Talk:Suggestions/4th-Dec-2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Maybe a PK suggestion we can all agree on?

Timestamp: Garrett Fisher 20:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Type: Game mechanic tweak.
Scope: Survivors only.
Description: I'm sick of seeing constant suggestions on how to "stop PKing", mainly because they're a waste of everbody's time. There is no way they'd survive the vote, and there is no way that PKing will ever be stopped, though I do propose a (relatively) small change.
  • Simply: Don't nerf PKing, just remove any "reward" from doing it, i.e. the earning of experience points.


What I think to be a logical reason... Most actions that earn experience points in UD are those that in some way benefit or otherwise assist the cause of their side.

  • Zombies only earn experience by attacking survivors, and at a pinch, each other. I have no wish to interfere with ZKing, as I think most people will agree it's essential to help a lot of new zombies to get by until they can upgrade their attacks. It also has benefits for other zombies in that, for 1AP after being ZK'd, you can rise again with full health.
  • Survivors earn experience by attacking zombies, healing one another, reviving one another and dumping dead bodies. Reading is also another method, but the low XP reward indicates the usefulness of this.

So as I stated above, experience is earned primarily for actions that can in some way assist your character class. PKing does nothing to assist survivors, and is in fact detrimental to the cause, so why should it be rewarded as an action? In terms of game flavour, even if the city was so apocalyptic as to make any concept of law enforcement meaningless, you wouldn't exactly be rewarded for murdering people in cold blood.

This idea doesn't prevent PKing at all, and would have no effect on the play mechanics of UD. It would certainly not affect PK players with maxed skills, other than removing the kudos of an ever increasing number of experience points on their profile. It would, however, discourage low level players and people seeking to max out the skill tree from taking it up as a means of playing the game and developing their characters, and I think that is about as much discouragement as can realistically be given. --Garrett Fisher 20:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion Thoughts and comments here, please :)

