Suggestions/22nd-May-2006

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

Looks Like a Tornado Hit It

Timestamp: 04:33, 22 May 2006 (BST)
Type: Balance change
Scope: Survivors on janitor duty
Description: Ransack is a lot of fun for zombies, but of limited strategic value. For ransack to have any lasting effect, zombies must maintain a presence in the building -- otherwise any survivor can clean up the mess for 1 AP. However, it's much more natural for zombies to wander building to building in search of their next meal. To allow zombies to get on with the business of finding and eating brains, while maintaing ransack's strategic usefulness, I suggest that the success rate of cleaning up a ransacked building be reduced to 25%. This is commensurate with a maxed-out zed's best chance at reducing a barricade's strength by one level.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote. The cleanup would only take a few more tries than it does now, but victorious zeds could move on without feeling like their efforts were all for nothing. --John Ember 04:33, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep - I'm not 100% in love with the details (an average of 4AP seems a little low considering how difficult is it to be able to ransack a building, and that it's less than what it would take to kill and dump the zombie if he had stayed), but I like the general idea - a zombie's best strategy should not be camping a building, because it's quite boring to do. Overall an improvement, then. --Toejam 04:48, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep - I don't see any problems with it - and it would make sense that a ramsacked building would be harder to clean up. --Darkstar949 04:55, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - Ransack does what it's supposed to do: increase the value to a horde of actually holding territory, give it more of a game-mechanics purpose. Well-organized hordes seem to do surveillance anyway, leaving a member in each building to watch for attempts by survivors to reclaim the suburb. Ransack enhances that strategy. This would defeat the purpose. Ransack isn't a neglected item like the junk weapons, that Kevan put in and hasn't settled on a good way to balance it. It's his latest tweak to the game, and I think he knew what he was doing with it. --Dan 05:08, 22 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - I don't think we should analyze game mechanics based on what the biggest hordes do. The RRF, for example, is a highly organized horde with multiple squads coordinating their efforts through several meta-gaming channels. There are plenty of zombies out there who are hording through Feeding Groan but who would still like their ransacks to count for something without having to keep watch on buildings. --John Ember 16:29, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - I agree with Dan to a point, but if I were to give a suggestion on what might make me vote keep, that would be get rid of the percentage, because anyone can lift boxes push a broom etc, and make it so that it takes more AP.. I might agree with that based on that it doesn't take as long to trash a place as it does to clean it up. --Steel Hammer 05:30, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - While I agree that ransacking should be more powerful, I think 25% chance to repair it too low. Velkrin 06:21, 22 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Well, for that matter I think 25% to tear down a barricade is too low. --John Ember 16:29, 22 May 2006 (BST)
      • Re: - Arn't you the one who has said many times before "Barricades are fine as they are" or some phrase along those lines? Maybe it was Jon. Velkrin
    • Re - That was definitely not me. It was Jon Pyre, right. --John Ember 19:45, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - As Velkrin. --A Bothan SpyCDF - WTF - U! 07:21, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - as Dan--Vista W! 08:48, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill - As Velkrin. –Xoid Talk U! 08:52, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - As Vista. - David Malfisto 10:59, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  11. Keep - I remember I was disappointed that this was not how it worked when it was implemented, making me say "so f'n what?" --Mookiemookie 12:24, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  12. Keep - 25% actions are much better than 4AP actions, urbandead is run on probabilities it doesnt matter if it makes sense or not fix cost action just arnt as fun as probability based ones--xbehave 12:43, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  13. Kill- It should have a 30% chance, giving an extra 10% on what zombies take to destroy barricades. You greif us with cades we should be able to grief you with ransacks. --ramby T--W! - SGP 12:48, 22 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - You're killing over a 5% difference in odds? --John Ember 16:29, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  14. keep - i like this, as it stands ransack isn't much use to my zed but knowing it might make harmanz waste some real effort would improve it. however to balance this a little i would like to see a small chance for the repairer to find an object when they complete the repairs (a small reward for their efforts) this could be just about anything from a bottle of beer in a police sgt's desk to a kitchen knife in the hospitals canteen!--Honestmistake 15:10, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  15. Keep - Makes Ransack a useful skill. --Otware 16:02, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  16. Kill Ransack IS a useful skill! It requires someone to stay behind, yes, but hordes generally have a zombie or two to spare for such jobs, and it's not like if one dies, they can't just stand up and walk back in. And as Dan said, Ransack gives a reason to hold an area rather than just kill and move on, so I don't see how it's as useless a skill as you make it seem. --Volke 16:12, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  17. Kill - The 25% chance to clean seems weird. I would just make it a flat 2 or 3 AP to clean, instead of 1, because it takes more work to clean up a mess than to make one. This would counterbalance the AP survivors now save by searching in buildings with generators. --Dickie Fux 18:20, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  18. Kill - Finding items is hard enough as it is. - Paradox244 1:48, May 22 2006 (EST)
    • Re - I think the rapidly declining human-zombie ratio disagrees with you. Since powered searching was implemented, I can restock my ammo in one third of the time. Making Ransack more than just a nuisance would help to balance out the major boost that powered searching represents. --John Ember 19:48, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  19. Keep - My belly lint told me to --Rozozag 18:51, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  20. Kill - The mechanics were intentional, not a mistake. You can't cleanup when a zombie is there, therefor giving zeds a way to control territory. It was never meant to allow zombies to wander around ruining shit. --Zaruthustra-Mod 19:46, 22 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - I would have thought it was meant to give zombies something else interesting to do. I doubt the thought of zombies controlling territory figured heavily into the decision. It's not especially in-genre and hanging out inside buildings isn't especially entertaining. --John Ember 21:07, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  21. Kill - Ransack is fine as it stands. I have a sandwich --Timid Dan 20:41, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  22. Kill - What Vista said. --Swmono talk - W! - SGP 20:43, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  23. Kill - Although I have homosexual feelings for this suggestion, the reason it's a Kill have all been pretty well covered. --Undeadinator 20:55, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  24. Keep - Dan and undeadinator are gay --revoso 21:49, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  25. Kill It's so it's harder to find things if zombies are in the building. Not so zombies can lay waste to a suburb and move on. Would you like it if there was only a 25% chance to ransack in the first place? --Jon Pyre 21:56, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  26. Kill - While I believe cleaning after a Ransack SHOULD be harder, I'm not sure if this or a flat higher AP cost would be better. Probably best to send this to the discussion page.--Pesatyel 05:25, 23 May 2006 (BST)
  27. Keep - Though it may be a little too early to suggest tweaks to this new aspect of the game, I think this is a good idea. Once the zombies have struggled to get in and the damage is done, a chance to fix would be more exciting then an automatic repair.(and 25% sounds about right to me, [i]maybe[/i] 30-35%; see talk page) --Raystanwick 10:32, 23 May 2006 (BST)
  28. Keep - The current 1 AP isunfair, as Zombies realy get nothing out of it. And imagine trying to fix up a ransacked building, with shelves all over the wall, papers scattered everywhere. Not as easy as it would seem.--William Raker 15:52, 24 May 2006 (BST)
  29. Keep - With Dickie Fux's reservations. --Tommathy 04:30, 4 June 2006 (BST)

