Suggestions/22nd-Nov-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

Power Stations V8.5

Timestamp: Labine50 MH|ME|P 01:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Type: Building Change
Scope: Power Stations?
Description: Power stations in the city now work only through a tonne and a half of work from survivors, however due to downed power lines, transformer damage and the occasional zombie chewing through a power cord, blackouts are to be expected, meaning that only one suburb will ever be powered at a time. Every other day at the server reset, one suburb is picked at random and (almost) the suburb will remain powered for two days. There are 6 power station squares in Malton, for each one of them that is powered by a generator, one sixth of the suburb chosen will be powered, rounding up if necessary. No, 6 tiny little generators are NOT powering 10 buildings at a time, They’re turning on the lights so survivors can see what they’re doing and operate the controls. Due to zombies chewing through power cords and messing around with breakers and fuses, ransacked buildings will not be powered. Also, existing generators stop using fuel when powered by a power station, and naturally, the stats page would show which suburb got the power for those two days. Since it affects about 60 buildings a day, I don't think this is over-powered, (There's a pun there, I know it...) and I’d also like to take a second to thank everyone who has helped make this into a decent suggestion.

Keep Votes
For Votes here

  1. Author Keep - After this, there is a very good chance I'm going to put this thing to bed. It's gone on too long.--Labine50 MH|ME|P 01:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Keep - Not overpowered, because it has as much chance of picking Shearbank as it does Ridleybank (even with the second Battle going on, most of the suburb is not occupied). Meaning that it has as much chance of providing a short-time boost as it does of wasting itself.--J Muller 01:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Eh, I like it and it isn't broken. --ExplodingFerret 03:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Keep If the Power stations couldn't power Malton at one point then why do they exist? Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 04:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Keep - this is near perfect suggestion - it adds fun to the game - who's going to win the power lottery today? Plus, it's certainly not overpowered, plus it'll make the power stations focal points (a good thing, like the new forts, taking the pressure away from mall-centric play). This is all good. Powering 6 suburbs (as per the kill voters) would be overpowered. The spammers just sound like mindless parrots: "You can't power Malton! SQUAAAWWWK You can't power Malton! SQUAAAWWK". Have they even read the suggestion? It's not saying it'll power the whole city - just a percentage of a single suburb. --Funt Solo 10:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    Re - They probably read V 1.0 and have just been voting spam ever since. This is the 14th or so revision, I'm not going any further with it.--Labine50 MH|ME|P 19:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Electrifying! Better then my power station ideas I summited months ago(yes I see a few of my concepts such as the ransack building thing and such...)! But really...I still think there should be an Electrician skill just to get those power stations up and running! --Axe Hack 13:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. I like it. We could bet ammo on where power will be next. --CrimsonD 13:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Ok - Makes sense (the portable generators only offer enough power for the bare minimum of the power station equipment to work, thus only allowing that equipment to create a small amount of power), not too powerful, and gives power stations a purpose. And it's not like zombies can't sabotage it by ransacking buildings or attacking the power station. --Reaper with no name TJ! 14:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Keep - If at first you don't succeed... --Paradox244 W! TJ! 19:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Keep - Don't give up now! --Wfjeff 06:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Kill Votes
Against Votes here