I don't think this is enough, but I'd vote keep on this nonetheless. It makes sense. --Reaper with no name TJ! 21:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I like this. Discourages PK (for those that aren't maxed-out), without hampering their ability to do so in away way. I'd also vote keep on this. This has no effect on selective PK, but does on PK groups and random PK (AKA greifing). -Certified=Insane☭Québécois 22:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't like it. Although it doesn’t help survivors to be Pked it is, one would think, difficult to kill survivors just as it is difficult to kill zeds. --Tahoe 02:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Re That's not the purpose of this suggestion. I'm not trying to change the world, I see my idea as discouraging an unproductive game practice - not preventing it. All I propose is removing the benefits from Player Killing, not making it easier or harder, in fact not changing it at all. Simply removing the reward from it. --Panserbjørn 08:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I would vote keep on this. There really is no way to get rid of PKers totally, but taking away some of the incentive is always a good idea. --Loomos 04:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I disagree with the idea of removing ALL XP for PKing. Just make it 1 XP.--Pesatyel 04:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote keep on this, oddly enough. --Karloth vois RR 04:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion from an obvious PKer hater, you already get half the XP by PKing so lets just leave it at that. Pillsy FT 09:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Re You provide no reason for your opinion, even though this is a discussion. So other than making ignorant backhanded and pejorative comments, do you even have a reason for disagreeing with this? If survivors wish to kill other survivors, then by all means let them... but why should they reap a benefit from it?--Panserbjørn 15:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re - Well first of all this does nerf PKing because by removing any reward you remove a reason for doing it which means it has been nerfed. Secondly, if the suggestor had of read this he would have known that Kevan has nop plans to prohibit PKing. It also contains the wonderful line Effectively, if your suggestion either actively punishes or promotes PK activity you can expect it to meet firm opposition. It also states that any skills for PKers are shot down so the balance is that the XP is halved and that is that. Do you require any more? Pillsy FT 16:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Re - Wow, now there's some faulty reasoning. First of all, you automatically label the suggestor as a "PKer hater", despite the fact that he hasn't actually expressed an opinion on PKing (just on the suggestions that try to "stop" it, which if anything would indicate that he is leaning towards the other side). The fact that Kevan has no desire to prohibit PKing has nothing to do with this whatsoever, because this does not attempt to prohibit PKing. Also, (as you so conveniently quoted for me), you can expect pro and anti PKer suggestions to meet firm opposition. But opposition does not necessarily mean that it is guaranteed to be shot down. It just means it's more likely to be. Next, under your logic, if we consider there to be "balance" in the half XP gain, then that would have to mean that PKing by maxed out players is unbalanced, because XP gain means nothing to them. And your argument that removing the XP obtained from PKing nerfs it is flawed as well. Unlike zombies, survivors don't have to break through obstacles to get XP. They can just walk outside to the zombies and attack. This will get them a lot more XP than attacking fellow survivors will, and will allow them to avoid the inevitable retribution. Therefore, people don't PK because they want XP; that's just a side benefit. They PK because they like to. Removing the XP won't affect that. And the ability of the PKer to PK isn't affected, so it can't be considered a nerf to it (as the PKer is still just as effective against their victims). And discouraging PKing could actually be considered a buff, because PKing is detrimental to survivors. So, even if this did nerf PKing, it would give survivors that much more of a buff because of it (just like nerfing zombies would be the same as giving survivors a buff). Now, I'm going to take a page out of your book and end with this: "Really, if you're such a PKer lover and think that's all the game should be about, why not just stop making BS arguments for it and go play Nexus War?" --Reaper with no name TJ! 16:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Re Sorry Reaper I fail to see where his suggestion doesn't go against the link I provided for the Dead in the Water suggestions. It states that any suggestions that help or nerf PKing will be rejected and even if accepted it is more than likely everyone will shoot it down. I mean no offence to the guy but I just don't want this to go to suggestions because my wote will be Spam - goes against the guidelines here. It is a suggestion from someone who has not read this page. Sorry. Pillsy FT 08:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Re Thanks Reaper, I couldn't have put it better myself. Pillsy, for the record I have either inferred or stated outright no less than 5 times so far that I do not wish prevent PKing, only discourage it. Also, you still didn't answer my question. As comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong point, I will repeat here: Why should PKers reap a benefit from what they do? --Panserbjørn 18:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Re Simple answer: upping or downing HP means you get XP. Explanation: ZHing (I don't know if it is a term, but damn... it should be.) gets you XP. One can (should one find oneself in a bind for healing target XP deficiency) heal Zeds instead to get to the next level. Further, XP is not the reason it is done. You are thus penalizing newbs for getting safer XP! (I acknowlege that is a rediculous point.)
      • Besides, "does not intend" and "will not" are two different things. PKing was apparently already a problem once for Kevan to cut the XP gain in half (it used to be full XP for a kill, regardless). As I read the suggestion (and Reaper's response to you), XP has little to do with PKing. If a PKer is PKing FOR XP, there is something seriously wrong with that player's ideology since there are MUCH easier ways to get XP (that don't even involve fighting zombies).--Pesatyel 07:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

