Suggestions/15th-Nov-2005

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Closed Suggestions

  1. These suggestions are now closed. No more voting or editing is to be done to them.
  2. Suggestions with a rational Vote tally of 2/3 Keeps over total of Keeps, Kills, and Spams will be moved to the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page by a moderator, unless the original author has re-suggested the Suggestion.
  3. Suggestions under the 2/3 proportion but with more or equal Keeps to Kills ration will be moved to the Undecided Suggestions page.
  4. All other Suggestions will be moved to either the Peer Rejected Suggestions page or the Humorous Suggestions page.
  5. Some suggestions may not be moved in a timely manner; moving Suggestions to Peer Reviewed Suggestions page will take higest priority.
  6. Again, DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. It will be used as a historical record and will eventually be locked.
Suggestion Navigation
Suggestion Portal
Current SuggestionsSuggestions up for VotingClothes Suggestions
Cycling SuggestionsPeer ReviewedUndecidedPeer RejectedHumorous
Suggestion AdviceTopics to Avoid and WhyHelp, Developing and Editing

15th November, 2005 - VOTING ENDED: 29th-Nov-2005

Devour Corpse

Removed Due to duplicated suggestion. see [Cannibalize]

Or

Improved Fort Barricade

Timestamp: 04:47, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Improved Fort Dynamics
Scope: Forts
Description: To make the forts more realistic and more defensible, it should not be possible to travel to the armoury block without first entering the fort. This would require anyone wishing to attack the armoury to first break through the fort's defenses. This is more realistic, since it is not possible for someone on foot to attack a building inside a fort without first passing through the fort. This would require making the entire fort barricadable.

Votes

  • Keep Forts definitely need to be more defensible, and this is a logical way to do it. --Argus Blood 05:41, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Re I'm not sure how this would be implemented. As it stands there are no limitations on where (outside) anyone can move, so I suspect adding some kind of barrier like that would take a lot of work. Plus there would need to be some way (visual or textual) to tell that the area's been barricaded. *EVIL THOUGHT* Cordons, which could be set up anywhere, could be used to barricade off whole groups of buildings. Hard as fuck to implement, but a shining idea. --Otona 10:22 PM (Seattle), 14 Nov 2005
    • Re: My suggestion is that armouries, and only armouries, be enterable only from inside the surrounding fort squares. I don't see why this would require visual indication...just make the link for the armoury non-clickable unless you are inside (and not outside) one of the fort squares. --Argus Blood 07:16, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - If the mechanics can be worked out, this makes sense. --Squashua 14:57, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It's a good idea and would lead to people inhabiting the forts. --Shadowstar 15:28, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Forts need a point. This helps. --Lucero Capell 16:03, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - switched my vote to keep after clarification (see talk page). I think that the "large building" feature that is already in Kevan's to-do list will cover this case anyway. --Seagull Flock 09:24, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This is good. It would be both realistic, and an improvement to the game --Sknig 21:04, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam One or the other needs to be removed. i THINK that yesterdays should prolly go, as this one is much cleener and easyer to understand. (but even cleener and nicer, my vote will be Kill as soon as this is desided, as this would allow griefers to barricade up all the outside blocks of the fort and not allow anybody to get to the armory.--Spellbinder 21:07, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re See above in response to Seagull Flock. This is not the same as yesterday's suggestion. --Argus Blood 03:38, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Why not? --Kulatu 23:00, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Let's prevent Creedy. --MaulMachine 23:51 (GMT)
  • Keep - Makes sense to me: I was trying to rework the previous one in my head and it came out looking like this. --Man in Blue 12:25, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This and the previous Fort Barricade suggestion would work together very well. --Dickie Fux 22:06, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Agreed, this isn't the same as yesterday's suggestion and this makes more sense. --Nov 19:02, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - another superbarricade. --Jorm 06:12, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Electric Company

Timestamp: 16:21, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: improvement
Scope: Power Stations
Description: Once the power goes on in Malton It would be interesting if it were only a temporary condition dependent on the Power Stations being under survivor control. This could be determined by considering if a station were barricaded or not, or occupied by humans. (open to suggestions on this). Being that there are only 2, it should take both stations being shut down at any given time to have an effect on city power. It would give us metagamers something to fight over. If both Stations fall to zombies mobile phones could read "service temporarily unavailable". Hopefully other benefits of power will be implemented as well..