  1. Change - On the whole, it's a very good idea . . . however, I think it's just a weensy bit underpowered. You can see my reasons and suggestions on the Talk page. --Sgt. John TaggartUNIT 11/5 WCDZ TJ! 01:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Underpowered.--Pesatyel 04:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. I agree it's underpowered. Make it one suburb per square, six suburbs maximum at a time. 6/100 isn't overpowering, it's just a fun surprise now and then. Makes power plants important locations to give random people a bonus but entirely altruistically since this only has a 3/50 chance of actually benefitting the suburb the plant is in. --Jon Pyre 04:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Change Treat a power station like we do cell towers now -- operational for the entire burb only if fueled, occupied, and caded/non-ransacked. Buildings in the burb with the station will be lit only if a fueled generator is running OR if occupied and caded/non-ransacked. Asheets 21:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Change To weak, make each one power one suburb, then I give it a keep. Afterall free power to 6% of the city isn't that much. Otherwise it's fine. --Lord Evans 02:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - Not only is the whole idea unrealistic, it takes away from the general flavor of the game. Needing a generator and fuel to enhance search odds are part of the game- and messing with that takes away part of it. --Joe O'Wood 02:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. It's Dead!! Just let it die!' - Powerstations can't power malton. They just can't. --Officer Johnieo 03:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    Re - ...Because most cities build power stations just for looks, It's not like these ever did anything, they were just there chewing up tax payers money for no good reason, right?--Labine50 MH|ME|P 19:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    not that reality has anything to do with this game, but most big cities use a mix of in town and out-of-town power supplies. Therefore, I'd believe that a Malton power station could only power 1 or 2 burbs at the most. Asheets 21:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    Re - Thanks Asheets, but that's a non author re so get ready to get that coment deleted. The fact is Powerstations are too damn complicated. You can't buy a "engineering" skill and suddenly know how they work. Or a 6 year mechanical degree either. If you ask me, we should just all come to a consesus that the powerstations were A:Bombed to pieces, B: Run on coal (which we don't have any), or C: Realize that powerstations are never ever going to be repaired! --Officer Johnieo 00:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Spam - As Johnieo.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 06:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Spam - Jesus. This thing is still going? Cyberbob  Talk  13:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    Re - Yes. Yes it is.--Labine50 MH|ME|P 19:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Lame. Rheingold 04:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Spam - "Lame." QFT. --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 14:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Spamthe powerstations would have a city effect making the suburbs carrying them top priority,If your going to have powerstaions power anything, it should only be in its own suburb that it is in. Which would only be 2 Think of the hordes on the other end like the Big Bash, when partying in that suburb they would have to hit the power plants.--Wbleak24 04:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Necrotech HQ

suggest_time=J Muller 04:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Author Removed for Revision


Limited Free Run and Door Opening without Skills v2

Timestamp: Reaper with no name TJ! 15:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Type: game mechanic
Scope: Survivors without Free Running and Zombies without Memories of Life
Description: For each side, there is an essential skill without which they can never expect to do very much good. For survivors, that skill is free running. For zombies, that skill is memories of life. Survivors without free running are effectively prohibited from most survivor-held buildings. Zombies without memories of life cannot enter most survivor-held buildings on their own; they must rely on others to open the door for them and hope they can get inside before the door is closed by survivors. For these skills, there are no options. One must have them if they expect to be able to do much. But why should these two skills be so key to the game when most other skills in the game aren't even half as important? The answer is that they shouldn't be. Newbie survivors should be able to get around without free-running, and newbie zombies should be able to enter buildings without memories of life at least some of the time.

This suggestion will serve to make free running and memories of life just a little less vital to players (though still just as effective) by allowing newbie players to have a limited ability to perform them without the skill.

For surviors who don't have free-running, there will be a new button and drop down on their screen. The button will read "Jump" and the options will be "North", "South", "East", and "West". When the button is pushed, a warning will come up informing them that they might fall due to their lack of skill. If they hit "yes", then they will attempt to free-run in that direction (they can't go diagonally). If they succeed, then all is well. But if they fail, then they will recieve this text: "You try to jump to the next building but fall short. Instinctively rolling as you hit the ground, you manage to avoid the brunt of the fall and take 15 damage". At this point they will have taken 15 damage (of course) and will be outside the building that they tried to free-run into. The odds of this "pre-free run" failing will be 50%.

As for the zombies, those who don't have memories of life and try to open doors will have a 10% chance of successfully fumbling them open.

Now, for some concerns about the "Pre-Free Running" that must be addressed (the same arguments can be applied to fumbling doors open, though):

"This Nerfs Free Running!"

Does it make Free Running pointless (or even anything approaching it)? No. Therefore, it does not nerf Free Running. Unless you want to be falling out of buildings right and left, then you're still gonna want Free Running. Making a skill a little less vital does not make it less effective or powerful. As long as Free Running is more powerful than this, then there is no "nerfing" going on. If we started to define "nerfing" as simply the act of making something in the game less vital (no matter what the degree), then pistols would nerf shotguns and shotguns would nerf pistols, because the existence of each makes the other less vital to the game. In fact, the same can be said of any two items in the game of a similar type: Axes and knives nerf each other, bats and lengths of pipe nerf each other, etc. This "pre-free run" in just that; a free run to use before you get the official, better free run.

"Yeah, well what's the difference then, if they're just gonna get Free Running right away anyway?"

The difference is that now you have a choice. If you want, you can hold off on the Free Running for a little while and buy Diagnosis instead. And besides, you wouldn't be able to do this "pre-free run" between buildings more than 2 times on average without falling. This would still leave some buildings that you wouldn't be able to get into without Free Running.

"Well, now Free Running isn't an absolutely essential skill!"

