User:Bob Moncrief/Old Suggestions

My past developing suggestions

Expanded EMR Targets

Timestamp: Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 03:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Type: Radio/Flavor Change

Scope: The External Military Reports channel broadcasts (24.96 MHz)

Description: As things currently are, EMRs will, at the end of a given broadcast, report on the status of up to two NecroTech buildings in the suburb in question, malls or forts in a suburb, if there are any. (Suburbs like Mornington which have no such buildings never have these addenda, only the clauses on number of zeds, up to one horde, powered status and infrastructure status.) Therefore, the only way that a building that is not one of these building types can get mentioned is in the form of the second element, which describes a building (I believe of any type) outside of which a horde of "a few" (I believe around five) or more zombies is gathered; or if it is "the only building with lights on" (I'm not sure if non-"Building" buildings can receive this status). This proposal is to expand the possible targets for discussion of the final clauses of the report to include all building types, as long as they are building squares and not open spaces. So, for example, the following report would be possible: 25.96 MHz: "... can see maybe a dozen on the streets of Mornington ... maybe a dozen outside Pincher Library ... a lot of buildings with lights on ... only a few buildings damaged ... Mainstone Auto Repair is being held ... the Ripley Motel is out of action ..." (9 hours and 24 minutes ago) As things currently stand, the final two clauses of the previous report would be left out. This would have four main effects: It would make EMRs more fair across suburbs. Some "nice-building-heavy" suburbs (e.g. Shearbank) currently have at least one building report, sometimes two, at the end of their EMRs, while others (e.g. Mornington) never have any. It would expand flavor. As it is, those who follow EMRs pretty much just learn about NT statuses, while being mystified about the fates of the libraries, banks, museums, towers, fire and police stations, hospitals, churches etc. across the city. It would allow those of us who update wiki building statuses based on EMRs (e.g. myself and MostlyNumb) to update the statuses of "lesser-known" buildings more frequently, something which has increased in importance since the new status-based maps, like the DangerCenter have been created. I am not sure if this would be a buff or debuff for survivors (who use the EMRs). I think debuff is more likely, as it would reduce the likelihood of discovering the status of nearby NT buildings, although with the exchange bonus of finding out about more buildings. The effects on gameplay would be minimal given that (I think) relatively few people follow the EMRs directly. Please comment on this suggestion and let me know any alterations to make. P.S. This is my first-ever suggestion, so if I've screwed up everything, please be kind! P.P.S. I don't mean to hate on Mornington, but it's a great example of the flaws of the EMR system.

Discussion (Expanded EMR Targets)

I have never updated buidling statuses based on EMR reports (I can start now though). For me, having more information in the reports just implies copying/pasting a larger text (and now updating more building statuses). I never really use the wiki information about building statuses for anything. MostlyNumb 11:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think a bit more detail on the mechanics (and maybe a bit less justification, since you had me early on) would be nice. For instance, you have a ruined non-TRP getting reported in your example. Is that just a random ruined building or is preference given to recent ruins? And I'm assuming it's displacing some other information that could have been reported? Just seems like a bit of an odd thing to report at all, I guess. That said, I do agree with the overall premise, so I'd support it regardless. —Aichon— 15:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be a random ruined building (as right now it reports a random (I think) NT, if there is one). The only information being displaced is the equivalent information which is restricted to NTs. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 04:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Would be nice to give priority to certain buildings that are considered famous after ingame events, like The Blackmore or Quartly Library? PB&J 11:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Withdrawn/Not Suggesting

Overgrown

Timestamp: being worked on

Type: Malton (map suggestion)

Scope: All of Malton

Description: Partly inspired by/borrowing from Suggestion:20090421 Overgrown Parks. This is a proposal to shrink the playing area in Malton, not by removing entire suburbs, but by blocking off minimally-used squares. If a square (building or outdoor) is unvisited, i.e. with no survivors/zombies/bodies located in or passing through it, for three days, it becomes partially overgrown. This would be indicated by a passage in the description and a light green border on the block visible to neighboring blocks. The block can be visited as normal, and the overgrowth can be trimmed back using a knife for 6AP or fire axe for 3AP. Once a square is partially overgrown, if it remains unvisited for ten additional days, it becomes fully overgrown. It can no longer be entered, the block is recolored dark green, and is out of the playing area. Any idled-out players in the square would be moved to a random neighboring square upon waking. This could be a seasonal process (only happening in spring/summer, for example).

Discussion (Overgrown)

Is it possible for a fully overgrown block to ever be reclaimed? What happens if part of the city is completely cut off from the rest of Malton?

What about some sort of combination between decay and Shartak's max-density jungle? For example, every day that a block isn't visited, starting on the eleventh day, the cost of entering goes up by 10AP (e.g. day 10: 1AP; day 15: 50AP). That would still allow access, but would hopefully discourage going to unimportant areas. --VVV ^RPGMBCWS 09:13, 9 September 2013 (BST)

Hmm... that sounds closer to the original suggestion I based this off of, except applying to all blocks rather than just parks and continuing to increase rather than just three levels. And in that case I probably wouldn't do a whole 10AP a day; maybe 1 additional AP to enter and 1 to trim each day? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 21:52, 9 September 2013 (BST)

Sorry, I didn't really want to be the one to say this, but the whole idea is remincient of Farmville. Chopping down grass in overgrown parks just doesn't fit into the game's ambience. I can see the mechanics behind it but I just don't think people will have fun arming themselves with axes and chopping down weeds. Not when there's zombies to headshot, flotsam to PK and brains to NahmNahmNahm.~ _{17:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)}

Got it. I'm convinced, won't be submitting this. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 17:37, 10 September 2013 (BST)

Good man. If it didn't create the neccesity for players to maintain it, like it created some very weak and non-game changing benefit, it might be a good suggestion. For a map shrinking change, I'd suggest something more subtle. ~ _{17:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)}

From my talk page

Overgrown

It's just an AP sink that doesn't lead to more fun results, and makes navigating outside more annoying. In addition, it would hurt zombies more than survivors, being required to move more outside than inside and then not even being able to hack down the weeds. I wouldn't submit it, not as it is. -- Spiderzed█ 17:50, 7 September 2013 (BST)

Yeah, the lack of fun was something I didn't think of (other than the fun of trying to hunt down squares before they overgrow). Is there a better way to select which parts of the map are less used/better to eliminate? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 17:58, 7 September 2013 (BST)

There's actually a LOT which is bad about this suggestion. As a player who's made it a point of abusing mechanics to grief others (the Fryerbank Promised Land, for instance), this suggestion is basically one big grief-garden. You could effectively isolate parts of the city from the outside, make islands into impenetrable areas for you and your friends, and grief zombies up the wazoo (particularly since they can't de-growth anything with any efficiency). Shrinking the map is a tricky proposition, and this Shartak-esque idea is not the way to do it. --DT^PK 18:03, 7 September 2013 (BST)

I had a similar idea except that overgrown parks would be treated like dark buildings. Good for people that get stuck outdoors due to overcading and good for people that otherwise want more places to hide, but does nothing to make the play area smaller. It would make it bigger. I'm not sure there's a good way to shrink the map. Probably better to do something that helps player cope with a smaller population, like increase AP gen rate or across-the-board improved attack rate percentages. Failing that, I'd say convert outlaying NTs (perhaps other TRPs as well) into normal buildings. Without resources, certain areas would become true ghost towns, and populations would be forced to cluster in order to thrive. ~ _{01:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)}

you would think that the "quarantine" forces would be able to move the walls in, or something.--User:Sexualharrison02:32, 8 September 2013