Suggestions/9th-Jan-2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to 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 Suggestions • Suggestions up for Voting • Clothes Suggestions
Cycling Suggestions • Peer Reviewed • Undecided • Peer Rejected • Humorous
Suggestion Advice • Topics to Avoid and Why • Help, Developing and Editing

Walkman

Spaminated right off the bat. Three votes, nothin but spam. --Grim s 07:59, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Vomiting

Spaminated. Don't mess with AP. --Mikm 12:43, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Automated Revivification Terminal

Timestamp: 13:50pm EST, Jan 9
Type: Item, Improvement
Scope: Zombies, Survivors
Description: With zombie numbers on the now gradual increase, the already long queues at revivification points can only become longer. Could Necrotech have fabricated a simple device for employees, should the unthinkable happen in isolated research areas? Well, maybe.

The Automated Revivification Terminal is a portable device... well, as portable as a portable generator, at least. It requires no power to function, translating the movement of pulling a sturdy lever into that of thusting forward a heavy-duty needle and squeezing a measure of serum into whatever should be standing in front of it. However, we are talking about zombies here - even this simple action would require some skill; the undead therfore require an extra 'Memory of Life' sub skill to use the Terminal.

Found in Necrotech offices (only by employees with Lab Experience), a Terminal can be placed anywhere (ideally in an area easily accessible to the undead). It will obviously require serum from revivification syringes to be inserted, in the same way that fuel is used in portable generators. Terminals can be likewise be destroyed.

With the automation comes precision; Terminals can stetch a single syringe's content to 3 uses, and can accomodate the total serum from 3 syringes, giving each Terminal a maximum of 9 revives. Not a great deal, but enough to make some difference.

Setting up a Terminal awards 5 XP, and 'charging' with a syringe (as with finding a Terminal, also only done by employees with Lab Experience) will award 3 XP, 2 point less than actually using the syringe on a zombie. Once the Terminal is full, syringes will be refused, but not wasted. There is no way to tell how much serum a terminal contains.

For zombies, there is no difference in the result of using an ART as opposed to being injected manually. Brain Rot infected zombies attempting to use one will waste a dose of serum in the same way.

Game-wise, there should probably be a maximum number of Terminals available - certainly less than 1 per suberb. Once one is destroyed, another would 'become available' at a random Necrotech office in Malton.

All values are open to suggestions of change.

Votes

  1. Kill - Horribly out of genre. Rhialto 14:02, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - First off, the WCDZ tends to not like phrases like "All values are open to suggestions of change." Put the values you think are best... we'll independantly suggestion changing them if they neeed to and you can resubmitt (not alter the current) the suggestion later. Secondly.. bleck. I really dont like anythign automated in this game. UD is unique in that its entirely abotu individuals doing everything. IF we needed more reviving we could always just... oh I don't know... increase the percetange chance of finding syringes when we search. Much simpler coding for same net benefit. --Jak Rhee 14:10, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - This just wouldn't work. If it was outside, zombies would destroy it in matter of minutes. Or brain rotter would spend all the syringes. If it was inside, it wouldn't really help, would it now :) --Brizth 14:15, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - No. I shall inform why I think so in story- 'Mbnnnrrr? brnnr.' :Translation 'Whats this? Ah, a revive machine!' 'Mbrnrnr' :'So what's this, just pull this Big Red Lever here' 'Mrh? Grahhhh! Grahh! Mrrrnah...' :'What? Nothing happened! Bloody one armed Bandit! It stole my Ap! I knew I shouldn't have trusted an automatic machine in a game controlled complety by players.' (Destroys machine and wanders off). -- Andrew McM 14:24, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill -Jak Rhee nuff' said--Vista 15:07, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill votes, SIX ah-ah-ah... (two points for first person to get the referrence) EDIT: I like to put that when all the votes are the same because then the new vote format is like counting...--Matthew Stewart 16:49, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - (I think everybody got the reference, Matthew.) Nothing should be automatic and make certain mechanics (revivification) nearly this simple. Bentley Foss 16:59, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. kill ah-ah-ah Mat. I hate killing due to realism really I do. I cant get over that a zombie should have no Idea he should be revived and if he did why wouldn't all the zombies want to be. Heh though a Necrotech mousetrap system tempting Z's with flesh only to spring a syringe on them would be funny. Still Id kill though. bbrraaiinnss 17:02 Jan 9 2006
  9. Kill - If there are automatic actions that should be in the game, then this is not one of them. Points for creativity though. --Thelabrat 17:09, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - I think that if you have less than one per suburb, it's almost useless, but if you have a number large enough so that it is useful, it's overpowered (making death trivial for survivors). Well thought out, but a new way to do old things. --Signal9 17:49, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. KILL - WTF?!?!? It ruins the fun of trying to find syringes. Make the zombie/survivor imbalance even worse Mattiator 18:09, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    Comment You know.. Im not sure how much of an imblanace there is at the moment, but like I said above, thsi is stil la bad idea --Jak Rhee 18:20, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT) original author responses only
  12. Kill Please add to Humourous section. This really did make me smile Lancensis 20:21, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill Why do you hate zombies? krupintupple 20:25, 9 Jan 2006 (EST)
  14. Kill Im sorry but what the hell areyou thinking, --grassman 02:41, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill I like the basis of this idea however. I have personaly been standing at a revive point with 16 other zombies for two days now, and I figure it will take at least another day before I'm revived. However, if a terminal were to come into play, it would be independant of survivors (Except them inserting needles for 0 XP) and rare, maybe one in 9 suburbs. That's just how I see it working, but whatever. --Scorpios 3:49, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - I don't like automatisms to do something players already do. Unnecessary. --Seagull Flock 11:17, 17 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - Being revived should be hard! --Mr NoName 20:08, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill ...but I do so weakly. Good flavor; But poor when considered in game for many of the reasons above. --MorthBabid 20:32, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT) Note: Late. Getting tired of these. 19:32, 18 May 2006 (BST)
    • Final Tally - 0 Keep, 18 Kill, 0 Spam - 19:18, 18 May 2006 (BST)