First of all, how is that bad? This game is supposed to be about choice, especially when it comes to how you build your character. A beginning scientist or doctor is practically helpless until they get their first 150 XP and purchase Free Running (assuming, of course, that they don't spend it on a cheaper skill).

"Hey, if I could survive as a low level, then so can the newbs!"

First of all, that's not necessarily true. The game is different now than it was when each of us were leveling up. A different set of circumstances, areas (which can have a HUGE effect on someone's survivability/leveling), and players are before today's newbs than there was yesterday. It is entirely possible that there are some people out there who legitimately can't seem to survive more than a day without being killed. Most of those people will likely leave the game.

Second of all, just because you survived through something doesn't mean others should have to have it just as hard. Let's go back to a time when zombies were little more than a joke. More specifically, the time of the old headshot. Now, let's say you are a zombie who managed to level up despite that. Would you think that all new ombie players should have to deal with losing all their XP every time they are headshot? I doubt it. Here we have the same thing. Just because a suggestion will give newbies an edge that newbies of yesterday didn't have doesn't mean that today's newbies shouldn't have that ability. Otherwise there would be few or no peer reviewed suggestions, because everyone would be against suggestions that added anything that wasn't around when they were leveling up.

"OMG ZERGERS!!!!1one!"

All right, let me tell you something right off the bat: any suggestion that can benefit a player but doesn't directly punish zerging can be abused by zergers. Consider a recently peer reviewed suggestion about adding radios to a firefighter's starting equipment. A zerger could create tons of firefighters and use them for the purpose of spying on dozens of different radio broadcasts at once. And what about the (also recently peer reviewed) suggestion to change around the starting items in order to balance the classes? If I recall correctly, part of that involved giving medics a knife. Now, medics and doctors are already ideal for zerging (their starting skill hampers their own XP gain, but helps out other players; perfect for zergers), so this could give them a big edge. Now, a zerger may not have to go to the trouble of creating a small army of firefighters for combat; they can use the army of medics that they normally use for healing. Sure, they won't be as effective, but that's easily fixed by sending more medics than they would have sent firefighters. Do you see where I'm going with this? Almost anything in the game can be abused by zergers. And even if something like this didn't exist, a zerger's army of firefighters/medics/whatever is bound to get enough XP sooner or later to buy Free Running on their own. And while we're at it, let's point out that it be just as effective (if not more effective) to just have their zerg characters tear down the barricades of the building, rather than having them all do an action that only has a 50% success rate and does 15 damage upon failure.

So, in conclusion: Under this suggestion, free running and memories of life will no longer be as critical to everyone's repertoire of skills, yet at the same time will still be very desireable because they are either much more effective (fumbling open the doors) and/or less risky (jumping to another building).

