Difference between revisions of "Developing Suggestions"

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→‎Discussion (Encumbrance Effects): Reverting contentious edit as per arbitration precedent)
Line 209: Line 209:
|}
|}
====Discussion (Encumbrance Effects)====
====Discussion (Encumbrance Effects)====
{{LDN|00:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)}}
----
----



Revision as of 10:20, 31 December 2009

Suggestion Navigation
Suggestion Portal
Current SuggestionsSuggestions up for VotingClothes Suggestions
Cycling SuggestionsPeer ReviewedUndecidedPeer RejectedHumorous
Suggestion AdviceTopics to Avoid and WhyHelp, Developing and Editing

Developing Suggestions

This section is for presenting and reviewing suggestions which have not yet been submitted and are still being worked on.

Nothing on this page will be archived.

Further Discussion

  • Discussion concerning this page takes place here.
  • Discussion concerning the suggestions system in general, including policies about it, takes place here.


Please Read Before Posting

  • Be sure to check The Frequently Suggested List and the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots before you post your idea. You can read about many ideas that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a dupe: a duplicate of an existing suggestion. These include Machine Guns and Sniper Rifles.
  • Users should be aware that page is discussion oriented. Other users are free to express their own point of view and are not required to be neutral.
  • If you decide not to take your suggestion to voting, please remove it from this page to avoid clutter.
  • It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.
  • After new game updates, users are requested to allow time for the game and community to adjust to these changes before suggesting alterations.

How To Make a Suggestion

Adding a New Suggestion

  • Paste the copied text above the other suggestions, right under the heading.
  • Substitute the text in RED CAPITALS with the details of your suggestion.
{{subst:DevelopingSuggestion
|time=~~~~
|name=SUGGESTION NAME
|type=TYPE HERE
|scope=SCOPE HERE
|description=DESCRIPTION HERE
}}
  • Name - Give the suggestion a short but descriptive name.
  • Type is the nature of the suggestion, such as a new class, skill change, balance change, etc. Basically: What is it? and Is it new, or a change?
  • Scope is who or what the suggestion affects. Typically survivors or zombies (or both), but occasionally Malton, the game interface or something else.
  • Description should be a full explanation of your suggestion. Include information like flavor text, search odds, hit percentages, etc, as appropriate. Unless you are as yet unsure of the exact details behind the suggestion, try not to leave out anything important. Check your spelling and grammar.

Cycling Suggestions

  • Suggestions with no new discussion in the past two days should be given a warning notice. This can be done by adding {{SDW|date}} at the top of the discussion section, where date is the day the suggestion will be removed.
  • Suggestions with no new discussion in the past week may be removed.
  • If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the warning template please remove the {{SDW|date}} at the top of the discussion section to show that there is still ongoing discussion.

This page is prone to breaking when the page gets too long, so sometimes suggestions still under discussion will be moved to the Overflow page, so the discussion can continue.


Please add new suggestions to the top of the list


Suggestions

XP system change

Timestamp: Necrofeelinya 09:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Type: XP system change
Scope: all players
Description: One of the biggest problems with UD is that characters max out and then there's no point in continuing, with nowhere to further progress. There ceases to be any challenge to it. Another problem is that survivors who max out have absolutely no more incentive to engage zombies, nor to actually do anything at all in the game. They can just run around, or even sit still for that matter most of the time, and effectively do nothing. We've all heard the complaints of "what do I do with my 10,000 accumulated XP? Kevan, we need another update so I can spend it! Give us more flavor, more skills!"

All this is old news, and a number of ways of changing it have been proposed, some of them needlessly complex. I figured I'd propose a simpler method, and hope this is generally acceptable:

I suggest all characters, human and zombie alike, lose 1 XP every 2 hours automatically down to a minimum of 0. If you spend 24 hours without accumulating any XP once you reach 0, you exchange the last skill you acquired for 50 XP, and keep losing AP and skills until you start participating again. That 50 XP gives you a significant advantage on regaining your lost skill if you decide you want to... if you accidentally let things slide until you're at the point where you've lost a skill, you don't have to start entirely from scratch to get it back. It also means it'll be at least 5 days before you lose another skill. 4 plus change for the XP loss from 50 to 0, then another day for staying at 0 for 24 hours. If a character just sits around and does nothing to earn XP all the time, they'll eventually find they lose even their free running and construction abilities, or their lurching gait and vigour mortis abilities.

