Talk:Suggestions/31st-Dec-2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Lower Revive Cost For Murder Victims

Timestamp: Jon Pyre 17:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Type: Balance change
Scope: Survivors
Description: Revives used to be too cheap to perform, costing just 1AP. Kevan gave this line of flavor reasoning when upping the cost to 10 on March 28th: "Memo to NecroTech staff: The subjects are developing a resistance to our current antigens - syringe barrels must now be fully emptied to guarantee successful revivification, even if this takes longer and puts support staff at risk." Everyone is already infected with some version of the virus since people rise of zombies regardless of their cause of death. However the newest version virus that mutated in the last few days out among the hordes would only be spread to someone if they're killed by a zombie. Otherwise they'd just have an older version that was already in their bodies, one the lab had already had a chance to study.

I suggest reducing the revive cost for survivors killed by other survivors from 10 to 5. It'd still list the revive cost as 10 before you inject the syringe but as part of the revive message you'd get the line "On closer inspection they appeared infected by a more treatable strain of the virus and the procedure went better than expected." It'd be a pleasant surprise.

PKing has an advantage in that there's no need to spend AP chopping down barricades. This makes it have a lower AP cost than playing a zombie, despite the need to find ammunition. This addresses that imbalance. Cheaper cost to kill results in a cheaper cost to revive. It doesn't harm the lifestyle of a killer at all. Kills are just as easy to make and the attacker is not any easier to find. It doens't really help the victim that much either. They're still dead and forced to Mrh in a revive queue for a day or two. Doesn't hurt Bounty Hunter's either. Their goal is to take their perp out of action for a while and this would still do that. The person benefitted is the scientist, who ultimately pays the price in AP.

If the 10AP revive cost was put in to help to balance out zombies being weaker than survivors why should it should it aid survivors? Halving the cost of injecting a syringe would nicely match the previous PKing deterrent of half xp. It lets you play as a killer but it's slightly less effective. Except half xp doesn't matter once you have all your skills. This makes causing mayhem as a killer still completely possible but slightly less effective than playing a zombie.

Discussion

I think this addresses many issues have with implementation something to balance out PKing. It doesn't prevent PKing from being a viable lifestyle, it just makes playing a zombie slightly more attractive in one regard. Any objections/problems you think need to be fixed before I post it?--Jon Pyre 18:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a Dupe of your own suggestion! This will only get either spammed or duped. I'm sorry but I think you should let the whole Pker thing go Pyre, you used to make good suggestions :( --Deras 18:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually that suggestion reduced it down to 1 while this only to 5. I agree the original cost of 1 may have been too low. This just matches the 50% effectiveness given to xp gain. It's not a new idea from scratch but it's revised, and so not a dupe. Besides this revision's similarity to the original what objection do you have? It makes logical sense and matches Kevan's intent to discourage but not limit PKing. --Jon Pyre 20:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, this is actually a pretty good idea. I say run with it. --Uncle Bill 18:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

would get my vote if only to end the PKer debate! That said i would prefer a clue even if only as vague as your pre-revive scan saying, "they appear to have suffered multiple gunshot wounds" or "they appear to have suffered massive trauma" Which would depend on how they LAST stopped being human. This would not differentiate between claws/teeth/axe/knife etc... but might give you a clue!--Honestmistake 22:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

And PKers killed by bounty hunters (ie self-licensed PKers) would also get to stand up for 5AP. I stand by my comments to your query on my talk page - I think you should drop this crusade. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 23:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
An anti-PKing suggestion I genuinely agree with. Perhaps a bit of a nerf to Bounty Hunters, but overall I like 5AP Revives. --The Supreme Court RR 23:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC) edit: the alternative suggestion of simply viewing whether a zombie was shot or clawed to death also sits well with me. --The Supreme Court RR 23:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the first sensible suggestion i've seen all day, I like it. As a zombie, where returning to 'life' is as simple as pressing 'stand up' obviously humans have to go through the hassle of being revived, this is especially frustrating after being PK'd as many people regard it as cheating. This idea gets my vote Magsmagsmags 03:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Expand it out just a little bit more:

  • 20AP to attempt a rotter
  • 15AP to revive an infected person
  • 10AP to revive a regular zombie kill
  • 5AP to revive a human kill

Asheets 03:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I gotta agree with Funt on this one. It seems the idea is to either make it a wee bit harder on PKers or a wee bit easier on victims...or both. If the game could differentiate between a bounty hunter and a PKer, this suggestion could work.--Pesatyel 05:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh for fucks sake Jon, GROW UP. Aside from the completly retarded "Im going to arbitrarily reduce the revive cost for people who got killed by other people, and im going to give the explaination that the disease has magically become harder to treat while keeping the AP cost exactly the same as before for normally eaten people, and make it so the people who were infected with the "old" version that takes 10AP now, a magical 5ap discount, even though i said its the exact same one as we have now, just because they got shot!! BRILLIANT!". How about you come up with a plausable delivery system other than the stupid and arbitrary one you came up with here. "Its MAGIC" just wont cut it. Not in this game, at least. Also, you conveniently forget window jumpers. Whoops! I guess they arent part of your survivorist agenda. Also, you have yet to prove PKing needs to be balanced. Running around like a headless chook and wailing about it like a fucking banshee wont make it any more of a problem (Except for you, as its a proven phenomenon that the personal death rate to PKing is directly proportional to the amount that person complains about it.)--Grim s-Mod U! 06:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It really is not that arbitrary, and it makes a bit of sense in-game. I mean, doesn't it make sense that the virus or whatever would be more active if recently reintroduced, sort of like how people can be infected with multiple strains of AIDS and therefore be worse off? From a game balance standpoint, having been killed by a PKer is not a gain for the zombies. Have zombie spies never been PKed? Have zombie agents bent on GKing never been PKed? No, in some sense PKers hurt both sides and actually form a third side in all this, with similar goals to the zombies, but similar methods to the survivors. I do agree with you, Grim, it is logical that this change would help the revival of window jumpers. My opinion, though, is that if folks don't like their character getting revived, they can buy brain rot. --Nosimplehiway 14:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The only proof needed to show that PKing is unbalanced is AP cost. It takes so many more AP to kill as a zombie than as a PKer that it is ridiculous. There's no magic involved here . If you're killed by a zombie, there's going to be a lot more of the "zombie pathogens" in your body as a result of physical contact between the zombie and you. If you get shot or axed though, there's not much contact between you and and zombie pathogens beyond that which is already in the air (it's clearly an airborne pathogen, or else PK victims wouldn't become zombies at all). What's great about this suggestion though, is that it balances PKing without preventing or inhibiting their ability to PK at all. I mean, why should anyone be against this? You can still kill people just as easily. The only reason I can see for anyone to not like this is that they love being able to grief people a lot. But many suggestions get spammed all the time because they grief people and do little else. This reduces that without having any other effects, so how can it be bad? Heck, it even makes getting revived easier for the PKer, so it's good for everyone! --Reaper with no name TJ! 18:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Funt, this doesn't make things any cheaper for the person killed, be they "innocent" victim or PKer killed by a bounty hunter. Nor does it make things cheaper for the killer, be they ordinary PKer or bounty hunter. The only person benefitted from this is the scientist reviving the fallen, who most of the time probably has no idea why the person was killed or whether they're bringing back a PKer or not. And Grim if the disease explanation doesn't work for you how about this one: Survivors killed by survivors are easier to revive because they're not freaking half-eaten. Yeah they're cut or shot up but at least the parts are mostly there. --Jon Pyre 23:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Two things. Yes, the scientist is the first one to directly benefit in the form of lower AP cost, but it also benefits the people waiting in line to be revived because the scientist can get to them sooner. That's the beauty of this suggestion and the reason I support it.

Second point, I could see adding a skill called "autopsy" that would let you see the cause of death for most zombies (gunshot, axe/knife, bite, claws, fall from window). Of course, this would only be useful if there were different AP costs to revive... --Uncle Bill 00:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Kill Counts

Timestamp: DarkUnderlord 22:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Type: Vanity
Scope: Zombie's and Harmanz
Description: Kill counts are added to player's profiles. At it's simplest it would be a simple number of both Zed's and Harmanz killed by the player but I propose a slightly more complex system. There would be four separate counts under two headings. That is, two counts for Zed's and Harmanz killed as a Zed and another two counters for Zeds and Harmanz killed as a Harman.