Votes

  • Kill - I like the concept, looks really interesting. Unfortunately, since we don't know what will happen when electricity is back in Malton, it's a bit too early to submit this kind of suggestion. --Seagull Flock 17:11, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nothing wrong with keeping a nice potential concept around, even if it won't get implemented. I'd prefer that each station power 33% of the city, and if both are on, 100% of the city has power. --Squashua 17:31, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This is really kind of inevitable, I think. How much would survivors have to suck to never get the power back on? I think there should be a general "Generators" object in all power stations - which could be built up or attacked like barricades. (shows up in attack choices, button for survivors to repair it) Just a thought. -- Amazing 18:15, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: It is already known that the power will eventually go on (see mobile phone). I like the generator barricade idea. I would like to hear from a programmer on how feasible this all is --bbrraaiinnss 18:38, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Sounds about right, but i couldn't begin to tell you weather or not this kind of stuff could be programed in or not.--Spellbinder 21:09, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - When electricity actually is implemented, I think this would be a great way to go about it. --Kulatu 23:00, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This would be very good. Also, it would be very easy to implement: check to see if the power station barricades are up when someone tries to make a call, the same way a zombie attempting to enter a building is handled. --Sknig 23:40, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - The only thing we'll need to worry about is a static war around a power station. I'd also suggest changing the map to 4 power stations, one on each quarter of the city. If a station goes down, power in that quarter goes down. That way, we don't get into permanent failures - people can attempt to move to another portion of the map in order to do whatever they're trying to do. --Fixen 01:26, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Interesting concept. It gives humans a reward for holding these buildings and zombies a reason to focus their attacks on them. Depending on what the power stations do, this could turn out to be a very fun sort of perpetual battle. --Raelin 03:19, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Very good idea. --Argus Blood 03:43, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Maybe the power plan displays a button to survivors which read "Enable Power", in the case it's off, and a button to zombies which reads "Trash Equipment" if it's on. That way, any zombie that breaks in can turn off the power, but unless the breach is not contained, any survivor inside can turn it back on. Monstah 21:24, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - well now we have generators, but I stil foresee a power station coming online sometime. thanks for voting --bbrraaiinnss 14:47, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Power plants will probably work like big generators, so you have to attack them to stop power. Having the barricades up doesn't enter into it. --Dickie Fux 22:09, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Power plants will also probably need fuel to run, just like the portable generators. --Nov 19:04, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like the idea of creating new goals. --Jorm 06:13, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re Keep in mind this was suggested during pre-generator times. All its saying is lets have power stations power things, and have an on/off status we can fight over... thats it. I didn't see portable generators coming, but as they are here and can be shut down, I'm betting the stations will have a similar vulnerability. Needing fuel or being protected from attack = survivor control in my view. I admit this was quite a simple suggestion, you have to realize this was just my way of saying "hey Kevan lets turn the power on already." Im going to pretend he heard me. --bbrraaiinnss 16:55, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Separate Zombie/Survivor Levels

Timestamp: 18:33, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Balance Change
Scope: Zombies and Survivors
Description: Survivor Level does not add to Zombie Level and vice-versa for determining the level number used for XP damage from Headshots and qualifying for Zombie Hunter Skills. Survivors who have no Zombie Skills and are killed will be treated as a Level 1 Zombie, and Zombies who are revived and have no Survivor Skills will be treated as a Level 1 Survivor. This will (1) Help Zombies by allowing high level Survivors who become Zombies to level easier as Zombies, and will (2) Hinder Zombies by keeping Zombies who become Survivors from easily getting Headshot and other future Zombie Hunter skills.

Note - I am not sure how certain cross-race skills that still work, such as Survivor Skills Diagnosis and Body Building, should be treated. I would say for the sake of argument that certain skills do count towards Zombie level (though Diagnosis really shouldn't work when I'm a Zombie), but until my Zombie Character can use First Aid, axes, and guns, those skills should not count towards determining his level.

Background - this stems from a recent experience; my level 8 and level 13 Survivors were both killed. I really wanted to play as a zombie, so I had no problem with this, but they were rendered completely useless as they could not gain levels due to the Headshots. This would have been a minor drawback if they were treated as the true level 1 Zombies that they were, but Headshot qualified them as Levels 8 and 13. I guess that the overall character level is supposed to reflect my experience with the game (as a player), but honestly, I'm discouraged from ever letting my guys (who are now revived) become zombies again. Could have been fun, but I could not accumulate enough XP to get even one level. Cue violins.

