Suggestions/26th-Jan-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

VOTING ENDED: 9th-Feb-2006

Group Leaders

Timestamp: 02:40, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Survivors
Description: Groups were recently legitimized by tracking group memebership but despite that its pretty hard for groups to organize in game. It's impossible for a person to talk to everyone in rooms with more than 50 people which while saving server load negates the ability for group leaders to give instructions. What if your members are in the second fifty that you cannot communicate with? Here's a small change I think would help: Group Leaders. People could select their leaders, nothing would be forced on anyone. The only purpose of this skill is to aid communication.

How Leadership Works

Every person in their profile currently has a space to enter group affiliation. I suggest adding an additional two fields to fill that would let you enter two player names of your choice. Quite simply this is all selecting these two people would do: If you're members of the same group and mutual contacts and in the same place they can hear everything you say and you can hear everything they say, whether or not you're in the same fifty people. Their dialogue is underlined and bolded for each other so its easier to pick out in case there are a lot of dialogue messages. Everyone else would still hear them as normal. You could change these two people at will or leave the fields blank.

Purpose

The idea behind this is that you could select the two people you want to be leader and second in command (or co-leader), and everyone in a group would put them down. This way the leaders would always be able to talk to their group members and group members would always be able to talk to their leaders. You wouldn't necessarily need to have a Leader and Second in Command of the whole group, they could be co-leaders, leaders of only a few members of that group, you could have different leaders for different members/areas, or four people with their own group could just select their buddies and always be certain they'd be able to talk with each other. In that regard this isn't necessarily "leadership" but "being able to talk to two close friends of your choice in game."

Is this balanced?

This only restores a small part of what survivors used to have: being able to talk to everyone in the room and hear everyone in the room. That was balanced but only altered because of server issues. Those server issues would be avoided by limiting that "talk to everybody" freedom to only two people per player. I think it's fair that if I'm in a building with someone I want to listen to and who wants to talk to me I should be able to hear them.

Votes

  1. Kill Not the best implementation to achieve the result you are going for.--Matthew Stewart 03:02, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Want to fix a communication problem ? Good. Dont create another problem for that. Comment: You want everyone in your group to hear what you say ? Then say that "People in the same group as you counts first in the 50 people" to receive your message. This is a much better suggestion. --hagnat 03:12, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT) edit: incorporated comment by Hagnat directly below his vote into his vote to save space/clean up. --Jon Pyre 06:18, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re You all misunderstand. It isn't a vote for who gets to be group leader of everyone. It's a way of selecting which two members in your group you want to be able to talk to. Different people in the same group would select whoever they want. Zerging would accomplish absolutely nothing because all that would do is make 500 characters that could talk to the selected leader, provided they were all on his/her contact list. It would not change anything for anyone else in any way whatsoever. --Jon Pyre 03:15, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - I suppose I did misunderstand, but my vote still stands. What we need is not this, we just need the full list back. Any effective group needs forums. Besides, it does sounds rather complicated. --Martin Odum 03:19, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re How would it be used to grief? It can only affect people that choose to do this of their own volition. You pick your own leader. You need to be mutual contacts with the other parties. Where is the potential for griefing? --Jon Pyre 05:37, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - This is why groups generally have forums of their own. - CthulhuFhtagn 03:28, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re I think that's a flawed argument. I like playing in game. Metagaming is a necessary evil. This small change would fix that. I talk to other people in game. I don't want to IM them or email them or use a forum to plan. What's the big deal about letting you select two people you want to be able to talk to in crowded buildings? You could still metagame if you want and any player who didn't want to talk in game could completely ignore this. --Jon Pyre 05:39, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - "... they can hear everything you say and you can hear everything they say ..." - This means that every single person in the building will have to be checked every time you talk (to see if your name is in their list of two people) - which basically brings back the problem that caused the "fifty people nearest to you" thing. --Signal9 05:21, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • ReHow difficult would it really be I wonder? If anyone with a thorough knowledge of computer programming could respond I'd appreciate it. I don't think it'd necessarily have to check every name. --Jon Pyre 05:37, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Anything so important that your group must be told, wouldn't be told in such an insecure medium anyway. Rhialto 07:31, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill to complicated with to much going through the leaders for it to be effective. too vulnarable for griefer to take it out by targetting the leaders.--Vista 11:39, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - So... I enter a building, change my profile, click leader and wait. The Im told who my first target is. Now where was this skill when D.A.R.I.S was around?--Carilgar 17:51, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - They all beat me to it. See above reasons. Bentley Foss 18:31, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 0 Keep, 9 Kill, 0 Spam - 18:32, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Off The Roof