So this idea seems straight forward enough. Are you going to post it as a suggestion? I don't think you will get much more discussion on it here on the talk page, so you might as well. And I still think PKing should be worth 1 XP (for the kill).--Pesatyel 07:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a rampant PKer/GKer and I will tell you now that this will in no way discourage me from PKing. I don't PK for xp, I PK to grief other people. I like it because I am going against the grain, and being a pain in the ass. I also enjoy the overreaction from the survivor community when it happens. Not only is AP wasted getting up and shambling to a revive point, but people actually waste AP hunting me down to kill me. I find it all incredibly fun. I wouldn't stop, even if this suggestion was implemented.--Gage 08:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Re So by that logic, you would have no reason to vote spam or kill? Yours seems to be one of the most common arguments (I I PK because... ...not for the XP". Let us take this at face value. And even if it doesn't discourage PKing, it would at least ensure that the players spent time playing in role to allow them to become killing machines --Panserbjørn 11:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Didn't see that one coming. Nope. Not at all. >_>
I would Keep this. Doesn't nerf PKing, just makes it unrewarding, as it should be. "You're gonna be a pain in the ass? Fine. You're not getting any XP for it." --Blue Command Vic DvB 07:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No, this won't work. 2 Things, one is that it wouldn't discourage me (i have PKed) if i was still PKing, if im not discouraged, what use would it be? And 2 is that ZKing is important to newbie zombies, don't tear away that element from them. I'd certainly vote spam for this one.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 19:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Re Mr Yawn, I've learned to respect your opinions in most cases, but I find this one hard to swallow, as you clearly haven't read what my suggestion says AT ALL. To counter your responses, please find the following quotes from my submission: "Scope: Survivors only", "I have no wish to interfere with ZKing, as I think most people will agree it's essential to help a lot of new zombies...", "(this suggestion) would not affect players with maxed skills, other than removing the kudos of an ever increasing number of experience points on their profile. It would, however, discourage low level players..." --Panserbjørn 22:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
First of all I think Panserbjorn's reply says it all about zombies. Secondly, if it DOESN'T AFFECT YOU, what does it hurt? It may actually discourage some from doing it, but it would also placate some of the anti-PK people without adversely affecting the game.--Pesatyel 01:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
You should ignore that comment. I thought i was putting it down for another suggestion. Nevermind though...--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 22:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, why has no one mentioned players who want to be death cultists? this would stop them dead in their tracks straight away and remove an aspect of the game that was supposed to be their from the start! PKing is a pain in the ass and people like Gage should not be rewarded for going out of their way to spoil other peoples fun, however this would stop people playing the game the way they want and will get killed (probably spammed)at the vote. Perhaps if you could voluntarily flag (possibly a free skill which can't be removed except in a hospitals Psych ward?) your character as a death cultist so enabling you to gain the xp at the expense of being noticable to other characters it would work. After all if you PK for this reason you can be assumed to look like a drooling homicidal maniac and people might notice and thus you would risk being shot (If it were a skill then it would only show on your profile?)

Another reason people PK is as looters; a feature currently not supported in game. This to could be fixed by a skill allowing you to remove a random item of your kills instead of gaining XP. Less contoversial though would be an amount of 'cash' which would show on your profile and be gained instead of XP, this would also work for bounty hunters though it would be best as a seperate and mutually exclusive skill so as to avoid confusion!--Honestmistake 17:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...I personally think the ideas others have mentioned would be nice, but I think that they're ultimately outside the scope of this suggestion's purpose. It's trying to remove the gameplay reward that PKing offers. Basically, if you're gonna be an a-hole, you shouldn't be rewarded for it. The PKers' reward is the fact that they're griefing players. This doesn't affect that, and has no effect on maxed-out players, so there's no reason any of us should be opposed to it (unless there's someone here who is actually stupid enough to PK for the purpose of gathering XP). --Reaper with no name TJ! 19:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. And, as for the argument about Death Cultists, those people don't specifically PK either. They attack barricades and generators and such to help zombies. This wouldn't affect them either. So, are ya gonna post this?--Pesatyel 05:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I still say that not everyone PKs just to grief other players, PKing does grief people and should have some counter (even if so slim as to be of limited use) but I would have to vote kill on this as its only real goal is to discourage others from playing the game as they want to for no legitimate reason.--Honestmistake 16:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude, just suggest it. If it doesn't go into peer-reviewed, then just revise it and make it so that while it still gives some XP, it gives considerably less. -Certified=Insane☭Québécois 16:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggested just having it give 1 XP.--Pesatyel 04:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh...I don't really see the point. I think PKing is too powerful because it makes zombies obsolete. If someone wants to PK for xp and get less than they would fighting zombies I don't have a problem with that, it's their choice. All I want is for one PKer to be as powerful as 1 zombie, and vice versa. And as said most people don't PK for xp or roleplaying reasons but because they don't have a lot of satisfaction in their personal lives and compensate by commiting random acts of petty spite on the internet. This wouldn't discourage them. If you submit this I'll probably abstain. --Jon Pyre 06:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It isn't specifically intended to discourage them. Think about it, as you said, PKers don't do it for the XP. So that means the XP is a BONUS. Why should they get a bonus? And, just curious, but why would YOU not vote FOR this? It doesn't solve the problem as you see it, sure, but since PKers don't do it for the XP, it wouldn't hurt to have it, would it?--Pesatyel 07:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
John Pyre, that is exactly why people vote spam on your suggestions. Garett Fisher, for god's sake, just suggest this. If you don't by tommorow, I will... -.- -Certified=Insane☭Québécois 23:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Only Zombies can destroy Generators