Votes

  • Keep - I'm not really that much of a wimp, but I'd like to try playing a Zombie without starting a new character. --Squashua 18:33, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep It's logical, it's useful, it's helpful. The only problem is, we already know Kevan has to use the same slot for skills and whether you're revived or infected--presumably some major rewriting would be required. But I hate it when people shoot down suggestions just because they're hard to implement. It's not like Kev has to start working on anything that makes it to Peer Reviewed--if he can't or doesn't want to do a suggestion, he just won't. Let them through on gameplay merit, or RP usefulness, or whatever, but don't kill them on programming grounds, please.--'STER 19:43, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep- A good idea. I'd also recommend "hiding" unused skills in a profile--for example, if you check a survivor's profile, you can't see what zombie skills he has, and vice versa. I almost made that suggestion myself, but I chickened out. X1M43 20:18, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Don't, it's a good idea as long as you write it up properly. 100% keeper; I'd steal it and append it to this, but that would change the intent of this suggestion. --Squashua 20:51, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Very good idea, it's affected me too. A high level survivor can't switch sides even for role playing, which sucks... --Shadowstar 20:21, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Can't see why not. --Lucero Capell 21:16, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Y.E.S. --Kulatu 22:45, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - The reason my main character is still level 6. Jackass zombie hunters plug me in the head when I come up to them and say "mrh?". --Zaruthustra 00:40, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - For all the reasons listed above. Bentley Foss 02:53, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Ditto. And I agree with your note, cross-species skills like Diagnosis and Body Building should be counted in. --Seagull Flock 09:28, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Great idea --Zark the Damned 13:22, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Great idea Brizth 17:05, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yep. --Dickie Fux 22:11, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep indeedy. --Rhebus 14:38, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep But please note that levels are already separate for the purpose of buying Headshot. --LouisB3 20:36, 25 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- Headshot should count human skills. --Nov 19:05, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It should be done, but after having spent so much time getting headshot, part of me wants to make sure every survivor feels its full weight. --Jorm 06:15, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Take Cover

Timestamp: 19:38, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Suvivors
Description: When fired at with a pistol or shotgun you take evasive action, making it 25% less likely you will be hit, down to a minimum hit percentage of 5%. This is skill does not carry over to be usable by zombies. The purpose of this skill is to discourage playerkilling without outright ending it (since its inclusion seems to be intended). This way though a PKer could still operate it becomes less likely they could slaughter an entire safehouse full of people in one 50 AP cycle.

Votes

  • Keep Are you saying I can dodge bullets? --McArrowni 19:46, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT) No McArrowni, I'm saying when the time comes, you shoudn't have to --Morpheus 19:47, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - And what happens if this ever got in? I sit there firing endless shots at zed breathers while they hack down the barricades and laugh at us? --Zaruthustra 20:08, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - It only lowers the percentage. It's still very easy to kill a single person if you have maxed firearms skills (or melee for that matter), it just becomes harder to take out multiple people.--Jon Pyre 20:37, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
      • Re - And then zombie spies start working in groups. Let's face it. There is no way to implement this that won't help PKers, zombie spies, and griefers. -Otona 22:41, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - And what happens when the zombies evolve enough to learn to use basic weapons like knives, clubs, and later guns? I saw Land of the Dead, y'know! --Squashua 20:32, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Re - Why not give zombies the power to explode buildings with their minds while we're at it? --Jon Pyre 20:44, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Don't think so. Also, as of this post, there are 3 votes, and 4 replys. Please, folks, do not abuse the RE. If you want to make some funny cracks, or heaven forbid a Discussion, take it over there.--Spellbinder 21:26, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I am hugely confused as to what the people replying are talking about (except for Spellbinder.) Zaruthustra: With maximized firearms skill, you're still going to have a 40% hit chance...with melee, you'll do even better. Squashua: What the hell are you talking about? Since when were zombies going to attack? Here's a hint: When sombody is shooting at you, you DON'T SIT THERE AND WAIT TO GET HIT! You jump behind tables or on the ground or whatever comes to hand! This is not only realistic, but it does discourage PKing to a level. Sure, PKers and Zombie Spies can try to hack down your barricades, but so can a regular zombie. Basically all this does is negate the effectiveness of Advanced Pistol/Shotgun Training against other Survivors. Far from overpowered. --Kulatu 22:52, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Anyone who thinks that getting PKed in this game is bad has never played Diablo II Hardcore. --Sknig 23:46, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Bear in mind that this would also make it difficult to punish PKers for their activities. Just leave things the way they are. Bentley Foss 02:59, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Example: *[PKer] bashes you with a baseball bat for 2 HP.* When you shoot back: *You tried to hit [PKer], who evaded the attack.* After an hour of frustration: *You die.* --Fixen 04:34, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I don't see it overpowered, and the overall balance wouldn't change. --Seagull Flock 09:17, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - PKers are a fact of life... you gotta deal with them--Milo 03:31, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Just eliminate human vs. human damage completely, if that's what you want. --Dickie Fux 22:14, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill --Nov 19:06, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Kind of pointless. --Jorm 06:16, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Good start, but it needs some more fleshing out. It does not make sense that hitting other players is as easy as hitting zombies. Zombies are supposed to be shambling corpses, uncaring about receiving damage. A person (well, at least any person who would survive an apocalypse) is going to run and hide, take cover, etc. I'd probably put this in as a Military skill under the entire shooting tree (as in must have adv pistol and shotgun training to acquire), as military members are going to be the ones most well versed in what is effective cover and concealment, tactics, etc. Or make it a Zombie Hunter skill so that players must have been well versed at surviving. As long as zombies are unable to take advantage of it, I see no problem in making life a little harder for PKers. Plus, giving it a healthy amount of prereqs keeps it out of the hands of pud zombie spies. --S Kruger
  • Kill -- Why not just make survivors killing survivors (or zombie killing zombie) garner 0 XP? --Pesatyel 08:52, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Zombie Distraction Skill