Spaminated with 4 kills and 3 spams. Violates the "if you hit someone they should be able to hit you back" rule. --Signal9 05:57, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)


Making Covert Actions Conform to the Real World

Timestamp: 07:07, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Common Sense
Description: Destroying a generator in a building full of survivors or murdering someone is a pretty difficult action to pull off without anyone noticing. However it can be done, it is possible to destroy and kill and then make your escape to another part of the building before anyone can spot you. The more people there are however the more difficult this is. Killing someone in an empty hallway or floor of a building is easier to pull off secretly than one milling with people. There's just a greater chance of there being a witness who catches you doing the deed. It's the difference between attacking someone in a dark alley and attacking someone in an auditorium full of people. Therefore I suggest that whenever a survivor kills a fellow survivor or destroys a generator indoors there is a 5% chance for each other survivor in the room that their identity will be revealed to everyone, up to a maximum chance of 95%. If you think those odds are too high why don't you try doing something obvious and illegal in a room with 19 other people and see if you can succeed more than one in twenty times. There would always be a minimum 5% chance of getting away with it, following the logic that even under the most difficult conditions its possible to succeed at being stealthy. The messages would be simple: "MaltonDude was caught destroying the generator" "MaltonDude was caught over the body of SurvivorMan." This is not caught as in "physically caught and captured" but rather caught as in "spotted by someone/caught red handed/caught in the act". Everyone in the room would see these. It shouldn't result in spam because PKing and Generator Destruction would not keep recurring in one location because perpetrators would have to keep moving or be caught eventually. It's good flavor too for criminal roleplayers. What's the fun of being a criminal if you aren't on the run from Johnny Law? And it's good flavour for those who want to be an awakened zombie angry at the living. "That zombie we brought back reverted and went on a killing spree! He murdered SurvivorMan! Why was I such a fool to revive MaltonDude?! We shouldn't have played God! Now he's out there, a living man with the killing instinct of the walking dead. What have I done... Mea culpa."