Timestamp: Zubins 01:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Type: Mechanics balance
Scope: Global(everyone)
Description: GKing by zombie spies is a major problem, period. This suggestion makes it so survivors can no longer attack generators. This way, zombies can still destroy generators, but cannot use the lowly tactic of getting revived just to sneak into survivor-filled buildings and destroy thier generator. What about PKers? Making this change doesn't harm pkers in any way. Destroying generators harms the game experience of all survivors and the only reason a PKer would destroy one is to purposefully make the game less enjoyable for thier fellow survivors. Besides, if he destroys the generator, he's only lowering his own search percentages, radio, etc also, so there's no real point. Thusly, only a zombie player benefits from destroying generators, and only zombies should be able to, and legitimately too(breaking down the 'cades, walking in, and destroying the generator). What about realism concerns? I would like to quote something from the suggestion dos and don'ts:

" * Don't Argue for Realism

Don't argue that something is "more realistic" when defending your idea. This is a game about the Living Dead. ZOMBIES. It's hard to get more unrealistic than zombies shuffling around downtown. It's not a mistake that things are not realistic. Making the game realistic does not necessarily make the game fun. "

This suggestion makes the game more enjoyable, while not hindering the gameplay or balance of survivors, zombies, or even PKers. Other similar ideas that may be more realistic(such as having the generator having a chance of "shocking" and damaging a survivor attempting to destroy it) do not fully solve the problem(a zombie spy aiming to destroy a generator wouldn't care if he got damaged, he's still gonna destroy it) and would require significantly more code to implement into the game. This is the most straightfoward and logical solution, if slightly unrealistic. I can't think of any counter-arguements to my idea on my own, but I really want this to be accepted, so I decided to post this on the discussion pages first. Please give any feedback you can.

EDIT: Stopped it from breaking the page.