Whaddya think? Decent idea, or just another futile and halfhearted attempt at accomplishing something on DevSug?

Discussion (XP system change)

Points for trying, but I don't think this will ever pass. Particularly because I do not think that the server keeps a record of the order in which a player obtained skills, making the skill loss thing kind of difficult to implement. Also, this seems to punish players with low XP (say you just bought a skill) and who might not do anything to earn XP for a day. What if you are walking across the city, or you are maintaining barricades during a siege? --Maverick Talk - OBR Praise Knowledge! 404 10:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And in this example you'll be seeing two of my characters, DY and Cloister. Let's make clear that neither has been idled for prolonged periods of time causing the other to have an advantage on XP gain/retention under this suggestion. DY has 40 levels and 999XP, amounting to 5299XP earned in the game (if my tired brain can add up correctly), compared to Cloister and his 21 levels and 6700XP, amounting to 8800XP earned in the game.

Now Cloister has three and a half thousand more XP than DY, quite acceptable if you want to point out that Cloister participate for most of the Mall Tour, quite unacceptable if you realise that Cloister was created in October 2008 and DY was created in December 2007. DY has nearly a full year game time on his clock and is still down by so much. Why? Their activities. Cloister ferals his way, most of his action involve cracking weak buildings (for XP), killing (for XP) and ransacking (for XP), DY barricades (not for XP) and repairs (not for XP). Asking for more skills is old news? So instead you want to make valid and altruistic play styles obsolete by punishing survivors that don't kill zombies on the street and zombies that block RPs and hold doors open? -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 10:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


New Revive Rules Part III: The Revive Warriors

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 23:06 30 December 2009(UTC)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Revives
Description: Now using a Syringe is treated the same as any other weapon. It costs 1 AP, but only has a 10% chance to “hit“. Any “miss” with a Syringe has a 10% chance to have the Syringe break during the struggle, effectively losing the Syringe for no effect.

This is because sticking a Zombie with a Syringe should be like a combat action. Zombies don’t wait passively in line to peacefully accept being jabbed. It should be a struggle.

However, now a Revived Zombie automatically spends 25 XP in order to Stand as a Survivor. If the character does not have 25 XP, they get a message: "You are permanently dead."

Headshot Zombies must spend 25 XP to Stand. If the character does not have 25 XP, they get a message: "You are permanently dead." Headshot no longer causes you to spend extra AP to Stand.

Some players will cry because they want to keep their extra XP in order to grow their E-penis. So, now there will be a new section on your profile that shows all XP you have ever earned underneath the XP you have available to spend.

Discussion (New Revive Rules Part III: The Revive Warriors)

Yeah, totally, perma-death is the way to do this. Same as below. Spam. --Bob Boberton TF / DW Littlemudkipsig.gif 23:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Perma death would rule.-- | T | BALLS! | 23:25 30 December 2009(UTC)
THIS IDEA FUCKING SUCKS

When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 23:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Second. Again. --Bob Boberton TF / DW Littlemudkipsig.gif 23:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Troll1.jpg Attention
Please do not feed the Trolls

Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

See my E-Penis argument below.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 00:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry ZL,Permanent death DOESNT rule.Also,the only ones that may enjoy this will be the griefers.--Kralion 00:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Monroeville had permanent zombification, which caused it to go extinct. Perma-death would be much, much worse. --AORDMOPRI ! T 01:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

...I see, so now the game would be ruled by the people with 3 year old characters who can die in excess of 1000 times before even coming close to running out of XP? This screws. It does not screw any group in particular it just gives them all a general screw. -Devorac 02:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Easy fix: Total Reset.-- | T | BALLS! | 03:01 31 December 2009(UTC)

You are hullarious and ZANY!!!! --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 03:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This game and its Wiki does lack...Zazz.-- | T | BALLS! | 03:25 31 December 2009(UTC)
Sod that. It lack Zsasz. When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 03:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Nonsense. It actually lacks File:Zasz.gif --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 03:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

New Revive Rules Part II: Revive Rule's Revenge

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 22:24 30 December 2009(UTC)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Revives
Description: Now using a Syringe is treated the same as any other weapon. It costs 1 AP, but only has a 10% chance to “hit“. Any “miss” with a Syringe has a 10% chance to have the Syringe break during the struggle, effectively losing the Syringe for no effect.