Votes

  1. Keep Author vote. Because it makes sense. And not in that "this is a zombie game that doesn't need to make sense" kind of sense. The good kind of sense, the kind of sense that makes the game better. The kind of sense along the same lines as "Zombies should have an infectious bite" or "Guns should need ammunition". --Jon Pyre 07:25, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep Rhialto 07:28, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep Nice one, I like it. - Whitehouse 07:36, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - I do not like it, plain and simple - --ramby 07:54, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep Makes Sense, although maybe not such a quick increase, as in crowds, it is easier to go un-noticed --RAF Private Chineselegolas 08:00, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Actually it's easier to escape in a crowd, which is what these people would do. It'd be like punching someone during a parade, you'd probably get seen but maybe you could lose yourself in the crowd. --Jon Pyre 16:19, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep Like you said, makes sense. --Pinpoint 08:03, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep I'm always for these things assuming they are well thought out and written. -- S Kruger
  8. Kill I killvoted your two other OMG ZOMBIE SPIES suggestions, and I'm killvoting this one, too. Keep at it and I'll start spamvoting them. --Centerfire 10:58, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re I'd appreciate in your future auto-spam/kill votes if you would refer to them as "OMG ZOMBIE COVERT OPERATIVES" rather than "OMG ZOMBIE SPIES". That's a more accurate terminology. --Jon Pyre 16:24, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep -better, not perfect but good enough. and Centerfire learn the rules of the wiki. Go ahead, start spam voting on reasonable suggestions without any other reason than personal dislike and see how long it'll take for the moderators to strike out your vote for trolling. --Vista 11:27, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - This is an excellent and well thought out idea. --VinLumbtin 12:11, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - I think this will add a lot of flavor. Imagine trying to convince a room full of people that you just killed a random player for something they did in another building. Would they believe it? Or will this be a new tactic used to spread suspicion and malcontent? Either way, I think this will enhance the game tremendously. Only one request, please detail exactly what this will extend to. Generators and Player Death only? Cell Towers? Barricades? I'd like it to be clear what I'm voting on.--Jmwman 04:47, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re It would only extend to Generators and Player Death. I'm excluding barricades because there's really no point. Someone could attack the barricades from outside for the same amount of AP. You can't attack cell towers, just the generators that power them so this would extend to cell towers indirectly through their generators. --Jon Pyre 16:17, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - Common sense, ftw --Mikm 12:49, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - I like it, perhapse give police officers an increased chance to spot the crime?--Etherdrifter 13:43, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep- Its a good idea, not great. There should be a penalty for actualy being caught, A small loss in AP to represent having to escape the people inside. --Kirk Howell 13:44, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep- Death to the zombie spies! --Rani 13:46, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep --Lord Evans 14:43, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. keep - DEATH TO ZOMBIE SPIES! DEATH, I SAY! *clears throat* Ahem, yes, anyway . . . . Even if they're just griefers who like to make things needlessly comlicated for other people, it should be hard for them to get away with it. After all, someone's bound to notice . . . --John Taggart 14:49, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - This is a good idea. In fact, I had an idea similar to this just the other day, but haven't mentioned it or anything. However, I think the messages aren't very good. Something more along the lines of "[someone] killed [so-and-so]." "[somebody] destroyed the generator." "You hear a loud bang as the barricades are attacked outside." Something more along the lines of that, simpler. And perhaps the odds of a PKer or zombie being discovered depends on the number of survivors present in the building. Sorry, I'm giving my own ideas here, but I do like your idea! --Sylanya 17:13, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Oh no problem. If this was implemented it would likely have many changes made to it. None of the suggestions that have been accepted were ever put in the game exactly as they were suggested. --Jon Pyre 17:17, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep People vote against things like this because they don't believe in zombies spies, but even if you don't believe in there ARE griefers who are very real. If this is implimented I am going to suggest a skill with a knife that allows you to kill more secretively because that would give the knife a use and make sense. Also a guard skill suggestion could simply make you count as two people for calculation of covert actions. --Matthew Stewart
  20. Keep - Works well enough. - Norminator 2 17:50, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep - I like. I also like the knife skill addition. --Carilgar 17:58, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - I love people that auto kill ideas based on the topic, without regard to their validity, mechanics, and content. I actually like this better than the other stuff that has been worked on regarding the subject - as it would add another layer of fun to the game. If this gets through & into the game, I might even create a criminal character to see how long I can go without getting caught, much more fun than doing it anonymously. (Bwa-ha-ha, you are unwittingly creating a new evil in Malton - ME! Bwa-ha-ha). --Blahblahblah 18:04, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  23. Kill - I vote kill because I really dislike these "total informational awareness" ideas. Anonimity is one of the benefits of operating in a zombie apocalypse. Everyone else is too busy worrying about themselves to care what the other person does, that's the idea. Bentley Foss 18:49, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re By your reasoning PKers shouldn't even be able to target other survivors because they're too self absorbed in their own issues to pay attention to other people. And generators should be invisible to them because who want stop to destroy a piece of machinery with zombies on the loose? --Jon Pyre 20:58, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  24. Keep - Makes absolute sense. I will probably vote to keep anything that fairly exposes PKers as opposed to the unfair current system. People really need to remember the fact that if you hear gunshots or fighting, you would probably think zombies got in and would immediately turn your attention to any sound of blasting, punching, or breaking. Also, MaltonDude was totally framed. -- Amazing 19:10, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  25. Kill — This is not a game of Clue. Bartle 19:17, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  26. Kill Don't. Argue. For. Realism. And it doesn't foster Survivor/Zombie conflict. It encourages more revenge PKing, which there is already plenty of.--Mookiemookie 19:44, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Realism is worthless unless it follows a needed game mechanic. As I said, guns could have easily been given unlimited ammo like in many other games. But realism and the needs of the game came together and resulted in something good. --Jon Pyre 21:04, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  27. Kill - Just use the damn PK list. Also, zombie spies: serious business. - CthulhuFhtagn 20:29, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re I'd prefer a simple in game mechanic than having to take a screenshot, upload it online, and link to it on a forum. Also, where do you get the idea of "zombie spies"? That's pretty ridiculous since there's no such thing. I'm only referring to PKers and griefers in this suggestion. --Jon Pyre 20:53, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  28. Keep - If I walk into a hospital and smash the emergency generator people will FRIGGIN NOTICE when the lights go out. Revenge PKing isn't a bad thing in of itself, who says the survivors are supposed to be a united force? Definitely not Kevan. FireballX301 22:47, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  29. Keep - I can't say it enough..actions that everyone in a room would be watching for should not be hidden...Keep, keep, keep!! (Fireball, I fixed you vote....you had it as a comment). -- Nicks 22:54, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 23 Keep, 6 Kill Velkrin 23:11, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  30. Kill yup. --Poodge 23:20, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  31. Keep - It'd be nice to know if someone wasn't looking out for everybody's safety. --TheTeeHeeMonster 01:03, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  32. Kill _ You dont like pking? Make a list of those who pk and kill them on sight. The system isnt perfect, but this sort of thing would effectively stamp out an entire style of play, which in my opinion is simply absurd. --Grim s 02:22, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  33. Keep --Perticus 02:24, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  34. Keep - PKing is way too easy right now. --Signal9 02:40, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  35. Keep - honestly, I can't understand why anyone would killvote this unless they were a griefer themselves. --Arcibi 04:38, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  36. Keep - It combines the omnipresent "see what the hell is going on" suggestion with nice flavor and some nice risk. Definite keep. - Skarmory 15:29, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    Change - Make it a 1% chance per survivor with a max at 80% and I'll be happy. --Antrobus178 18:39, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT) - Not a valid vote type. - Velkrin 17:22, 23 May 2006 (BST)
    • Tally Guy Note - Not going to tally because it's already in the game - Velkrin 18:32, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Using Guns