Discussion

Care explaining at all? "Just no" is worthless without a reason -Zubins 02:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I need to explain "no"? Wow, you're dumber than this suggestion makes you sound.--_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 02:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you do. Any idiot can disagree with a given subject without backing up his claims. Why don't you put some substance behind your answer?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scyth3 (talk • contribs) .
Zombie spies aren't a problem. PKers and griefers are the ones who destroy generators.--Gage 05:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Any GKers in general. Doesn't really matter if they're spies, PKers, griefers, etc. This would stop all of that besides regular zombies. -Zubins 05:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
So your idea is to make those people have to play the game "the right way", is that what I'm reading? Believe it or not, there's such a thing as free will and multiple viewpoints of "fun". Stop trying to stop the griefers, instead just deal with them. They're not going away anytime soon, whether you like it or not.--_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 06:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Free will is only applicable up to the point where it infringes on the rights and free will of others. In that case government(or in this case, admin) steps in. In RL, sure someone might find it fun to pick up a gun and go kill a few people. But that infringes on those people's inherent right to live. Government then weighs those rights and decides if a person's right to have fun killing people outweighs others' rights to live. Guess who won that little arguement? Now back to our game situation: A griefer's right to have "fun" spoiling the game for others will be weighed against the many survivor's rights to enjoy the game. Guess who I think will win. I will also like to copy another little tidbit from the suggestion dos and dont's:
"Urban Dead is a game, and it is meant to be fun for people to play. This means that, where possible, your suggestion should work to maximize the fun that everyone in the game can have."
Again, thank you for your feeback. this is by no means personal.--Zubins 06:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Zombie spy or not, there is no reason for survivors to be able to grief other players like this. Siglice 05:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No. Some generators are set up in stupid places, and do nothing but attract zombies. They need to be killable. --SirensT RR 06:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I've thought of this. 1: You could just let the fuel run out. 2: if its in a "stupid" place and attracts zombies, if there are no survivors there(and thus no need for a generator making it "stupid") wouldn't that be beneficial in a way as it acts as a decoy?-Zubins 06:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
1: If some twit was dumb enough to place it there, surely they'd refuel it too? 2: Stupid places are those where the generator brings no real benefits and attracts zombies. Like hotels, bars, nightclubs, warehouses, towers, office buildings, etc. –Xoid M•T•FU! 18:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- As said before, greatly improves gameplay enjoyability for survivers, and dosent hurt zombies, unless you count eliminating an extremly cheap and unpreventable attack. To fix the stupid placement, maybe an on off switch for the generator?--Enexia
Which then becomes an on/off switch battle. --Xoid, and instead of griefers destroying generators, you'd have them turning them on in buildings like an office building and attracting zombies, and going around turning them off in Malls. 18:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Good Luck - I know how the author of this feels. GKing by survivors is irritating beyond words to those who are trying to get the lights on in Malton. How many AP's does it take to locate, site and fuel a generator? Far more than it takes one GKer to wander in and hit it a couple of times to destroy it. But vandals exist in real life as much as they do in game, so it's something I think we're stuck with. I'd just like to see some sort of penalty for the destruction, maybe a 5% chance of instant death caused by the generator exploding in the GK-ers face (Zombies being immune as they wouldn't bleed to death after being perforated.) MoyesT RPM 10:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I addressed this EXACT issue is my description. Having a percentage chance penalty would not deter GKers. And just because its more realistic to have free will to destroy a generator doesn't mean it should be that way. Note the quote mentioned in the description. -Zubins 21:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • BIN So we're not allowed to nerf PKing, but we can nerf GKing? The are several groups that place restrictions on where generators should be placed and who will GK a generator if in the wrong place. This isn't for griefing purposes, but because it fits how they want to play the game. An On/Off switch wouldn't solve this problem, all it would mean is that every building would eventually have a generator and finding one would be a waste. A very big NO on this (unless it paves the way for PK nerfing *8-) ). –Ray Vern phz •T 10:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Finding a generator wouldn't be a waste, as zombies can still destroy them. As for a response to the rest of your post, please read what I wrote under the SPAM guy's statement, as its the same here I just don't want to post the same thing twice. Also, I don't want this to turn into a debate about PK nerfing either. Please treat the suggestion "as is" and it doesn't nerf PKing in any way (except those PKers who like to GK also) and is not intended to pave the way to nerf PKing-Zubins 21:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I quickly checked the peer reviewed suggestions to see if either of these options was still in play; Generator Maintenence/Repair or Generator Guarding. Neither was. so I have to support this option. I realize this is not in real time/real life, but the idea that anyone can walk into a building filled with tens and hundreds of other people and kill a radio or generator, let alone another human, and just walk away scott free is still laughable. Rolo Tomasi 12:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It's absolutely hilarious that humans can sleep through the screams of someone being torn limb form limb by zombies, yet you expect them to wake up when someone who's supposed to be there… it boggles the mind, it really does. –Xoid M•T•FU! 18:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • SPAM I point to the case in hand- that of Club Cummings. No use for a generator, but that didn't stop a n00b installing one anyways. In less than a day zombies had spotted the light, broken in and killed everyone. And you want to make this advertising to zombies impossible to stop? You haven't thought this through. If it gets through, I'll repeatedly hunt you and install working generators