This is because sticking a Zombie with a Syringe should be like a combat action. Zombies don’t wait passively in line to peacefully accept being jabbed. It should be a struggle.

However, now a Revived Zombie automatically spends 100 XP in order to Stand as a Survivor. If the character does not have 100 XP, they Stand as a Zombie and get the message: “The Revivification Serum seems to have failed.”

Some players will cry because they want to keep their extra XP in order to grow their E-penis. So, now there will be a new section on your profile that shows all XP you have ever earned underneath the XP you have available to spend.

Discussion (New Revive Rules Part II: Revive Rule's Revenge)

It will result in a lot of frustrated level 0 zombies, whom will soon quit the game because they can not level up and can not get a revive. - User:Whitehouse 22:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Second. There might be "problems" with syringes now, but this sure as hell isn't the way to fixing it. --Bob Boberton TF / DW Littlemudkipsig.gif 22:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

New Revive Rules

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 12:50 30 December 2009(UTC)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Revives
Description: Now it only costs 1 AP to use a Syringe. However, now a Revived Zombie automatically spends 100 XP in order to Stand as a Survivor. If the character does not have 100 XP, they Stand as a Zombie and get the message: “The Revivification Serum seems to have failed.”

Some players will cry because they want to keep their extra XP in order to grow their E-penis. So, now there will be a new section on your profile that shows all XP you have ever earned underneath the XP you have available to spend.

Discussion (New Revive Rules)

Why do you hate new players so much :( --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't.-- | T | BALLS! | 18:53 30 December 2009(UTC)

Looks like it would force people to play as zombies, primarily the newbies, which I have a feeling would be a bad idea. It is better to encourage, than force. Also it would slightly harm zombies saving up XP for when they get revived. - User:Whitehouse 13:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It would make Survivors want to live instead of basically committing suicide as a tactic. Survivors level twice or even 3 times as fast anyway so that would balance better anyway. Survivors would just have to plan better, moving to safer places instead of running into danger with no real consequences. It would be more like...a game.-- | T | BALLS! | 18:53 30 December 2009(UTC)

Even worse than the original Headshot, which was changed because it was hideously punitive. --Papa Moloch 14:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really. No one can touch your XP if it is under 100, and if it is over 100, just spend it! If you have all the skills and cant spend any, you're obviously well off enough to make not dying a higher priority. PKer wars would be more fun since now, since your death ratio would mean something on both sides.-- | T | BALLS! | 18:53 30 December 2009(UTC)

As Karl, Whitehouse, and Moloch, god awful.-- Adward  14:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What is this i don't even When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 15:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The only people damaged by losing EXP are the people with little experience. I have two characters with all skills, so they can be revived without a single problem, but a new player would have a hard time gaining exp fast enough to account for combat and random revives. I must say that this is a flawed idea (and not to mention that after a good amount of searching, I would be able to revive ~30-50 zombies in one blast (30-50 because I assume some of them have rot). Don't screw with EXP. Verance 15:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a real idea people. Please don't feed the trolls by responding to this obvious flamebait. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 16:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Irony.-- | T | BALLS! | 18:53 30 December 2009(UTC)

lolololol rush into a besieged NT with 20 zombies inside and clear them out all by myself!!! Add any kind of group tactics or zerging, and non-rot zombies can't ever hold anything, not to mention getting 220 XP a day from reviving and dumping all those lovely corpses. Totally fair and balanced. --Bob Boberton TF / DW Littlemudkipsig.gif 20:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Good reason to make Syringe use a combat action with a %.-- | T | BALLS! | 21:46 30 December 2009(UTC)

Okay so Newby McNewberton spawns into a building that is under siege by zombies (I just did that with my new pacifist char), Newby McNewberton stays through the siege trying to get enough XP for freerunning (Very few real new bloods go for Free Running first). So let's say he started as scientist and will get his XP through tagging zombies, during the siege he manages to make 30 XP before the horde conquers the place, he is now a zombie until he can make 70 more XP just to be revived. Even if Newby McNewberton does not resign in disgust after learning that all the tagging he did was for nothing he probably will after the third or forth time he gets trampled by zombies. Really man, 80% of the people my rotter kills are in the lvl 1-3 range, these newbies are a vital resource to the game as they form the staple diet of most new zombies and thus the majority of the experience earned through healing/reviving/being attacked by zombies. You kill the new blood you kill the game mechanics. -Devorac 21:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