A possible benefit or drawback (depending on how you look at it) is that Harmanz would potentially be able to use it to identify PKers. Harmanz that revive Zed's would also be able to use it to not revive PKers or players that were clearly playing Zed's (IE: High Harmanz killed as a Zed count with little to no Zeds killed whilst a Harman).

Revision: The counters are only visible to YOU. No other player would be able to see your kill count. This therefore wouldn't affect PKing or ZKing in any way what-so-ever. It would just be a personal, private record of the kills you've made since the count was implemented.

For story purposes, it could be explained as a DNA database. DNA samples are taken from victim's and stored in a database. The DNA would identify whether it was a Zombie or a Harman that attacked the hapless victim. For game purposes, this step can be explained as "just happening" every time you die (too complex and stupid to implement but mostly stupid). Alternatively, you're just keeping count yourself on a piece of paper every time you kill someone.

The intention though is mostly for vanity reasons. I want to know how many have died in front of my shotguns. Obviously there would be an implementation date with kills before this date not being recorded. IE: All those kills you've made as a level 41 player wouldn't be counted because we haven't been counting them. Perhaps dissappointing but something that would be rectified over time as kills mounted.

Keep Votes
For Votes here

  1. Keep - Couldn't find a link, (I wonder why I thought it was a dupe...) and since it's a good idea, You get a keep.--Labine50 MH|ME|P 22:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Keep - Good idea. --Peterblue 23:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Keep - Since the revision this is a great Idea, definite keep.

Kill Votes
Against Votes here
Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - A bad excuse to have PKing nerfed, and doesn't help the statistics at all. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 23:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    As a possible alteration to avoid that, what if it was only seen by yourself? IE: Only you can see your counts, anyone else who looks at your profile won't see a thing. Whether you then choose to share your count with others by putting your kills in your bio (like some players do) or in your wiki page is up to you. DarkUnderlord 23:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    I don't see the point in having a record of how much you have killed in the game. These kind of numbers hardly are useful, and are just used for boasting reasons. As you said, the scope of this suggestion is vanity alone. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 23:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    What's the point in killing Zombie's if all they do is stand back up again? What's the point in doing anything in the game? In fact, what's the point of the game? The point is, it's fun. This is just a way for players to notch up kills without having to personally record everyone they make. This just makes it a bit more fun to know you've wasted 157 zombie's as opposed to "Uhh... Over 100. I think. Maybe." That's fine if you don't want that but I wanted to make the point. DarkUnderlord 00:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Spam - Maybe if it was only for yourself. Also tell me: What about all the already active players, would their counts start from zero? I don't like that. --Deras 23:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    As those kills haven't been counted, there's no way to know what they are. You yourself would have a vague approximate number that you could add to the count. I know that's not much but look to the future and think about playing for the next year and the next and having those kills recorded. A lot of long-time players would be in the same boat, so it affects everyone evenly. Long-time players would also be higher level and able to kill more than newer players as well, meaning that over-time, it would balance out some-what. DarkUnderlord 00:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Spam - Death of Pking. --Grim s-Mod U! 23:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Go away. --Joe O'Wood TALKCONTRIBSUD 23:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Spam - Why does everyone hate PKing? --The Surgeon General 23:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I've revised the idea so that other players can't see your count. I agree that it would harm PKing too much if everyone could see the human vs human kills you've made and that wasn't my intention. This is purely, as a new player, wanting to know how many Zombie's I've wasted without having to keep a personal record. DarkUnderlord 00:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Re - Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that you are allowed to edit your suggestion once it has been posted. --The Surgeon General 01:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I wasn't sure if that was a good idea or not... So what happens now? Do I put it back in today's suggestions or let it sit here for a while for discussion? DarkUnderlord 21:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. Spamarama - Uh uh. I think its been explained good enough above why I've voted this way. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 01:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Talk:Suggestions/31st-Dec-2006&oldid=1481921"