in every useless building you sleep in, and laugh as you get eaten. Really- installing a generator in any building other than a resource building is as good as opening the doors and shouting "FREE LUNCH!". --Karloth vois RR 13:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If it does pass, feel free to follow me around setting up generators everywhere. As I've already responded to one person, sure it would start out that way, with more zombie-magnets, but after enough "n00bs" set up generators in odd locations they will become more as decoys than magnets. If some "n00b" sets up a generator in a building you're sleeping at, you're at risk for on average 1 day before you play again. Then the next night you'll sleep somewhere else and the first building becomes a decoy for zombies. Breakins will never ALWAYS happen within 24 hours of setting up a generator, I've seen a non-resource building stay powered up for days with no one in them and the barricades never even fall. Thus eventually, lights on buildings will become more common and very useful decoys. And after about a week the generator will run out of fuel anyways if no one really wants it there, so it all evens out in the wash.-Zubins 20:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No. There are valid RP reasons for GK'ing. I've never done it, but it's part of the game, learn to deal with it. It's an apocolyptic scenario, quit trying to make it easier. --Sgt. Expendable JG 05:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. For the reasons Mia K mentioned, for those that Sgt. Expendable mentioned, and Karloth mentioned. Don't bother saying that the preponderance of generators will alleviate the problem by providing decoys; that'll only be the case if someone fuels them. n00bs are going to fuel the generators of buildings that other survivors are in, not those that are empty. Oh, and if you're worried about zombie spies? Don't revive them. –Xoid M•T•FU! 18:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You are up to something. I concur that the GK (and PK) is getting out of hand. I'm not 100% sure this is the best solution to alleviate, but it is simple to implement and I wish you all of luck. An alternative idea is to make harder to GK/PK in presence of other people, i.e. have a decreasing chance-to-hit when crowds are present. Might want a special skill to explicitly spend AP in order to keep an alert eye to misdeeds, even when off-line. And before the PK squad jumps on me, please note that you'll enjoy a better gaming experience, as PKing will actually require more skill than anything else in this game, so you'll get more bragging rights. Bluetigers 03:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    Self reply, extra idea: Another interesting option would be to have free-runners wait for 60 real times minutes before being able to take any offensive action and/or any action besides free running. I'm not sure about the time quanta, 5/10/30/60 all seem good values in certain situations. Perhaps even a function of barricade level? The extended version would also make interesting defending NTs in mall sieges and/or barricade-straffing - no more hopin/cade/hopout. Bluetigers 01:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but no. As much as I don't like how easily griefers can ruin the sheer amount of hard work and AP it takes to get, set up, and maintain generators, this isn't the way to fix it. GKing, just like PKing, is a necessary evil to counter griefing of a different sort (ie setting up a generator in a crowded but not-well defended building). Taking that away would create even more problems than it would solve. --Reaper with no name TJ! 23:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Some people that maintain safehouses will destroy generators to reduce chances of being broken into. Completely eliminating survivor attacks is lowering survivor life expectancy. Possibly, slightly with Bluetigers, make it so that you cannot attack the generator/radio for fifteen minutes after arrival. That eliminates GKer killing strafes a small bit, as they have to stay for a while before continuing. In that time, they may be afraid someone will log in, and move. It still lets safehouse maintenance crews destroy them, as they'll log in and find one, then eliminate the liability. It still lets patrols to eliminate in-house threats, and repair damage. And it still allows bounty hunters to do their job. -Mark 00:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I hate, hate, hate GKers with a burning rage like ten thousand stars. If anyone could explain to me why there are seemingly hundreds of people running around a post-apocalyptic city destroying power sources, I would be willing to change my opinion. But, where, in all of zombie genre does such a thing exist? What is their motivation RP wise? What is the freaking point? And, how sitting there at their desks, sipping a coke and munching cheetos, do they enjoy having a little cackle knowing that they just pissed off a bunch of other players, both survivor and zombie? They are little kids with magnifying glasses burning ants. Mean, nasty people with perverted little minds and cruel intentions. Whew, felt good to get that off my chest. Now, to the suggestion. No good. It is unreasonable, unrealistic and uses a hammer to thread a needle. Back to the drawing board, though, please. I like your goal.--Nosimplehiway 15:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. Survivors can want to destroy generators for a good reason - As of recently having a genorator in your building instantly says to anyone outside people inside. If its a non-resource building it can be better not to display that their are lots of people inside by having a genorater so to destroy it as a survivor can be a good thing. --MarieThe Grove 16:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Spam - Survivors destroying generators isn't all ways a bad thing. Zombies are suaully attracted to powered buildings. If a survivor notes that there are lots of zombies in the area, and destroys the generator, zombies are much liess likely to come stopping by. So GKing does have its uses. Even if GKing is done just for griefing, suck it up. Instead of coming here whining about it go out there and actually hunt them.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 16:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It was more blowing off steam and griping than whining. But, yeah, I am honestly sorry I did it in public. And I did mean just those that GK for sheer jollies. Obviously there are reasons to destroy a generator (both pro-survivor and pro-zombie), but that is different from having your main goal and identity in the game be destroying generators. "Sigh... long day at work. Think I'll go online and destroy some gennies." BTW, hopefully you'll note I "voted" against the suggestion. --Nosimplehiway 22:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I was actually talking to Zubins. I dunno why you are posting here. I only posted to make a comment on the suggestion not on other comments.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 22:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Character Achievements