He would be better of spending his next 100 on some zombie skills.-- | T | BALLS! | 21:43 30 December 2009(UTC)
That's not for you to decide. Making a a push towards something is a good idea (like freerunning and how it is a core skill) but forcing people to play as zombies for any length of time without the possibility of revival is just plain stupid. -Devorac 21:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe. But it would be a challenge. You'd have to earn being alive, which is million times better for making XP and all the other advantages they get. More like a game. If they were really into being a Survivor, make a new character.-- | T | BALLS! | 21:50 30 December 2009(UTC)
Please don't interfere with the proper feeding and growth of my E-penis.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 21:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
You could still grow your E-penis with the new profile change.-- | T | BALLS! | 21:52 30 December 2009(UTC)
By Spending XP I feel that my E-penis is shrinking precisely at the rate of XPenis spent. While I like the idea of a separate section showing total XP accrued, that feels more like a virtual E-Penis as apposed to my REAL E-Penis, which is the amount of XPenis available to spend. Inflating this number, and thus, my REAL E-Penis is crucial to my enjoyment of UD.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 00:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
You deserve some kind of epic prize for sneaking that redirect link in there. :D --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 00:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
You deserve some kind of epic prize for how far you can manage to lodge your head in someone elses ass.-- | T | BALLS! | 01:41 31 December 2009(UTC)
"If they were really into being a Survivor, make a new character." And their new character would also inevitably succumb to untimely demise as well, then this cycle would repeat, or they would go cruise the internet for porn instead of playing something so frustrating (Probably more likely). Everyone dies in malton, everyone. Although I suppose survivors could protect themselves by arming up with 50 Syringes each and stabbing any zombies that came by, forcing all the new zombies created by your experience-to-revive Pre-requisite to spend 10 AP over and over again... Look, this screws zombies, I don't want my beachheads completely wiped by one survivor with 40 needles, nor do I want four man CR-teams knocking 100 zombies down every day. This Screws newbies because almost no one wants to play as a zombie at first, most people play pro-survivor until they get bored and then raise hell as a zombie. -Devorac 22:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, we need to make the CR a % action then. Around 10%. I think it would force Survivors to "play safer", but I dunno, maybe it would be too gross. I have leveled a Survivor character up to 22 without dying at all, but I played it very safe.-- | T | BALLS! | 22:10 30 December 2009(UTC)

I had a response all typed up, but then I realized that discussing the finer details of what's wrong with the suggestion would be like arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. If it goes up for vote, it'd get a Spam from me. Aichon 22:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


Encumbrance Effects

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 11:58 30 December 2009(UTC)
Type: Improvment
Scope: Survivors
Description: Now you get bonuses or penalties to all Actions depending on your Encumbrance.
EncumbranceEffect
0%-10%+10%
11%-30%+5%
31%-70%0
71%-90%-5%
91%-100%-10%
101% and above-20%

Inspired by the Travel Light, Stab Fast suggestion.

Discussion (Encumbrance Effects)

Template:LDN


Travel Light, Stab Fast

Timestamp: A Big F'ing Dog 17:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Knives
Description: The Knife Combat skill has little purpose, since maxed out knives are suboptimal compared to maxed out axes. This suggests an idea to improve them slightly, and add flavor to the game.

ROLEPLAY REASONING: When a survivor is lightly encumbered they are able to move swiftly, and use a light weapon like a knife more effectively. Swinging a big heavy axe is always a good idea. Lunging with a knife is harder when carrying a bunch of generators.

EFFECT: When a survivor is at 30% encumbrance or lower, the Knife Combat skill's benefit is increased from +15% to +25% to knife accuracy, bringing maximum accuracy to 60%. This is actually equivalent to the axe in average damage but has less variance. An axe's greater damage and lower accuracy means it could potentially deal far more or far less damage with the same AP, making the knife a safer bet if not necessarily a better or worse choice.