Ladders and rooftops

Timestamp: 05:12, 22 May 2006 (BST)
Type: Item and a skill
Scope: Heavily barricaded tall buildings
Description: A ladder would be the first of a new category: large items. You still need an inventory slot open to search, but large items don't just go into your inventory. Instead, your text description says "you're holding a ladder". You can't attack or search while holding a large item, and moving costs 2AP. You can barricade, adding the large item to the barricade at normal chance to succeed. And you can set the ladder up. To set the ladder up costs only 1 AP, but you have to be outside a building.

If you're not looking for them, it's just a junk item that you have to drop immediately instead of having the option of doing some more searching and dropping the trash later all at once.

Ladders would, of course, enable people to enter heavily barricaded tall buildings. Survivors would pay 3AP to enter. Zombies would need the new skill. They would pay 3AP for a 20% chance to enter, but if they failed they would fall for 4 damage and there would be a 10% chance of the ladder getting knocked over instead.

Anyone can knock a ladder down, for 1 AP with 100% success. A ladder that's knocked down would have a 10% chance of being damaged and vanishing; if it did not vanish, any survivor could set it up again for 1 AP.

Ladders outside buildings that are not tall (i.e. do not have a suicide button when you're inside) would lead to the roof of the building. These ladders could be climbed for 2AP, since you don't have to squeeze through the window. Zombies with the skill would have a 40% chance. Characters on the roof of a building could see for two blocks in each direction instead of one. If is still there, you can go down it just as you went up; if it's taken down while you're on the roof, you can still get off, but you take 25 damage.

