Suggestions/18th-Jan-2007

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

A syringe is manufactured item, not randomly found

Timestamp: Robert McFarlane 05:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC) (Corrected timestamp. -Mark 16:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC))
Type: Item Improvement
Scope: Scientists
Description: Currently, syringes are too easy to find. In a powered NecroTech building, I can find 5 or so syringes with 20AP with all human skills. Yet using 20AP upon Manufacture Syringe will only yield 1 syringe. Thus, I propose a change to the way in which syringes are received in game. A syringe is a very complicated item, and to simply find it with no trace of a creator is strange. My suggestion is that syringes should not be found in buildings at all, but can only be created using the Manufacture Syringes option, with a new cost of 10AP.

This would mean that to revive a zombie would take the same amount of AP to kill it, around 20AP. This would help get rid of the current trend of Combat Reviving zombies and forcing them to be humans, whilst still allowing Scientists to easily revive humans who have died.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - I was thinking about this yesterday, that 20AP was ridiculous when there is an ~12% chance to find a syringe. 10AP is just right. edit: Seeing the complaints it seems it would be best to only change the cost of manufacture, and leave the search % alone.--SporeSore 13:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep - Forgot to vote on my own suggestion :). Keep my zombies as zombies! 13:11 (GMT) 18 January 2007 ~Robert McFarlane
    Keep - Good enough. --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 13:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - But this would mean it would only be possible to revive people, if you have NecroNet Access. If this is implented, it would be a very good idea to rework the entire NT-tree, otherwise Lab Experience would be totally useless. - BzAli 13:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill - Syringes can only currently be manufactured in a powered necrotech building, while they can be found whether it's powered or not. The search vs manufacture AP cost is a little out of whack, but restricting them to manufacture only is not the way to solve it (unless manufacture is made possible in unpowered necrotech buildings). –Ray Vern phz T 13:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. kill - It takes a lot more than 20 AP to kill a zombie, even with a gun after you figure in all the searching costs. More importantly, I think that Kev uses the search rates for syringes to help tweak the game balance when he needs to. The Mad Axeman 13:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. I completely forgotten that manufacture syringes can only be manufacture in a powered building, while searching for syringes can be in nonpowered or powered buildings. --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 13:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Yeah, what they said. -Mark 16:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill If Scientists couldn't find syringes they couldn't do anything worthwhile until maxing out the science tree. --Jon Pyre 18:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Change - I agree that Syringe Manufacture is currently nerfed (in fact, my first suggestion ever dealt with that very issue). However, this would make Lab Experience a useless skill. It would also mean that syringes could only be obtained if a building is powered. However, I would vote keep if you simply lowered the syringe find rate rather than removing findable syringes entirely. --Reaper with no name TJ! 18:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill - Actions have consequences; clearly, you weren't thinking about newbie scientists. --Wikidead 01:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. I agree that manufacturng syringes is a "non-ability" but this is going too far.--Pesatyel 03:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Kill - As above, although finding/using syringes needs to be more AP expensive, there are too many live people around! -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 05:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Kill, and change -I had an idea to lower syringe manufactue to 15 ap while changing searching to be slightly above that. and as above this would make lab experience usless untill you got NT access. --AlexanderRM 6:29 PM, 19 January 2007 (EST)
  12. Kill - Can you imagine working a revive clinic with this going? You're whole day, regardless, would be five mouse-clicks. I'd like to keep a little element of the unknown in it at any rate. --Rgon 16:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

  1. WTF CENTAURS - Mr. McFarlane, did you read the Suggestions Dos and Don'ts? Leave Other People's Skills Alone. --Sgt. John TaggartUNIT 11/5 WCDZ TJ! 13:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. John Teabag's Hamters - Not a chance in hell.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 13:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Dupe - whilst this is not a Dupe of the Peer Reviewed 15AP manufacture cost, it is a Dupe of the resoundingly rejected 10AP manufacture cost. Neither of those, of course, has the ridiculous notion of getting rid of random searches altogether. Random is a good thing. It makes games interesting. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 15:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Dupe - Gage 18:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. not a dupe - just very bad SPAM - Saying this is a dupe is offensively insulting to the original suggestions. This disregards the history of the game (searching for syringes without any benefit of power or Necronet Access used to be the ONLY way to get them), its basic mechanics (searching is a fudimental game element) and the "Lab Expereince" skill, which would have zero use (other than as a pre-req for "Necronet Access") under this suggestions effects. Syringe manufacture was never "nerfed"- it's a weak feature of the necronet access skill BY DESIGN. Retro-active skill buffs are bogus. --Swiers 20:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Spam - Want Malton to have a 10-90 human-zombie ratio? Go ahead and implement this idea! --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 23:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Spam - "Yes, let's get rid of the ability to get syringes in unpowered NT buildings. That's a good idea!" NO. Let's not, don't say we did, and set this idea on fire.--J Muller 23:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Huh? - I thought when looting an NT, they'd have syringes all around the building. It is a tall office building. You'd find syringes on the syringe racks, on the floor from when scientists left in a haste, it's a big building full of syringes, which you can find. Don't tell me that why haven't they gotten all looted, because Malls are full of items even though there are no supplies coming in. That's how syringes are found, there is no need to make them only be manufactured only Kaylee Hans 01:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. No! - Have you gone farther than 5 blocks out of Caiger/Yagoton? Not all NT's are always powered 24/7.--Labine50 MH|ME|P 01:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. WTFCENTUARS - Incredibly unbalancing. –Xoid MTFU! 02:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. WTF SQUID AEROPLANE - Send in more planes! --Cap'n Silly 05:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Whatever people say I am thats what I'm not: - So forcing zombies to play as survivors isn't fair but forc ing survivors to play zombies is? --MarieThe Grove on Tour 15:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. ...Um, wow. While we're at it, why don't we go ahead and force the manufacturing of guns? No PD has that many guns. And of course, it's only logical that bullets follow suit. And then fire axes. And FAKs. And why not even force us to make the stuff before we can build the barricade? --Arcos TCS 21:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. WTFCENTUARS - Jiminy tapdancing Cricket, no! MordredMalTel 01:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Shooting Blindly