Keep Votes
For Votes here

  1. Author Keep - If you're gonna vote kill or spam on this, at least read the whole thing first. Yeah, I know it's long, but just bear with me. --Reaper with no name TJ! 15:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Non-Author Keep - Reasonably useful, increases newbie survival rate (which means they're less likely to get frustrated and give up), isn't hideously over- or underpowered . . . I say this is a Good and Worthy Suggestion. Resistance is futile - this suggestion WILL be assimilated. So says Taggart of Borg! --Sgt. John TaggartUNIT 11/5 WCDZ TJ! 18:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Keep - Yeah, that's right, I said it! I stole ya motha's credit! (I heard that in a movie one time.) Waluigi Freak 99 00:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep/Change I like it but I think with such a harsh penalty on the pre-free running skill no one will use it. I would change it to a 10% chance of success, 80% chance of failing, and 10% chance of failing with 10 damage. Also, for all the spam votes, please guys, there's no need to be a dick about it. Didn't your mother teach you any manners? If you just don't like the suggestion, vote kill and give a reason politely. You have to give actual logic behind why it's spam if you vote spam. And if you don't want to read the suggestion, you don't have to, just don't vote on it. Unsigned vote -Pesatyel 07:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill I see where you're coming from Reaper, but I maintain that the entire purpose of the free running and MoL skills are that they're conveniences that have to be earned. --Panserbjørn 19:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • re - They're not convienences. They are skills that you absolutely have to get in order to do anything in this game. No skill should be that important. --Reaper with no name TJ! 16:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Kill - I just don't see how this makes it any easier for newbs. If anything, the "Pre-Free Running" part will frustrate them more, making them wonder why they fell, and why they take so much damage. they may not know how much damage they're aobut to possibly take, and could end up killing themselves inadvertantly. Sorry, it just doesn't make much sense. Besides all that, there's a "One suggestion per suggestion" rule. --Blue Command Vic DvB 01:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Kill - I voted keep for the older version but this one makes pre-free running too dangerous to be worthwhile. --Wfjeff 06:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Kill - Choices people your worried about newbs not getting into safe places,there is a character class to start with. Its called a Scout, with this it dampens the benefits of starting a scout.--Wbleak24 04:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. kill make players earn skills Asheets 16:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - Im sorry, its just that people have to earn these things. Sure these "Pre-skills" have some danger but i still think that people should have to work at it instead of getting lazy.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 16:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Spam - I bet you a ka-zillion dollars you could have written that in a single sentence. My reason for voting spam is that you're taking the piss with the length of this suggestion. If I'm called on that, I'll actually read it and come up with another reason. --Funt Solo 16:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re - Actually, the vast majority of it is pre-emptive counter-arguments to what most people will inevitably be thinking of. --Reaper with no name TJ! 16:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re - If it needs that many counter-arguments then something must be seriously wrong with it. --Funt Solo 17:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Spam - They're skills, you have to earn them. Also, as I said before: I don't like the idea of %-to-fail actions that damage you when you fail. This would also make buildings that much easier to get into. When my zed was leveling, it was prevented from getting into several buildings, though it had plenty of AP, by those pesky doors. If you're trying to balance by making barricades worse, this is not the way to do it.--J Muller 18:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Starting characters are supposed to be weak and uncomplicated. --ExplodingFerret 19:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re-Uncomplicated? Maybe (although this isn't even as complicated as tuning a radio, which any survivor can do). Weak? Not necessarily. They're supposed to be less effective than veterans, but not by that much. One of the features of UD is the relative equality between newbies and vets. But without some sort of limited Free-Running or door-opening, Newbies are effectively nerfed completely. This helps fix that. --Reaper with no name TJ! 01:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Even with all your fancy arguments you have to realize that there is no defense against this one : You have to earn your skills. --Officer Johnieo 00:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re - Actually, there is, and it's fairly simple. Just because you have to earn your skills doesn't mean that you shouldn't be allowed to have much weaker versions as starting abilities. Remember back when starting zombies had a crappy hit percentage and Kevan changed it by taking away some of the benefits of Death Grip and gave it to the starting zombies? This is the same thing. It benefits newbies but doesn't buff veterans. That's all it is. Furthermore, under your line of logic, one could make the argument that people without basic firearms training shouldn't be able to operate firearms at all, or that people without diagnosis shouldn't be able to use FAKs at all. --Reaper with no name TJ! 01:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Spam I think Funt said it best: If it needs that many counter-arguments then something must be seriously wrong with it. And, yes it STILL nerfs Free Running (a % chance doesn't mean squat as a counter). And comparing XP-Headshot to having to open doors is the most asinine argument I've ever read.--Pesatyel 07:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re- I'm not comparing them. I'm using it as an example of the fact that saying that today's newbies should have it as hard as we did doesn't hold water. And having a lot of counter-arguments only means that there are many people who are vehemently opposed to this idea. Whether or not there is actually something wrong with it is entirely independent of that. Furthermore, saying there must be something wrong with a suggestion due the presence of many counter-arguments (and not actually mentioning a specific reason) is hardly justifiable as a valid reason for a vote. Now, as for saying that adding a failure % doesn't mean squat, then under that logic axes must be better than knives for starting characters, because they have higher damage and the 10% difference in success odds (ie, accuracy) doesn't mean anything. --Reaper with no name TJ! 01:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    It's still a shitty example. XP headshot was the single biggest nerf to newbies ever in the game. At least with MoL ONE zombie can open the door for 100. Not being able to open door is still a relatively minor inconvience (that's why ZKing is okay by most zombies) I said it doesn't mean squat because this ISN'T a skill. It is a GAME MECHANIC. Big difference. The first is earned through experience, the second is something ANYONE can do. It has nothing to do with "newbies having to go through what we went through." Why don't we give "pre" versions of ALL the skills, including zombie ones? Just slap on a % chance it doesn't work. Zombies SHOULD work in hordes. THAT is how they work best. Survivors SHOULD work in groups. That's the best way for them to survive. If a player doesn't want to do that they should accept the consequences of those decisions.--Pesatyel 05:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Spam Yeah...no. --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 14:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Weapon Unloading

Removed as a Dupe with 3 Dupe votes. --Funt Solo 08:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


Personal tools
advertisements