Characters on a roof would not be visible to those below, but if there's a ladder you could go halfway up it and look for 1AP. Zombies would need ladder climbing skill in order to have this option.

Ladders would be found in fire stations at 4%, warehouses at 2%, and at 1% in museums, railway stations, schools, and factories.

Votes

  1. Author Keep - I like the image of a group of movie survivors fleeing to a rooftop, thinking they're safe, and then watching in shock as a dead hand grasps the top rung. I don't know if it's ever been done in a movie, but I like it anyway. Then the ladder gets knocked over and they flee back to the ground, and the tough guy is hurt by the fall and limps for the rest of the movie. --Dan 05:12, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - I'm killing this partly because the idea isn't fleshed out all of the way (i.e. where do you find ladders at, and at what rate), and partly because it doesn't seem like that practical of an item - free running replaces the need for ladders. --Darkstar949 05:50, 22 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Last sentence tells where you find them. --Dan 15:24, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill - A bit for Darkstar - You may want to read it over again. As for why I've killed, I don't like the idea of bypassing Heavy+ barricades. Velkrin 06:01, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - Older players don't need it, Newer players should need Very Strong buildings. -Banana-\(o_-o)/-Bear 06:10, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - I thought this went away? Oh well. Here's to a repeat performance. --A Bothan SpyCDF - WTF - U! 08:00, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - For reasons as stated above - Jedaz 09:59, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - Leave 'cades alone m'kay? David Malfisto 11:00, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - No. Nevar. Ladders and ropes will never be voted Keep. The reason why is that if you want the safety of high barricades you also need to give up access in and out of it. The only way I'd ever vote Keep is if you would allow zombies to light the ropes on fire and turn anyone climbing it into a BUDDHIST MONK ON FIRE. Sonny Corleone WTF 12:23, 22 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - You still need to give up the access if you want the safety: zombies can climb ladders, so you're not safe if you set one up. And btw, there aren't any ropes in this suggestion. --Dan 15:24, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill - Removes the need for VSB buildings--Mookiemookie 12:26, 22 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - No it doesn't: ladders are unreliable, they can't be carried around and set up on a whim, and they only let you into tall buildings. --Dan 15:24, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - Too complex and very little use. (I could suggest that idea from Sonny... Mmmm... Burn the survivors...) --Niilomaan 12:29, 22 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - You're right that it's not very useful. --Dan 15:24, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill - Seems too complicated for too little benefit. I do like the large item concept, though. --Dickie Fux 18:21, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill ... again. Really, the barricade mechanic doesn't need to be messed with at this point, and this variation of the same suggestion you've been posting isn't any better than the others. Potato. --Timid Dan 20:52, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  13. Kill - Cades good. Me no like change. --Swmono talk - W! - SGP 20:44, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  14. Spam - Henceforth, all "ladder" suggestions will receive a Spam vote from me. Their mechanics shall be brutally scorned and derided, the format in which they are submitted shall be subjected to mockery and criticism, and their authors shall be pantsed and spit upon. Ladders are fucking stupid. --Undeadinator 22:17, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  15. Kill - It seems you're trying to take several bad ideas and put them all together into 1 idea to create a super-bad idea... Ladders, Look 2 squares, a place to hide where you can't be seen... all get killed --Teksura 00:28, 23 May 2006 (BST)
  16. Spam - I have to agree with Undeadinator, here. I will say, though, that you made an admirable effort for a stupid suggestion.--Wifey 01:55, 23 May 2006 (BST)
  17. Spam WAY too many problems. 1) you can't attack/search while holding a ladder. Basically, once you find one (at best 4%), you can't defend yourself until you set it up at the location, then the zombie can just knock it down. 2) Searching currently does not allow you to select for what you are searching, so the ladder would HAVE to be included in the item list for the building. 3) Being able to see beyond the current 9 blocks is not possible without changing the whole in-game map to incorporate the ability (not that it COULDN'T be done, I don't know) but those suggesitons always get shot down. 4) Wouldn't Free Running keep you from taking the 25 damage from jumping off the roof? Sorry I wasn't more help in the discussion.--Pesatyel 05:33, 23 May 2006 (BST)

Repeat Actions

This suggestion was Spaminated with 9 Spam votes, 0 kills and 0 keeps. Repeating action suggestions are very much disliked by voters. --Mookiemookie 12:35, 22 May 2006 (BST)


Walking Wounded

Timestamp: --09:00, 22 May 2006 (BST)
Type: Injury related
Scope: Injured Survivors
Description: A basic fundamental of injuries is that they restrict the actions of people, though both pain and pure inability. To transfer this into the game, I suggest creating penalties on people below certain HP levels.