Headshot Revision

Timestamp: 17:38, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: change
Scope: Zombie hunters
Description: It's a small change: Make Headshot remove the APs instantly, not when the zombie rises.

My reason: The way it is, if a zombie is headshot during live combat (I know live combat is rare, but believe me, it happens), he might just stand back with -4AP and be a meatshield once again. It takes longer to cleanse a building that way, because the zed you just killed might pop back up, and you might shoot it instead of a dying one. On the other side, if the APs are removed when the zed is killed, it might wait longer before getting up, and get up full.

If this sounds too broken, there's an option of making it remove more AP (maybe 10?), obviously at the time of the kill. It just makes the zed wait longet to stand up, but doesn't actually interfere with its max AP.

Votes

  1. Kill - Well, I despise headshot anyways, but this isn't the way to deal with it. - CthulhuFhtagn 17:46, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    1. Re: Ok, I respect your opinion. Can you elaborate a bit more, tho? --Monstah 17:50, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill I will change my vote if you make the ap lost equal to the ammount of damage that was left over after you died.- --ramby 17:44, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - I like this (after the edit) --Brizth 17:56, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. abstain - I think that the loss of meatshield tactics weight up against being able to go up to full AP. But I have no idea on how the psychological effect of detaching the AP cost from standing up will effect the game. I don't feel I can make an informed vote on this one.Kill You had me thinking a bit about the merits of this passing through my mind what would be the pro' and con's, the meatshield reason is almost non existent, but this would be an more elegant way to let people play at full AP without rasing the AP limit -as often suggested- as the Ap spending and regeneration is still the most important factor in game balance and the limit itself is of secondary importance. This could have had merit, but then I read the bit about making it cost more... feel lucky that it didn't become spam. Feel very lucky--Vista 17:58, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. keep - Okay, so I was thinking kill because headshot revisions tend to be horrible, but this makes sense - it makes headshot less griefing for zombies who were headshot while offline, especially if they were offline for more than 25 hours, while ensuring that it actually does what it is supposed to do - slow down zombies during sieges. All that said, get rid of your "option" - it's quite bad (it also is preventing keep votes). Never ever ever post suggestions that have "options" or "numbers that are not set in stone" or "i donnow"... --Signal9 19:26, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Unnecessary... headshot seems to be working fairly well right now. And even if live combat does occur now and then, the focus of the game is on non-live combat (or undead combat even... heh heh.. sorry) and it seems an unnecessary modification. Also, Vista, you do know that "spam" isn't just a forceful kill, right? It has to meet certain criteria. If you don't like it, or think it doesn't work, or think it's stupid, that merits a kill. Spam is for oft-repeated suggestions, suggestions here to be silly, suggestions that horribly ignore the guidelines... and if you mark it spam you have to state why. --intx13 18:04, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Dear intx13 please note that I voted 'Kill' not ' spam' but even if I had, perhaps it qualifies under going against the guidelines? Also based on the fact that it was an option also borderlines it as spam for me. I find any spam vote on uncertain suggestions defensible. But because the option had some merit and the offencive part was in the 'option' I overlooked it. So yes I do know how to use the spam vote. But thank you very much for asking, and I do hope, that I have laid your fears to rest--Vista 18:34, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Apologies, Vista. I believe, upon examination, that I was thinking of a different suggestion. Many people have been abusing the spam vote recently, and it gets on my nerves. Sorry about that. And yes, I feel very much relieved now :) --intx13 05:35, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill You can only go negative once, and puts you waaay into AP debt. This isn't a big issue. --Zaruthustra 18:09, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill When you make a suggestion you should NOT have "alternately' or 'option' in it at all. You should be submitting a full thoughtout suggestion. If that gets killed, then use the criticism to try soemthign different.. DO NOT TRY AND CRAM TWO IDEAS INTO ONE SUGGESTION. As a result of your.. lack of thinking.. I will kill this suggestion regardless of its other merits if it should have any. Editing it will not garner a Keep from me.. you'll have to resubmit. This policy shall hereotfore be enacted upon ALL suggestions that include such statements... I will KILL even the best sugegstion in the world for having 'alternatively we coudl do it this way..' or similar in the text. Disgusting EDIT: Actually the idea sucks as well. Headshot is FINE.