I like this idea because it would give the knife and the knife skill a purpose, rather than leaving it on the skill tree like a vestigial tail. More importantly, I like anything that provides players with a choice of tactical trade offs. People could decide whether they prefer having a more predictable output of damage, or whether having a stockpile of ammo, faks, and generators is preferable.

Your thoughts about the skill, and whether the numbers are appropriate (+10% at 30 encumbrance) are welcome. I picked +10% to match, not surpass the axe's average damage, and 30% seemed low enough to require some sacrifice but not low enough to be a terrible constraint either.

Discussion (Travel Light, Stab Fast)

I like the idea of situational accuracy, but I'd make it +5% accuracy. Knives are best for property destruction, so overall damage doesn't matter when you can take out generators, radio transmitters, etc, so much easier. 55% accuracy for successful attacks on objects is pretty damn funky. When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 17:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I too like the idea, but it is rather overpowered. I have a character who hunts down injured survivors, and all he has is a knife. I pick up about a kill a day with it. This would only overpower him and make it easier for him to work. The 50% as is, is very decent all things considered, so I suggest you accept that it is 50% chance of striking and leave it at that. -- Emot-argh.gif 17:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it's an interesting idea, but don't see much point. As Mis said, Knives are already best for property damage, due to their high accuracy. Further increasing it would buff GKers/RKers (whether that's a good or a bad thing is a matter of opinion). And the only ones who will likely reap the benefits are PKers and trenchies, since normal survivors would restock on ammo before getting that low or would be carrying a Toolbox, either of which would bump them over 30% easily. Just don't see the point. Aichon 04:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaking encumbrance for weight and bulk carried, and thus ease of combat. Encumbrance =/= realism. For example, you take two generators strapped to your back and a knife (42% encumbrance IIRC) and I'll take 49 syringes in a backpack and a knife (100% encumbrance) and we'll have ourselves a duel. Who'll win? Me. By a long way. Encumbrance exists to limit certain in game items, not to represent reality and therefore combat potential. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 04:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Iscariot makes a valid point of the logical fallacy that people make in many games, mistaking encumbrance for bulk. I will add the point that of all players, I think the ones that will benefit the most from this will actually be PKers (as The Colonel hinted at). Once a PKer uses up all his/her ammo (and a large amount of encumbrance), they usually just have either an axe or a knife left. If they drop any excess empty weapons *coughSHOTGUNScough* they can easily hit below that 30% and get a nice bonus giving them a reliable way to finish a kill. --Maverick Talk - OBR Praise Knowledge! 404 07:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Maverick is on the money. I have a dedicated PK're character, and the knife is my best friend for finishing kills. not only when i'm out of ammo, but also to save it for the next poor bastard i pick out of a crowd. Give me 55% to hit, and my axe pretty much becomes dead weight. I think for the sake of balance, the accuracy is fine. But I see the fundimental point of the idea, it's maybe just not applicable to Urban Dead. At least not in this way. ---Jack S13 T! PC 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Even at 55% hit the knife is still slightly worse than the axe in terms of damage/AP. I'm not keeping my encumberance below 30% just so I can have a weapon that is as good as or slightly worse (or even slightly better) than the best melee weapon in the vast majority of cases. As a PKer I would keep my axe for emergencies and try to keep enough ammo in reserve that I rarely ever had to use it. Who does this help? GKers? Even if it gave the knife 65% hit rate it would still be unused by most players. An easy way around the problem of uber property destruction would be to cap all melee hit rates against generators and transmitters at 50%; though as I mentioned above, while not flawed as such, this suggestion has a very limited scope. --Anotherpongo 09:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


New Encumbrance/Search Rates (or: Zombie Lord’s Next Amazing Idea)

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 03:56 22 December 2009(BST)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Encumbrance/Search Rates
Description: Ok, now the Encumbrance of all Items is doubled. But, now all search rates are doubled as well. (or tripled, whatever works better) This way you can carry less Items and it’s less retarded with the whole carrying 5 Portables Generators at once BS, but at the same time you can cycle through Items quicker so basically you have to use em up a lot faster. In a siege this could help Survivors in special areas (getting more FAKs out in Hospitals making them much cooler, same with PD’s etc.) But you would no longer be a walking fuckin Warehouse.