People of 10HP or below would have to spend 2AP for any movement actions (moving between blocks and entering/exiting buildings), to represent severe damage to the torso and extremities, which makes walking and climbing barricades very tough.

Due to the fact that the people are wounded severely enough to limit their movement, anyone below 15HP would be highlighted as "wounded" for all players in the room - even without diagnosis - and the room description would be as follows; "There are 53 other survivors here. 11 of them look badly wounded." Or "Also here are Madeupguy1, Madeupguy2, Madeupguy3 (wounded), Madeupguy4 (wounded)"

I considered implementing Zombie penalties, but decided against it because Zombies, being the walking dead, have already taken the most grievous wound possible, and are still moving. You don't get much more crippling than death!

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote. --HerrStefantheGreat 09:00, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - ARRGH! RETURN OF THE ZOMBIE SUGGESTIONS! Seriously, if a suggestion gets shot down the first time, it's usually for a good reason. --A Bothan SpyCDF - WTF - U! 09:03, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep - It would be a nice update, but I still feel like there's better ways to update the game. It will go down. That is it's destiny. --Niilomaan 09:27, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  4. Keep - You know, this would occur so infrequently that it's not something that'll unballance things. Any way, any sensible survivor won't be affected by this. - Jedaz 10:04, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - No, just no. Nerfs those in most need of help, nerfs diagnosis, flew like a brick with sheet metal wings the first time. Take it to talk. Resbumit in a month or so. David Malfisto 11:05, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - If a suggestion is shot down it's usually because it sucks. There is no way to get a Keep when the whole idea is that bad. It's like putting a HEMI in a car with no wheels. It's going nowhere. Sonny Corleone WTF 12:26, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep - nice little pro zombie feature, lets face it lifes just too easy atm--xbehave 12:49, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep - Decreasing the need for diagnosis is a concern, though. --Dan 13:11, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill - I don't like spending 2 APs/move to run away when I'm badly wounded. --Abi79 The Abandoned 14:01, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - You shoudn't give folks the free ability to see who is wounded. --McArrowni 14:18, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  11. keep - i liked this idea first time round but had concerns, they have been fixed and this is now one of the best suggestions for weeks! I don't think it nerfs diagnosis overly it only tells you if somone is nearly dead but it might make people feel better if it only told those with first aid. As for the 2ap move complaints "suck it up!" new zeds move slowly and this is not nearly as crippling since a single first aid kit will almost always stop the problem even without first aid! oh and before someone says it 2Ap movement for new zeds is not a bad mechanic and while it may annoy some they can always buy lurching gait as their 1st skill if they feel that strongly.--Honestmistake 15:23, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill Flavor is nice, but it gives zombies an easier lunch by not requiring them to get a skill to see survivor HP, which kind of ruins the point of the skill in the first place (for zombies, anyways). The 2 AP movement is bad, and many won't go for it, but the main reason I'm voting kill is because it nerfs diagnosis and the zombies equivalent so that they aren't really needed for the brain-eaters to go after who they want. As I said, nice flavor, but bad balencing. --Volke 16:04, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  13. Keep - I really don't like the "Diagnosis lite" thing going on here, and I should probably Kill based on that. But I like the central mechanic so much that I'm going to go with my gut and Keep. I've happily let myself be knocked down to less than 15hp before running from a bad situation, because I knew I could just duck out at the last second and get fixed up in a hospital. With this, there'd be a bit more penalty for getting that careless. --John Ember 16:41, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - With this, any zombie would see survivors at 15 HP or less as wounded. Then, when they bought Scent Fear, they would see any survivor at 25 HP or less as wounded, meaning there would now be tougher targets thrown in with the previously visible easier ones. This makes Scent Fear less useful. --Dickie Fux 18:26, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  15. Spam -I considered implementing Zombie penalties, but decided against it because Zombies, being the walking dead, have already taken the most grievous wound possible, and are still moving. You don't get much more crippling than death! So you just get your jollies from griefing HALF the game? What a fantastic idiotic suggestion. Extra AP cost!!! HOW FUN, It'll effect nothing except that suddenly I can only use half the turns I used too! Why not just half all the AP if you think that too much is happening in game. AP isn't a measurement of time or how difficult things are. It an artificial construct to limit the amount of time a person can play so the game is balanced. removing AP's is a dipshit thing to do as it removes game time. Do you even want to play the game? or just annoy the fuck out of everybody and make sure that the already meager time you can play is even further reduced? Hell we should make suggestions that remove AP taking mechanics not be blattering idiots and introduce more. I know why not make a skill that for every hit you do you don't do Hp damage but AP! that way people won't be able to play at all!! Wouldn't that be fun!! AP taking suggestions are nothing but grief AS IT DOES NOTHING BUT TAKE GAME TIME. --Vista W! 19:11, 22 May 2006 (BST)
    Re - Start up a new zombie and don't get Lurching Gait plzkthx.--Wifey 19:13, 22 May 2006 (BST)
    care to tell me what you mean by that? because It's not a proper dig as long as it's senseless--Vista W! 19:25, 22 May 2006 (BST)
    The point was that your idea of AP is skewed. If AP has absolutely no bearing on how difficult an action is, or how much time it takes, then zombies wouldn't need the Lurching Gait skill.--Wifey 01:02, 23 May 2006 (BST)
    It's a left over from when it had a use, the game wasn't always the way it is now. and I'm all for removing that mechanic of 2AP walking cost/lurching gait for exactly the reasons above. My idea of AP as a pure balancing methods less skewed then the people voting keep on this.--Vista W! 08:41, 23 May 2006 (BST)
  16. Keep - I hate the "if it failed once, no revisions will make it work" argument. How many peer-reviewed suggestions would never have made it through, I ask you?--Wifey 19:11, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  17. Spam - See above. Velkrin 19:42, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  18. Spam Stand alone movement buffs are never fair. If they did get implemented I'd want to see them as part of a pretty big package deal, never like this though. --Zaruthustra-Mod 19:50, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  19. Spam - as above --Timid Dan 20:44, 22 May 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 8 Keep, 7 Kill, 4 Spam - 19 Total. --HerrStefantheGreat 21:22, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  20. Spam Don't mess with AP. --Jon Pyre 21:57, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  21. Kill - I don't think it's Spam-worthy, but then again I don't want to Keep it either. As such, I am introducing a new kind of vote: Kill, for those times when you want to remove (or "kill", lol) a suggestion without deleting it. Clever, huh guys? --Undeadinator 22:13, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  22. Kill - This is actually a few suggestions in one, and all the components are bad. First, the free diagnosis is VERY bad; there is already a Survivor and Zombie skill for this, and zeds can use both. Second, if something like this is ever implemented, it should apply to both survivors and zombies since the rational would be the same.(ie crippled or missing limbs) Zombies are UNdead, not dead, they are not crippled by death, and frankly the whole last paragraph of your suggestion is a bad argument for unfairly applying what could be an interesting mechanic. --Raystanwick 05:10, 23 May 2006 (BST)
  23. Kill If I recall, last time I thought it would be better to have the 2 AP move penalty apply at 15 HP or less. But the primary problem, and why I'm voting kill, is the "Diagnosis Lite" part.--Pesatyel 05:19, 23 May 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 8 Keep, 10 Kill, 5 Spam - 23 Total. --HerrStefantheGreat 19:40, 25 May 2006 (BST)

Rats

This suggestion was Spaminated with 8 Spams and 3 keeps (1 author keep). The general consensus was that NPCs don't belong in Urban Dead. --Mookiemookie 14:07, 22 May 2006 (BST)


Arson

Author retracted suggestion to rewrite it. --Otware 15:56, 22 May 2006 (BST)


Arson (reworked)

Timestamp: 15:42, 22 May 2006 (BST)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: Arson would require a fuel can, and would cause 2 HP of damage to every zombie or human in the building. XP would be gained in the usual way from the damage done.

In buildings with more than 10 players, the first 10 players would be harmed. This is to stop people with Arson from getting too much XP from an arson attack.

