistol. Cause it's possible to prepare many pistols before your action shotgun AP efficiency is equal to pistol efficiency... -- 02:02, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- In -damage-, yes I'd want them to be more equal to a pistol, since I find shotguns particularly useless unless you use them in what I consider to be a stupidly impractical way (carrying around 10 or more of them). So my goal was to design a way to lessen the gap in damage while maintaining the difference between the two weapons. I feel the pistol will always be the more efficient weapon. But I just don't feel that the shotgun should suck as much as it currently does. And the first 2 or 4 shell shots (depending on if you have 1 or 2 shotguns) you -would- have them already loaded, I don't think you calculated that into your example.--Tselita 06:01, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- re - If somebody wants to do something stupid let him do it. It's only a game - you wanna prevent trenchies from killing zeds outside - start
PKingeducating them.- re - There's already such a wealth of stupid people on the internet, I'd really like to start preventing it pre-emptively instead of after-the-fact when they've infected the rest of us with the dumb-ness :) And you should know that it's common knowledge that trenchies don't learn. --Tselita 15:32, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- re - Even if they don't it's not a reason to stop teaching them -- 17:32, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- re - There's already such a wealth of stupid people on the internet, I'd really like to start preventing it pre-emptively instead of after-the-fact when they've infected the rest of us with the dumb-ness :) And you should know that it's common knowledge that trenchies don't learn. --Tselita 15:32, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- re - If somebody wants to do something stupid let him do it. It's only a game - you wanna prevent trenchies from killing zeds outside - start
- In -damage-, yes I'd want them to be more equal to a pistol, since I find shotguns particularly useless unless you use them in what I consider to be a stupidly impractical way (carrying around 10 or more of them). So my goal was to design a way to lessen the gap in damage while maintaining the difference between the two weapons. I feel the pistol will always be the more efficient weapon. But I just don't feel that the shotgun should suck as much as it currently does. And the first 2 or 4 shell shots (depending on if you have 1 or 2 shotguns) you -would- have them already loaded, I don't think you calculated that into your example.--Tselita 06:01, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- re - Shortly - your idea: 2 shotguns, 1% encumbrance per shell. So - for 6 AP you can deal max 30 damage. Pistol - 30 damage for 7 AP. Looks pretty similar. Encumbrance - "carrying" 30 damage as shotgun shots costs you 3%, "carrying" it as a pistol ammo costs you 2%. So it's about 14% more AP efficient and 33% less encumbrance efficient pistol. Cause it's possible to prepare many pistols before your action shotgun AP efficiency is equal to pistol efficiency... -- 02:02, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- - No, I don't want to make them like pistols, not at all. In fact, you could argue, quite easily, that carrying around a ton of shotguns so you can fire them in rapid succession without taking a break to reload is making them similar to pistols, which can fire many times in rapid succession. Based on your own logic, my way would work better and make Shotguns different than pistols more than just 'they do twice the damage'
- Generally - you want to make shotguns very similar to pistols - imho it's pointless. -- 06:56, 2 April 2008 (BST)
On a side note, I'd just like to say I'm enjoying our little discussion very much. It's fun to hear other people's points of views, and you've been nothing but polite and courteous, even though we disagree on several points on this suggestion. :) My first foray into suggesting did not go nearly as well and it took me several weeks (during which I tried repeatedly to figure out how to wiki edit) before I had the nerve to suggest anything new. I'm beginning to get the hang of it though, and I've put several suggestions in talk:discussion so far now, most of which are meeting with approval. :) --Tselita 06:04, 3 April 2008 (BST)
Ok then I have been pulled into a discussion; well I simply voted keep on the thing for 3 reasons, one I vote keep on almost everything, two finding a box of shot gun shells would be cool but only if it’s very very rare. Three; I like the part of only letting people only carry two shot guns at one time, I am all about the realism in video games, and shot gun shells being taking down to 1% encumberes for realism. I feel like putting in my to cents about how people or trenchies as everyone seems to call them, carry around a lot of shot guns and a gennys. Ok people; picture this let’s say we got a guy who has 6 shot guns and a genny and a two pistols and what whatever else you can think of. I picture in my mind when I play the UD that this guy has a military bag or two over their shoulders, guns strapped to themselves and is pulling along a trolley with the genny and maybe another bag like a big duffle bag with whatever in it on the trolley. I know this does not look right in a zombie apocalypse but come on people it’s a game.--Jamie Cantwel3 07:12, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- Yeah but with some of the people and what they carry, they'd need a freaking wheelbarrow to carry all their stuff -and- use it when a fight happens. You're right though, it's a game. I just really like games where inventory makes sense ('Ultima Underworld method'), as opposed to the 'Bard's Tale' method of inventory. I guess I shouldn't get so fixated on it though.--Tselita 15:32, 3 April 2008 (BST)