Timestamp: Pesatyel 06:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Type: Item improvement and Character Pages.
Scope: All characters.
Description: I’m borrowing this idea directly from Nexus War. And NO this is NOT an “Anti-Pker” suggestion.

The idea is this: The section BELOW the Google ads is dead space on the character page. In this space, the following will be placed:

  • Survivors Killed: 0
  • Zombies Killed: 0
  • Barricade LEVELS Constructed: 0
  • Barricade LEVELS Destroyed: 0
  • Deaths (as Survivor): 0
  • Deaths (as Zombie): 0
  • Zombies Revived: 0
  • Survivors Healed: 0 (or, alternately, total HP healed)
  • Survivors Infected (as Zombie): 0
  • HP Healed via Digestion: 0
  • Revive Syringes Manufactured: 0
  • Alcohol Drank: 0
  • Zombies Scanned (DNA Extractor): 0
  • Generators Installed: 0
  • Generators Destroyed: 0
  • Radios Installed: 0
  • Radios Destroyed: 0
  • Books Read: 0 (all kinds, newspapers as well?)
  • Damage Dealt: 0
  • Damage Taken: 0
  • Generators Fueled: 0
  • Suicides: 0 (Mr. A reminded me)
  • Rotted Zombies Revived: 0
  • Radio Broadcasts Made: 0
  • Text Messages Sent: 0
  • AP Spent: 0
  • Pistol Shots Fired: 0
  • Shotgun Shells Fired: 0
  • Total Items Dropped: 0
  • Total Items Found: 0
  • Total Search Attempts: 0
  • Speechs Made: 0
  • Flare Gun Kills: 0
  • Punch Kills: 0
  • Flares Fired Into the Air: 0
  • Groans Made: 0
  • Gestures Made: 0
  • Times Infected: 0
  • Infections Cured: 0
  • Buildings Repaired: 0
  • Buildings Ransacked: 0
  • Weapon Kills (as Zombie): 0
  • Weapon Damage Dealt (as Zombie): 0
  • Damage Taken from Infection: 0

*Crucifixes Dropped: 0

  • Survivors Dragged Outside: 0
  • Bodies Dumped: 0
  • Successful Grabs (Tangling Grasp): 0
  • Times Grip Lost (Tangling Grasp): 0
  • Graffiti Tags Made: 0 (includes billboards)
  • Search Attempts (Powered Building): 0
  • Search Attempts (Ransacked Building): 0
  • Search Attempts (Outside): 0
  • Attempts to Heal/Scan/Revive Inanimate Objects: 0
  • Attempts to Heal fully-healed Players: 0
  • Attempts to Scan Survivors: 0
  • Attempts to Revive Living Survivors: 0
  • Failed Attempts to Revive Rotters: 0

Whenever a player performs one of those actions, the tally on his character’s page increases.

Newspapers: As in Nexus War, newspapers will now list the leaderboards (the top 10 players of one of the above fields).