The player who committed the attack would not be harmed, but would obviously be recognised as doing so by everybody else in the building.

Admittedly this skill would mostly be used by PKers in normal circumstances, but would not upset the game because of the large number of fuel cans they would need to do much damage. Arson would be more of an irritation, warning or challenge to players.

At the moment fuel cans are only useful for fueling generators. Generators are only useful in certain situations, and a generator in a building with no purpose can attract unwanted attention, and cause serious harm to the inhabitants. Often the person who refuels a generator will not actually see any personal reward in terms of XP stemming from this themselves. This skill would provide an alternative use for the fuel can, but would not eclipse its use in generators - because they are completely different things.

The messages would be something like this:

<insert name> started a blaze that burned you for 2 damage.
<insert name> started a blaze at the other end of the building.
The smell of smoke lingers around the blackened room (refering to recently arsoned building)
  • There could also be no more than 2 arson attacks on a building in any one day. After the 12 hours the above message (The smell of smoke...) would disappear. Whilst that message is up, another arson attack cannot be made.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author Vote. --Otware 16:00, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill You left out what burning does to the building. Is it completely unaffected? And as you said, it could easily be abused in PKer or death cult situations, where although annoying at only 2 HP a pop, a large group with fuel cans could spam them all down, possibly to weaken them for the incoming horde. It's not that bad for small attacks, but could probably be abused in sieges. --Volke 16:07, 22 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re No more than 2 attacks per day. Would changing search chances like Ransack make it better? --Otware 16:14, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill - Arson would be more of an irritation... I don't think we want that. --Abi79 The Abandoned 16:09, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - You fixed the "multiply it by a billion" thing, but it's pretty much a griefer skill. At only 4 hp in any one day period, its not even a very good griefer skill. Pointless and useless.--Mookiemookie 16:16, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - This would make more sense if instead of arson it was called "Bug Bomb" and instead of fire it was just aerosol insecticide, I could probably vote keep on that. Also, it would probably only affect survivors because zombie has no lungs. -Banana-\(o_-o)/-Bear 16:17, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  6. kill this would work better as a fire bomb but then people would complain about area attacks so it would still fail! we do need more use for the fuel cans though and some sort of weapon is the obvious choice.--Honestmistake 16:36, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep - Yes, it would be used for griefing -- but so are shotguns. However, it would also be a good way to "soften up" a zed-infested building before getting down to the real work of killing and dumping. Besides, fire is fun. I'm unclear on why that 3rd arson attack doesn't work, and what happens to the user attempting it (what's the message, do they lose the fuel can?) but I'm feeling magnanimous so I'll overlook that. --John Ember 16:46, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  8. Abstain - I don't like the flavor, but I don't see anyhing really wrong with it. --Dan 17:00, 22 May 2006 (BST)
    • This is not a valid vote. --Mookiemookie 18:03, 22 May 2006 (BST)
    • That's the idea. Abstain: 2. To refrain from voting: Forty senators voted in favor of the bill, 45 voted against it, and 15 abstained. [1] --Dan 18:41, 22 May 2006 (BST)
    • But the best way to abstain is just not to vote...that's what I do. --Otware 18:46, 22 May 2006 (BST)
    • Precisely. This is not a discussion page. We have one of those. This is a voting page. If you're going to abstain then you don't vote, i.e. you don't put anything here. --Mookiemookie 19:34, 22 May 2006 (BST)
    • Removed the invalid part of the vote. Amusingly enough, this probably has already wasted more bandwidth than all the abstentions that would otherwise have ever been posted, combined. --Dan 20:15, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill - No... Just no... It's hard enough to stay alive as it is. - Paradox244 1:51 PM, May 22, 2006 (EST)
  10. K33P - This suggestion is utterly ridiculous :D --Rozozag 18:57, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  11. Spam - 10 xp per can of fuel (or 20 if you have 10 zombies to toss it at)? Artificial limit on uses per day? About 98% of suggestions with those limits have them because they are otherwise utterly broken. This is still broken. And the limitation screws up the flavor. --McArrowni 19:40, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill - See above. Velkrin 19:44, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  13. Kill - A mostly pointless PKer skill. Hard to use, but come on, 20 damage per AP to use? This would get abused and hard. Meh. --Zaruthustra-Mod 20:04, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - This would need to do something to the building. Two attacks per day is a nice try, but makes no sense. I don't think arson damage should give ANY XP at all so as to lower the incentive to PK/grief with it and maybe make it a tactical skill. Think about it, PKers just running from safehouse to safehouse, firebombing them for 20 xp every two ap? Multiply it by a million and it's dead. As well 'only damages the first ten'? Does this mean that the same 10 people keep getting arsonised? I don't think we necessarily need another use for an item you have to go out of your way to find. Thanks for the attempt, I wouldn't mind seeing a revision, but this one wouldn't work in my opinion. --Burgan 19:56, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  15. Spam - Basically, this went spammy once I got to the part of 10-20 guaranteed XP and 20 guaranteed damage in a packed house... per fuel can. That's just psychotically unbalanced. --Timid Dan 20:47, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  16. Spam - See above. --Swmono talk - W! - SGP 20:49, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  17. Kill - Irredeamably imbalanced. Multiply by a thousand. --Dread Lime 21:30, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  18. Spam - OMG! BUDDHIST MONKS ON FIRE Sonny Corleone WTF 21:51, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  19. Spam "Admittedly this skill would mostly be used by PKers in normal circumstances, but would not upset the game because of the large number of fuel cans they would need to do much damage. Arson would be more of an irritation, warning or challenge to players." So it's a suggestion to allow PKers to annoy people? Fantastic! --Jon Pyre 21:58, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  20. Spam - I particular enjoyed the bit where he says we can use it to "challenge other players". At last, the days of puffing out our throats and screeching as loudly as possible are behind us! --Undeadinator 22:10, 22 May 2006 (BST) (Edit: And somebody really should just making a FLAMING BUDDHISTS template and have it done with.)
  21. Spam - ARE WE WITNESSING THE BIRTH OF A NEW MATTIATOR??? Seriously. This is like his third spammy suggestion in a day. --GreedoCDF - WTF - U! 23:45, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  22. Kill - I loke the idea behind a low damage area attack. But I have to vote kill because its too easy to gain lots of XP, and there is no real reason given as to why people can't light a second. Solve those 2 problems and you'll have my vote (unless another problem comes up) --Teksura 00:35, 23 May 2006 (BST)
  23. Kill - Multiple targets at once = BAD. Agent Heroic 01:29, 23 May 2006 (BST)
  24. Spam - WTF FLAMING BUDDHIST CENTAURS!--Wifey 04:34, 23 May 2006 (BST)
  25. Kill - Wastes Fuel! ... and what Wifey said. --Spraycan Willy MalTel 04:39, 23 May 2006 (BST)
  26. Spam - Unsalvagable. If you got lucky, you could earn 120 XP with ONE fuel can/attack.--Pesatyel 05:22, 23 May 2006 (BST)