Discussion (New Encumbrance/Search Rates (or: Zombie Lord’s Next Amazing Idea))

What if I like carrying 20 or so shotguns underneath my trenchcoat? Now I won't be able to carry them and be hardcore zombie killer who shoots people outside buildings. I will have to rely on overcading like I normally do to keep zombies out because you nerfed my encumberance. Truthfully...I don't like it, as a Death cultist, I like to take a day or two to stock up on ammo, and once I'm out, I jump and eat people. This would limit the number of kills I can make my limiting my guns and ammo that I can carry, I understand I can find more, but carry less. Without the ability to carry, I don't like it. -- 

Emot-argh.gif 04:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Just double the max AP possible while you're at it. I mean, if we double/triple everything, it won't fuck with the intended way the game is supposed to be played, right? It'll just make things more epic? --

04:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but I think we're way past "intended way the game is supposed to be played". Do you honestly take that seriously? Besides, doubling the AP would just be stupid.-- | T | BALLS! | 04:43 22 December 2009(BST)
Yeah, doubling AP is stupid, it's not like Nexus War did it for years.... -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 09:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Better to just make the 50 AP we have more effective. It would increase the "fun factor" if half your actions (or more) didn't turn out to be completely wasted and would not double the server load.-- | T | BALLS! | 16:42 22 December 2009(BST)
As is simply doubling other random aspects of the game. If you actually thought the game was as broken as you claim it is; you'd go to further lengths when suggesting balance/gameplay improvements, methinks. -- 04:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
It's obviously just a basic idea, open for discussion. The core being making things easier to find, but being able to carry less of them. The rest is open to development.-- | T | BALLS! | 04:59 22 December 2009(BST)
Well, I think it would make short-term seige gameplay much more engaging for survivors, but at the same time, well, seiges aren't what they used to be (ie. decent or long-term) since Kevan introduced Cadeblocking, so I dunno. At first I thought it would also make it a lot more difficult for survivors to pick back up after a big trouncing, but doubling search rates would also mean that the search rates would be so good that lighting buildings wouldn't be necessary so they could recover without needing a fuel and genny. Hmm. Interesting proposal. -- 05:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmm yes, depending on how high the search rates went it could make PG's less needed for rebuilding, which I had not really considered. It makes sense though, a ruined building should not be THAT large an impediment to searches. I'd think the presence of Zombies probably should, but that's for another suggestion. I was more thinking that if PG's weighed 40% or so then you'd want to set them up somewhere ASAP instead of lugging them all over, and I like the idea of empowering the special qualities of specific buildings (Hospitals, PD's etc.) Malls search rates might need to be lowered slightly to keep them form being the Fortress of Doom and make their bonus the luxury of variety vs amazing search rates, which might lead to less Mall-centric play.-- | T | BALLS! | 05:20 22 December 2009(BST)

Not a fan. However, to note something, what happens to the people who are already over the encumbrance rate if this gets implemented? E.g. My Encumbrance is 87%. This happens. Effectively, I could now only hold < 50%. Do I keep all of the junk I had before? But, as I said, still not a fan. Doubling/Halving is way too much to even consider.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 16:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You probably get to keep your junk until you use it up.-- | T | BALLS! | 00:08 23 December 2009(UTC)

I don't like this. Makes it too difficult for zombies that don't spend much time alive to go off like bombs when they get combat revived. Before the "Get Brain Rot and STFU!" types chime in, I should point out I mainly mean rotters. They do get CRed (in fact my last two CRs were suffered by this guy, and unlike death cultists or the less committed, if they want to punish the CR with gunplay they've got to stock up a lot in advance because while it happens, it's not very often, and they need to move quick before they get PKed just for having the rot. --Mold 05:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

But what if I WANT to be a walking Warehouse? Some of us enjoy the hilarity of holding what could be tons of stuff and still being able to even move. Cookies and Cream 11:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, some of you are complete pussies.-- | T | BALLS! | 17:12 26 December 2009(UTC)
this final statement makes me feel that the best approach would be to completly disregard any, if not all future comments from zombie lord. Congrats ZL, congrats. --Jack S13 T! PC 15:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
He isn't all that bad once you get used to him, and if you reclassify all insults as banter.-Devorac 21:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorakunt was just being a asshole anyway. Hardy har, he "enjoys the hilarity of being a walking warehouse." Gimme a break.-- | T | BALLS! | 21:56 30 December 2009(UTC)

Morphine

Timestamp: Captdrett 18:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Type: Drug
Scope: Survivor
Description: Morphine can be used by a survivor on another survivor or on themselves temporarily making all movements cost double. This would not effect other actions and no XP would be awarded. The effects of morphine would last 12 hours of real time, regardless of AP used during that time. Morphine can not be used on zombies. Morphine can only be found at hospitals.