6 Spams and few Kills. Zombies using guns?! Assault Rifle that is worse than fireaxe?! Weapons jamming?! --Brizth 10:12, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Make no further comment.


Last Login

Timestamp: 18:01, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Organisational Improvement
Scope: Profile
Description: Simply put, a category on the profile page that states when the character was last active. The data is already stored, so there would be very little work to implement.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote. --Carilgar 18:02, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - I like it , it should say how many Hours ago they logged in, to make it easier for people that dont wanna do the math between GMT and EST or wherever --Kirk Howell 18:29, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Could be used to figure out who in an area would be most unlikely to attack back. -- Ignatius Newcastle 18:36, 26 January, 2006
  4. Keep - Nice idea, and I agree with Kirk Howell, time zone conversions are messy. Ignatius Newcastle: That would be irrelevant. If there's one person active in an area they're going to attack you whatever you do, unless you're talking about PKers, in which case every PKer worth his salt should just attack the top of the stack. --McDave 18:44, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - People could use this to grief/attack other players in safety--what other purpose could this serve? Not to mention that it's a dupe (which I don't have the time to find right now). Bentley Foss 18:52, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill I'm have a bad day. --Matthew Stewart 19:03, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill If not to greif, then why? Seriously, why have this skill? --Jak Rhee 19:20, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep It would help me clean out the inactive players on my contacts list. Since you can already tell who is and isn't likely to counter attack by their position on the stack, I don't believe it gives any more advantage than one already has. Maybe just give date info, rather than specific time?--Mookiemookie 19:26, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep I'll agree there's some grief potential, but not enough. Really, you can't estimate how soon someone will log on just be seeing when they were last active. I know I play my characters on a completely random schedule, and sometimes only play parts of their AP and come back later. As for knowing who's most likely to fight back, that's already in the game. Bottom of the list. I like this change, because it'll tell me who's around, which of my men have made moves today, etc, etc. --Martin Odum 20:07, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill I don't want people to know when I logged on. --Jon Pyre 20:50, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - I agree with what others have said. - Asrathe 22:15, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - Why is it needed to know more about when people logged in? I can't think of one positive effect from this. that outweights it possible grief potential.--Vista 22:54, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill--Poodge 23:26, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - I hate to vote kill on anything, but this would definitely help PKers immensely while providing very little use for anyone else. :( -- Amazing (Sacred Ground Policy - McZed's™) 01:32, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - But only for the uses Mookiemookie said. So I suggest this only says how long ago one logged in - in days (today/yesterday/two days ago/ 3wks and 5 days ago) - Skarmory 15:32, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 6 Keep, 9 Kill, 0 Spam - 18:32, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Cross-Species Skills

spaminated 3 spam votes and a poorly formated author keep --Matthew Stewart 18:45, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)


Improved searching

Timestamp: 21:28 26 January, 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Humans
Description: I think that humans should have the option of begin more selective when searching a building. If you have 6 DNA extractors and are searching a Necrotech building for syringes, you wouldn't pick up another DNA extractor if you found it: you would just leave it alone. So, I suggest that when searching, humans have the option of only looking for certain items. The way it would work is: you could either do a general search of a building, in which you could find anything that the building holds, or you can specify a certain item that you want to look for. You'd only be able to look for items that you've found in that type of building before (So you wouldn't be able to look for first aid kits in hospitals until you had found one in a general search). The probability of finding that item wouldn't have to increase: I just think this would help reduce the frustration of having to either drop every item you don't want one by one, or leave it in your inventory to clog your screen.