Item-based Specialization

Timestamp: 17:41, 22 May 2006 (BST)
Type: New items
Scope: Survivors
Description: Currently, survivors have no real way to specialize, and little incentive to organize. If we got a modest bonus from items bulky enough that it's not worthwhile to have all kinds, that would present a choice of what to specialize in, while leaving those who want to remain generalists free to do so without penalty.

For necrotechs:
Serum pump, syringe adaptor, and battery pack: Each is a two-slot item. If you have all three, you can do revives for only 5AP instead of 10.

For healers:
Medical Reference volume I, volume II, and volume III: Each is a two-slot item. If you have any one of them, you heal an extra 1HP when doing surgery in a powered hospital (16 instead of 15). If you have any two of them, you also heal an extra 1HP for every FAK used with First Aid skill (11 instead of 10 normally, and 17 instead of 15 if using surgery). If you have all three, you also heal an extra 1HP regardless of skills (6 instead of 5 for no skill, 12 instead of 10 normally, and 18 instead of 15 in a hospital).

For shooters:
Bandoleer, speedloader, shellholder, reloading die, bullet puller, and priming tool: These are one-slot items. If you have all six, when you load a pistol clip it fills in partially loaded pistols; your pistols hold nine rounds and your shotguns hold three.

The necrotech items would displace half the trash found in NT buildings, the medical books would displace half the newspapers found in hospitals, and the shooting gear would displace half the flakjaks and flares found in police departments. So in addition to the hefty investment of inventory space, it would take a fair amount of searching to accumulate any set.