--Jak Rhee 18:24, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - Oh, come on, people! This is a good, useful idea with no downside! and so I vote Keep.... why? Because ideas should be judged on MERIT, suggestions shouldn't be blown out of the water for UNCERTAINTY ALONE, and, most of all, JACK RHEE IS AN ASSHOLE. --Bachmaner 19:03, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment: Weeee... ad hominem ftl.... --Zaruthustra 19:59, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - I like it. It doesn't make headshot any less effective and it allows zombies to actually get max ap. --Tekgo 19:54, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - What's been said before me. And Bachmaner, keep the flaming down to a minimum. --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:00, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - It's good, and it will also enable zombies to accumulate 50 APs before standing, if desired. --Hexedian 20:07, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill I like headshot the way it is, and I am a zombie. --Contaminated 20:13, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - I'll say this for the hundredth time--headshot works just fine. It doesn't need to be modified any further. Bentley Foss 21:41, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - This would help all those zombies that aren't in live combat, which is the usual case. Rhialto 21:42, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - I see where you are coming from but as a player who plays both zombies and survivors I like the new headshot just fine. The meatshield tactic adds to my survivor's faer/frustrations a bit and obviously it works out well for my zed. --Thelabrat 22:02, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - personally if anything, i think the new headshot is underpowered against high level zombies. they have nothing to fear at all aside from losing 5 ap (aka 2 1/2 hours) from survivors. i don't see a need to tweak it to make it easier for zombies to stand up with full ap. --Firemanstan 23:05, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill Headshot as it is now is fine! Speaking from experience, the ability is only a minor inconvenience once you get ankle grab! --Volke 23:31, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep This probably won't be implemented unless Kevan has a similar idea. At that point it's mostly useless to have this suggestion, but technically it's not a bad one. Being able to start your day with 50AP should be a bit more probable, IMO. --McArrowni 03:27, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep Better for offline zombies and better for survivors against online zombies. I really like this idea, at least the zombie-benefitting part. --Scorpios 3:57, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep I just like the idea, see nothing wrong with it. --Arnesio 13:08, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - i like this idea..and see nothing wrong with it --dragonboy218 14:36, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  23. Kill - There's nothing RIGHTwith it, either. FIne the way it is methinks - Skarmory 15:59, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  24. Keep - I like it. It Increases motivation to stay down for a while after the headshot as an incentive instead of a punishment Kramer 17:19, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  25. Keep - It's a good idea. How can anyone not like this idea? --Reverend Loki 23:47, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  26. Keep - Well, author vote, right? Please, be it Keep or Kill, feel free to drop on my discussions page and giving some thoughts. I might re-submit this later in another form. --Monstah 00:08, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  27. Keep - I would actually like to be able to stand up with full AP if I've waited long enough. The only problem is, that's not what your suggestion sounds like. Your suggestion makes absolutely no sense, and I only gathered it's purpose from reading other people's comments. Kill the suggestion-maker, Keep the suggestion --Jack Destruct 02:11, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  28. Kill - Takes away a legitimate zombie tactic. Not good! --Daednabru 04:43, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  29. Keep --Lord Evans 17:39, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  30. Keep - Gives advantages to both zombies and humans. Well thought. --Seagull Flock 11:20, 17 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  31. Kill This isn't a flaw. It's the point of the Headshot: To slow the zombie down. When you're facing a horde of 30+ coming at you with flak jackets, you tend to want them to stay on the ground for awhile. --MorthBabid 09:13, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally Keep 15 Kill 14
  32. Kill - This would grife zombies alowing multuple headshots, and wouldn't let you go and find a hoard for the night. Some advide, just don't stand up. --Mr NoName 20:11, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    Kill - Forcing it to occur when you stand up makes it an actual detriment to your total earned AP; Allowing it to fade by waiting a few hours doesn't work. Plus, what if you have 0 AP when this occurs? Then we'd have to deal with negative ap values. --MorthBabid 20:34, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT) Note: Late. Velkrin 19:32, 18 May 2006 (BST)
    • Final Tally - 15 Keep, 15 Kill, 0 Spam - 19:18, 18 May 2006 (BST)

Remote Bombs

Resoundingly spaminated with four votes. No more explosives please. --Zaruthustra 18:38, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/9th-Jan-2006&oldid=251528"