Votes

  1. Dupe - First of all... there's a template. Use it or die. I fixed that for you because it disgusted me too much to look at. Second of all, this is nothign we haven't seen a thousand times before and I hate you, personally, for not LOOKING first and hope to god you never procreate --Jak Rhee 21:59, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment - Dammit, there's something against blatant aggrandizing comments somewhere. Chill out. Disclaimer: I am not the author of this suggestion - FireballX301 22:42, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Comment - He's right, 1st rulein the voting section. Come on Jak - you can't trash him for not reading, when it appears you yourself are not reading either. Disclaimer: I'm not the author either. --Blahblahblah 23:52, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Dupe - It's a dupe...but this vote isn't so petty that it hates anyone. -- Nicks 22:59, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Yes I read to fast and it is marginally different enough. however due to the lack of overpowering unbalancing bonusses the WCDZ feels that this is a stealth zombie skill and decided to kill it. (I think it should be a skill.) Vista 23:03, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT) edited from a dupe vote.
  4. Keep - Sorry fellow WCDZ members, I'm not done with this one yet. This is actually like specific search (http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Peer_Reviewed_Suggestions#Specific_Search) in the peer reviewed, except without the arbitrary search bonuses added to it, and not as a skill, but as an improvement. As such, it's (accidentaly), better than the old one IMHO, and thus not a dupe (because it's a possible improvement over an old suggestion). You are free to disagree, of course, but please read it first--McArrowni 23:06, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT) Actually, the peer-reviewed version didn't have arbitrary bonuses (long story), so the only real difference is wether or not it should be a skill. Sorry for the confusion. I removed my vote, because I just don't care about this one anymore, except for clearing up misconceptions.--McArrowni 00:00, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - I was going to keep, but then I noticed "You'd only be able to look for items that you've found in that type of building before," and thought of our beloved server and of how many times it will need to populate that "search for _____" list: Every time any survivor performs an action, it will have to check which items the current survivor found where and match that to the current location. --Signal9 01:58, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Dupe - See above. Bentley Foss 16:52, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - The server groans and dies from overwork.--The General 20:07, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 0 Keep, 3 Kill, 3 Dupe - 18:32, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Panic / Battle-Hardened

  • Removed by author as a better version of this can apparantly be found here: Fear. Incidentally, why isn't this in the suggestion backlog? Giltwist 02:24, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Wire Cutters Act On Generators In A Similar Manner to Crowbars on Barricades

  • Deleted by author for revision. Formerly: 5 Kill, 1 Keep.

Attacking Generator Without Wire Cutters More Difficult

Timestamp: 23:14, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: New Item Use/Balance Tweak
Scope: Wire Cutters
Description: Looking at the response to the last version of my suggestion, it looks like it's generally thought that destroying a generator is too easy, so no way of making it easier is needed. Therefore, might I suggest that wirecutters now do about the same damage to a generator as is currently done by weapons now, but all other attacks on a fairly sturdy, iron machine do less damage than currently? It'd give wirecutters a use and somewhat balance generator destruction problems.
  • Optional addition: Slight chance of receiving an electrical shock when using wire cutters on a powered generator

Votes

  1. Kill - I just don't see how wire cutters would work better. Am I missing something? This is better than the other one, but still not good enough. --Pinpoint 00:01, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: Might just be my view of a generator, but I'm presuming there's a few thick cables at least that could be snipped through, whilst most of the rest is fairly sturdy and protected. At the least there's the cable that attaches the generator to anything else being powered. Ignatius Newcastle 00:08, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Why would wire cutters be magically better? To me, this sounds more of a way to make wire cutters useful than to improve the game. --Mikm 00:04, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: See above.
      • It isn't all that difficult to repair broken wires. Anyways, cutting a generator wire with basic wirecutters while it is running isn't the brightest of ideas. --Mikm 00:14, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)
        • Fair point. Might invalidate this idea. Ah, well. Such it is with ideas had right before bed. --Ignatius Newcastle 00:17, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill- I know everybody wants a new use for the wirecutters but this isn't the way. It's much easier to just pick up a brick and smash it in as opposed to carefully cuting wires to disconnect it Drogmir 00:18, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill- If you want to make it realistic, why don't you disconnect it, take it to a hotel, and chug it out of a window -_- Sry it's one of my lame jokes. Well anyways, I don't think it'll be good for 1 good reason. The only people who wants to destroy generators are zombies (or pkers, but everyone hates them anyways), not survivors and making the damage less for clawing/ biting would kind of make it pointless then wouldn't it? --Shadow213 00:55, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill Zombies destroy generators by hittign them. Not only do they lack the coordination to use wircutters, but they lack the intellect to cut cables. So this is only usefull for zombie spies and I will kill anythign that helps Zombie Spies. --Jak Rhee 02:05, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - This is what crowbars are for. In this aspect, the game works fine just the way it is--CPQD 04:54, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Because generators are quite easy enough to destroy anyway. Bentley Foss 16:53, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - This is another of those "make all items useful" suggestions.--The General 19:22, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 0 Keep, 8 Kill, 0 Spam - 18:32, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Personal tools
advertisements