Discussion

This wouldn't bode well for PKers at all. I would prefer if it read "Kills" and didn't specify against who.--Gage 06:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe even "survivor kills" and "zombie kills" where you get a "survivor kill" when you kill a survivor and a "zombie kill" when you kill a zombie.--Gage 06:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure how well THAT part would be received (same reason I didn't do the same with barricades; THAT would be going to far...). I wouldn't have a problem with changing it to, as you said, just "survivor kills" or "zombie kills". But everything else about the suggestion looks okay?--Pesatyel 07:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I love the rest of it.--Gage 07:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I like it, I'm a fan of stats and love to see something like this incorporated into the game. Pillsy FT 13:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea, but there are a few things that aren't particularly clear. For example, what defines 'Books read'? Does it mean what it most likely means, which is the number of Books that a Survivor has ever actually finished reading? Or does it mean the number of times a Survivor has read a Book, regardless of whether they finished it or not, or how much/how many times they've gained XP from reading a Book? --Lord of the Pies 18:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I forgot about that. In Nexus War, you just read once. I'm inclined to think FINISHED, but sometimes that takes a long time.--Pesatyel 03:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I like it. It's always interesting for one to look at these sorts of things and see what someone has done. They can even have some entertainment value. And to that end, here's a few (ok, a lot) more ideas: Rotted zombies revived, Newspapers/poetry books read, radio broadcasts made, Text messages sent, AP spent, Shots Fired, Total Items dropped, Total Items found, Total Search attempts, Speeches made, Flare Gun Kills, Punch Kills, Flares fired (into the air), Groans made, Gestures made, Times Infected, Infections Cured (oneself or others), Buildings Repaired, and Total Ransacks. --Reaper with no name TJ! 23:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I added them to the list above. Any other ideas?--Pesatyel 02:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Anything else anyone can think of? I'll add this tomorrow before Mr.A steals any more of my idea (kidding). -Pesatyel 06:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...I was thinking of the shots fired just being for both the pistol and the shotgun, but they could be separate. A bunch more ideas: Weapon Kills (as zombie), Weapon Damage Dealt (as zombie), Damage taken from infection, Crucifixes dropped, Survivors dragged outside, Bodies Dumped, Successful Grabs (times successfully grabbing hold of a survivor), Times grip lost (how many times you've lost your grip on a survivor), Graffiti Tags made, Broadcast Frequency Changes (how many times one has changed the frequency on a radio transmitter), Reciever Frequency Changes (how many times one has changed the frequency on a radio), Searches attempted in a powered building, Searches attempted in a ransacked building, Searches attempted outside, Attempts to heal/scan/revive inanimate objects, Attempts to heal fully-healed players, Attempts to scan survivors, Attempts to revive already-living survivors, and Failed attempts to revive rotted zombies. Also, I'm not sure if you shoulg go submitting this quite yet. Clearly, some of these categories could have some humor value. Maybe they could have a name followed by a description and then the amount. Examples: Atheism (Crucifixes dropped), Alcoholism (Alcohol drank), Interior Decoration (Buildings repaired), Amish (Generators Destroyed), Telemarketer (Radio broadcasts made), Butterfingers (times losing grip on survivor). Those may not be the best examples, but do you see what I mean? --Reaper with no name TJ! 17:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I added them to the list but, as you can see, it got quite long, so I'll need to trim some. I could probably borrow the "badges" idea from Nexus War also. For example:
  • Books Read
  • Reads at an 8th Grade Level - 10 Books
  • Bookworm - 50 books
  • Librarian - 100 books
  • Bibliophile - 500 books
  • Teacher's Pet - 1000 books --Pesatyel 02:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There is such a thing as too much info. A list that long not only takes a long while to skim through, but would use a lot of computing power on the servers. Essentially you need to maintain a complete tally of everything a character has ever done. For over 500,000 characters. On the other hand, there is some useful info in there. Another game I play (Shartak) tallies and shows your total number of kills and who you killed by group. In Urban Dead, this would show as X zombies killed and x survivors killed. Possibly a revived total, too, to give credit to the scientists. Or, possibly percent of time spent as a zombie. Problem remains, though, of how would a character have any of this as in-game knowledge?--Nosimplehiway 14:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh I agree, but I thought it best to maximize all the options here, then cut out the list down. Also, I highlighted the part about how people would know. And, as in Nexus War (I don't play Shartak), the information would be listed on the character's page.--Pesatyel 20:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me put things this way. I'd love to look at everything a survivor'd ever done. But honestly, you're getting into two things. First, triviality. (Why do I want to know how many crucifixes a guy's dropped?) Secondly, immense sever load. I think all that's needed is something simple. Zombies killed. Survivors killed. Zombies revived. Survivors healed. Maybe zombies scanned. That's all needed, really. -Mark 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Of COURSE it is "trivial." What else would it be? The point is to add something interesting to the game that doesn't break it. I don't believe "server load" is really an issue. If Nexus War and other games can do it, so can Urban Dead. Besides, if you actually READ my post to which you were responding, you would KNOW I intended to cut back on a lot of the "trival" stuff. Besides, since "server load" isn't an issue, adding in extra stats wouldn't hurt anything.--Pesatyel 04:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Talk:Suggestions/4th-Dec-2006&oldid=1890683"