Cost to use: 1 AP

Encumbrance: 2% (for needle)

Requires: Lab Experience

Optional Effect: Morphine causes all attempted speech to be jumbled. Players type as normal; however, letters are randomly replaced when the character speaks making it difficult to understand what was said. This does not effect what the character hears.

Discussion

Clock.png WARNING
This suggestion has no active discussion.

It will be removed on: Dec 31 at 02:04 (UTC)

And the point of this is? - User:Whitehouse 18:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Griefing.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Well that is what I thought it sounded like. :P - User:Whitehouse 18:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Ideally, it would be used defensively; but, yes it certainly could be used as griefing, although a player could avoid any negative effects by waiting it out. Captdrett 19:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Defensively? What benefit to defense does this give? Also, "wait it out?" I guess you can just "wait out" those zombie break-ins too... no, nobody ever needs to flee and people just love having their movement speed halved for no reason. --Bob Boberton TF / DW Littlemudkipsig.gif 19:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Defensively. To escape a PKer or to escape as a PKer and increase your odds of getting away. And waiting wouldn't be required, just a way to avoid any negative effects. If you got 1 AP you can run out of the building whether you spend 1 or 2 AP. Captdrett 19:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots, or do you just decide that your idea was too awesome to possibly have mistakes? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 18:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I did actually. Care to be more specific? Captdrett 18:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't Reward Players for Playing Out of Character, Multiply it by a Billion, Put Yourself in the Other Person's Shoes, Make it More Fun, Not Less Fun, Make it Fun!. Are those enough? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 19:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention the whole "this has absolutely no benefit yet allows survivors to jab each other and grief to no end." --Bob Boberton TF / DW Littlemudkipsig.gif 19:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
How is that out of character? As for the fun, yes you are right, it doesn't perticularly add fun but I don't feel it takes it away either. I could see an issue with maintaining the timer on all players, so I'll agree that could be a problem. And, as for putting yourself in others shoes, this would be no different than moving zombie without lurching gait. Captdrett 19:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
...Are you stupid or something? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 19:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, sure am, but I put this under developing suggestions for a reason. I appreciate your comments on why it wouldn't work. Captdrett 19:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Fine.
  1. Don't Reward Players for Playing Out of Character: That means you should avoid helping PKers, ZKers, Life Cultists, and Death Cultists. This suggestion only allows survivors to hurt other survivors, and is out of character.
  2. Multiply it by a Billion: If every griefer spent all their AP finding and using these things, assuming they have little trouble finding their targets, they would probably be able to permanently suppress just about every active survivor's movement indefinitely. That's bad.
  3. Put Yourself in the Other Person's Shoes: It wouldn't be like playing as a zombie without lurching gait, because zombies don't have to find entry points, gather supplies, run from falling buildings, scout the area, or go through a lengthy process of receiving a revive every time they die. It would in fact be like playing as a survivor with x2 movement costs.
  4. Make it More Fun, Not Less Fun: Who is going to enjoy this? Griefers? They don't count. This clause and the next one are in the D&DN almost specifically to kill realism-over-fun and pro-griefing suggestions.
  5. Make it Fun!: See above
  6. Overall, this suggestion would add nothing of any value to the game, and would only serve as useless nerf to allow griefers to take away fun from other survivors. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 19:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
>PKers and Death Cultists are pretty in-genre. Human on human conflict, as well as mad religious cults are pretty staple to the zombie genre when it started. But besides that, all other points hold. Some people only play at a certain time each day, like say, right before they go to bed. If you jab them within twelve hours before that time, you've more or less forced them not to play that day. Or at the very least, not play as effectively. Not everybody spends all day watching their UD accounts for the morphine timer to run out. RinKou 20:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
While I don't agree with all assertations. I do agree, this was a poor suggestion. I will without sarcasm now agree with the stupid comment. Thank you, Lelouch. Captdrett 20:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Bah, no one who is even capable of considering themselves unintelligent actually is. It was a dumb idea, but everyone, no matter what, does some god-awful stupid things, worse than this, every now and again [thinks of last A/VB Talk comment about Iscariot]. The fact that you're willing to see your own idea's flaws means you're better at it than most of the people who put things up on this page. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 21:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  1. Don't Reward Players for Playing Out of Character: This guideline is stupid and bullshit. Pking and culting is perfectly in character at any given time. please bawwwww some more about it.
  2. Multiply it by a Billion: "If every griefer spent all their AP finding and using these things, assuming they have little trouble finding their targets, they would probably be able to permanently suppress just about every active survivor's movement indefinitely. That's bad." the only valid and good point you've made with your "i'mma be smarrt!" liste.
  3. Put Yourself in the Other Person's Shoes: "It wouldn't be like playing as a zombie without lurching gait, because zombies don't have to find entry points, gather supplies, run from falling buildings, scout the area, or go through a lengthy process of receiving a revive every time they die. It would in fact be like playing as a survivor with x2 movement costs." Which would be a lot more fairer to newbie zombies who deal with worse shit all the time. Try limiting yourself to 35 ap AND 2x movement costs for a hell of a long time because you can't get the xp to get skills to give you a little bit more ap in the long run. Shut up.
  4. Make it More Fun, Not Less Fun: Pkers and cultist would enjoy this quite a bit. They DO fucking count, because, you know what? It's a playing style in the game. It's been here just as long as the other ways of playing too.
  5. Make it Fun!: It would definitely be fun as a pker/cultist to go in a safehouse and mass stick people, and then have the horde come in and wreck everything.
In short, you're a dumbass. Pkers and Cultists have become a fairly influential part of the game at this point, it's time you all grow up and stop thinking of them as a random anomaly (hint: they're not). Also. "huurrr r u stupid? hurrr". Get over yourself.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 22:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
u dun? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I love that the one you didn't provide a counter argument for is the one that severely breaks the game.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 12:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
That's because he made a valid point there (and why I said so in the list). I just had to clear up the rest of his bullshit. :/ -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but arguably, it's enough to render this suggestion pretty much void. Hilarious way of deposing his comments, by the way. :D--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes, the suggestion is overall shit, not very fun for anyone but one style of playing. And while I'd enjoy it, I'm sure Haliman wouldn't when I grief him to death. >:) -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 09:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
My last note got removed :\ But anyway, it was basically what DM said. Human on human conflict, and to a lesser extent, mad cults, are pretty in genre. At least when everything started, that is. As far as Romero's films went, the central conflicts were human on human, with zombies in the background. In any case, some people only log on around one time a day. Some times that happens to be right before they go to bed. At worst, you've kept this person from playing one day. At best, you're still costing them at least 25 AP. Not everybody has the time to sit around and watch their morphine clocks. RinKou 01:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