Timestamp: Reaper with no name TJ! 19:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Type: game mechanic
Scope: survivors in unpowered buildings
Description: If this sounds familiar, it's because it's a revision of my suggestion yesterday. So just skip over the first two paragraphs if you voted on the one yesterday.

Have you ever tried shooting a target in a dark room? Not so easy, is it? You're probably a much better shot with the lights on.

Now, we all know that generators increase search rates in buildings. But not by much. Certainly not enough to justify making yourself and everyone else in the building a target unless you happen to be in a TRP (and even then it is debatable, considering the high AP cost to maintain a generator and the presence of griefers).

So in the interest of keeping generators useful in the face of these large disadvantages, I propose that firearms attacks made inside an unpowered building suffer a -5% accuracy penalty. This cannot bring their accuracy below 20% (to prevent situations such as newbies firing a shotgun with 0% accuracy), since anything below that is pretty much shooting blind anyway. This also doesn't affect melee weapons because using them requires that one be close to their target to begin with (and therefore make the amount of light present mean very little).

Keep Votes
For Votes here

  1. Author Keep - Hopefully everyone likes this more than the last one. --Reaper with no name TJ! 19:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep- Should be alright now.--Grigori 22:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)To all those people who are saying zombies don't need buffs, I don't think you've seen the stats lately. They desperately need buffs.--Grigori 04:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. I still would prefer a night-day cycle, a la Nexus War, but we get the next best thing. Still, it's doomed to Peer-Rejected, for the reasons that they present.--ShadowScope 22:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep - ditto on the day/night cycle. Voting yes for a suggestion that gives an additional motivation in gameplay, and makes the dark more scary.--SporeSore 22:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep - Seems a good way to promote tactical play by the zombies, without over-buffing zombies in general. Also, this would finally provide a good reason for generators being used in warehouses and such. I don't see any potential for dramatic alteration; its not like zombies are usually fought in real time anyhow. Survivors would use a bit more ammo killing zombies, but they've gotten numerous ammo-find buffs since game inception, even combat skill buffs, while zombies have gotten no harder to kill. It also makes the fire ax a SLIGHTLY more useful weapon. --Swiers 23:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Excellent Firearms have a lot of game advantages in defending safehouses. But a very reasonable balance now, considering the generator buff to searches means you have more ammo now to shoot with. Makes lights on / lights off combat more interesting. If you're in a big safehouse you might be the designated body dumper/ maintenance man...MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 00:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Keep and WTF? - How the hell is this survivor buff?--Labine50 MH|ME|P 01:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Keep - makes sense -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 05:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Keep - sounds fine to me. --Karloth Vois RR 12:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Keep - To answer all you naysayers, zeds DO need buffs. When there are more zombie hunters than zeds, something's pretty screwed up. Viceroy Chili Cheese Dog 21:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Something along these lines would work. I agree with the basic line of this suggestion, and I'm sure Kevan can fiddle with making it balanced. --ExplodingFerret 01:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - Would dramaticly alter balance between survivors and zeds. - BzAli 21:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill - We don't need survivor buffs. We don't need zombie buffs either.Waluigi Freak 99 22:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - Zombies don't need a buff.--J Muller 23:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - Apparently, some people like depreciating survivors and promoting generator smashing. --Wikidead 01:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Die - Borderline spam, but this might be salvageable. I don't know how to fix it, but this would alter the game balance too much. –Xoid MTFU! 02:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. This might work if generators were a little "sturdier" (or, heh, a day/night cycle were implemented).--Pesatyel 03:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill Generators are too hard to find and fragile for an across the board penalty to be imposed in their absence. And they would be absent as soon as a zombie breaks in, meaning unless you have a generator and fuel on you repelling EVERY zombie incursion would be at a penalty. Alternatively, firearms are powerful enough. --Jon Pyre 12:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill Trenchcoating already hardly affects zombies, don't make it worse. The only point of this is realism. no realism. --AlexanderRM 6:36 PM, 19 December 2007 (EST)
  9. Kill Powered buildings are a frequent exception, not a rule. MordredMalTel 01:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - This is all good for zombies, all shite for survivors. No thanks. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 20:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Spam - No no no no no! This suggestion is not quite as bad as the first one, but still bad enough for a spam tag! --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 23:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. As Funt. Zombie-pro, Survivor's doom. --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 12:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove Hit Penalty

Removed entirely as this suggestion doesn't even apply. The game mechanic that the suggestor is trying to fix simply doesn't exist. Even Kevan voted spam on this one.--Gage 22:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

For some clarification, it looked like he was talking about ZERGING penalties.--Pesatyel 04:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal tools
advertisements