Timestamp: 21:57, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: When used, the skill distracts zombies; they are offered a bit of experience gain (less than maxed out bite), at the cost of AP and not doing anything that effects humans. This enables humans to have a risky (since it won't effect all zombies), but still useful, way to defend against zombies that is fun for them too. The special effect could be anything. Making a human dummy, faking being a zombie, whatever. The core idea is a different version of defense from barricades, but one that zombies benefit from as well. Once used, zombies in the same square can press a button marked like "Attack the Dummy" or "Fall for the Disguise", using an AP and gaining XP.

Votes

  • Keep - I made this entry because apparently, if it's funny, it can't be a valid game extension.--Elijah 22:11, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - though certainly amusing, you are not specific about the AP usage vs the XP gain, and I can see this being abused by the Zombie players for easy XP. --Squashua 22:02, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - I'm thinking averaging out to about 1. Maybe a fifty percent chance of getting two, or a twenty five of getting four or something. It's supposed to give zombies easy experience; it's a form of defense zombies don't get angry about. It has a dual purpose of being easy XP. If you zerg with it, you're zerging, which is cheating anyway. --Elijah 22:12, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, Squashua is my hero--Spellbinder 22:04, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I won't kill it for three reasons: A) Humans get XP for doing things far simpler than this. B) Abusing this through Zerging is cheating anyway, humans can just attack and heal each other for XP without dying. C) Lower level zombies will finally have a way to level up when sieging safehouses. It is annoying as hell to help a horde bring down the barricades, only to remember that the door is locked and you can't open it. By the time it does open, the entire Horde of zombies rushes inside and slaughters everyone before you can get some XP for yourself. The lower level zombies would WANT to fall for the disguise to get XP, thus robbing the higher levels of some of their valuable support troops. I don't see this as overpowered or stupid in any way, shape or form. --Kulatu 22:56, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This is kind of naive.... saying its already cheating doesn't mean people won't do it. Dont create exploits when it isn't neccesary. Aside from that I don't like the idea of "everybody wins" skills that discourage conflict, the bread and butter of the game. Finally, this skill is for real time, which doesn't work well here. 90% of the time people wont even be around to use this. --Zaruthustra 00:37, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - A) It creates plenty of conflict within the zombies. Hordes have their lesser zeds become distracted, which isn't too fun for them. Other varieties of mass assaults are distracted, valuable time lost. It just doesn't create out of game conflict, like with barricades or Headshot. There's no end to the whining about Headshot or barricades. You know why? Because those are totally not fun to have todeal with. B) It doesn't have to be used real time. Why would you think that? It's more like "1 AP, no building, press the button" to make your survival through the night a little more likely.
  • Kill - What's with all these "humans and zombies should live together in harmony" suggestions lately? Bentley Foss 02:55, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - What the heck does that even have to do with this suggestion? It's not a "live in harmony suggestion". It's a "humans survive, zombies don't get pissed off by it" skill. Would you prefer that the zombies are forced to be distracted? I know I wouldn't. --Elijah 03:05, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Seems like it could be expoited. Zombie spies making dummies in near-empty spots, human "cultists" doing the same, etc. --McArrowni 14:00, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill from what i understand, and i'm not sure i totaly get it, why would a zombie attack the dummy? he can bite the nearby humans for large XP, and once done, can THEN go after the dummy for a little bit of extra xp too. i'm sorry, but this sounds like haveing your cake and eating it too. (if i understand correctly)--Spellbinder 20:34, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't understand how this would work. --Dickie Fux 22:16, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombies already have a hard time getting XP from humans. --Nov 19:08, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Fail to see how this makes the game better. --Jorm 06:17, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Personal tools
advertisements