Votes

  1. Author keep --Dan 17:41, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep - Sounds ok to me. We need a way to make characters less similar because when they reach the higher levels they are all the same. -- Krazy Monkey 18:11, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill - Would tip the balance against zombies, its overpowered, I would be able to do about 8 revives a day. Ammo space for shotgun would increase. Though the medic part isnt that bad. Whitehouse 18:13, 22 May 2006 (BST)
    moved discussion to talkpage.--Vista W! 19:55, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - We do need to customise the characters a bit at high levels, but this just seems too complicated and it meddles with the game balance. If you do the same for the zombies, I might support it. --Otware 18:16, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - The idea of items being used to improve skills does have some appeal but this suggestion is not well enough refined, do keep on trying though --Etherdrifter 19:14, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - You're close. I like the "use inventory space" as a way of limiting the specialization. Just something I can't quite put my finger on that makes it not work. Maybe the numbers? Not sure...--Mookiemookie 19:47, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - Don't mess with the revive AP cost. --John Ember 19:51, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - Great idea! Kill for my two cents of revisions. Try making these fairly rare to find, and put them in out of the way places. Try spreading them out as well, one medical tome to libraries, one to hospitals, one to NT buildings. Syringe adapter in NT buildings, Serum pump in the hospital, battery pack in auto repair/factory or maybe even power stations, since 5AP revives is pretty potent. And spread the shooter stuff out between PDs, Mall Gun Shops, and Forts; I know forts are rare, but shooters would just own. Make people have to go questing across town to get their 'high level outfit'. I'd also recommend high level skills as a pre-req, preferably make three skills for each (partial load pistol, overload pistol, overload shotgun, each medical tier, and increment down revive AP to 9,7,5 with each skill). Also necessary is a high level zombie skill, but lets not vote kill for that reason, how about we try and come up with something for the zombies instead of shooting this one down? --Burgan 20:16, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill - I'm not a fan of the changes to firearms. Somehow I think that shotguns with 3 shells per makes my head spin. I'm REALLY not a fan of the changed AP cost to revives. 10 AP is perfect as it is now and I'd like to see that not changed. I'm vaguely indifferent on the extra HP for heals. --Timid Dan 20:50, 22 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - I quote: "...most shotguns in Britain (where many believe Malton is located) are legally limited to only three shells[2]." --Dan 22:21, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - What Timid Dan said. --Swmono talk - W! - SGP 20:53, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  11. Spam - Great way to hurt zombies. Sonny Corleone WTF 21:52, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill Unneeded boost, plus 3 shell shotgun with 2 barrels = WTF Centaurs. --Jon Pyre 21:59, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  13. Spam - HURRRRRRRRR! --Undeadinator 22:08, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - I like the idea of the suggestion, and Burgan made some good points on how to improve it. However, guns do not need any more help - they are already a bit of a specialization. Tailor the idea in the direction of what Burgan and you got a keep from me. --Darkstar949 23:28, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  15. Spam - What Undeadinator said. --GreedoCDF - WTF - U! 23:47, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  16. Kill - Even with what Burgan said, as soon as you get all the items, youre far from the bulk of the Urban Dead population, like some "elite", and i dont like that at all. One of the reasons Urban Dead is so great is because even the most experienced players have the fear of logging on dead, theres nothing you can do about that. Theres no "very slim search rate" that can balance so great advantages, because as soon as someone finds these items, they keep them FOREVER. --Matthew Fahrenheit 23:54, 22 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - The suggestion doesn't contain any "very slim search rate". The bulk of the UD survivor population would have the items for one specialization in about a week. What's supposed to balance the usefulness is the fact that you've got six things cluttering up your inventory. And it wouldn't protect them from waking up dead. --Dan 00:20, 23 May 2006 (BST)
  17. Kill - I'm voteing kill because you broke my double barrel shotgun by shoveing a third shell in it. Try again but think things through all the way --Teksura 00:39, 23 May 2006 (BST)
  18. Spam - HAY GUYZ LETS ASSFUCK ZMOBIES LOL KAY? Long story short, it's completely fucking unnecessary. - CthulhuFhtagn 01:10, 23 May 2006 (BST)
  19. Spam - In after WTF CENTAURS Agent Heroic 01:30, 23 May 2006 (BST)

Personal tools
advertisements