lmao the real-life properties of heroin are the opposite of what this suggestion is suggesting. How about; Morphine revives 15HP, thats it..simple, none of that comedown bullshit and it does what its supposed to do. JUST LIKE A F.A.K. GasCandle 06:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Bad idea.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 12:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This is dumb because people generally only play once a day at the same time, work out when someone's online and this can be used to grief that character out of the game. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 12:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

How about...meth; you DONT LOSE ACTION POINTS AT ALL!! GasCandle 12:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but the only things you can do are talk, pick at your face, and clean obsessively, and each action that would normally cost an AP costs you a HP instead as you waste away from never eating. --Mold 12:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

you never eat in the game anyway. good point though, if you take alot of meth - u start to pick your skin (like IRL, after alot). if you can fight zombies you can handle your pipe. unless youre a little feen. SO ITS DECIDED THEN, meth is the new FIRST AID KIT GasCandle 13:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Add AIDS while you're at it. The new infection! --

04:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This is completely pointless, it only helps griefers (which is not a valid playing style, thank you very much). It is not the same as playing a zombie without lurching gait because zombies can buy lurching gate to avoid spending 2x AP on movement whereas this allows someone to have their movement effectvely stalled indefinitely by greifers. Quite simply, no.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 02:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


Suggestions up for voting

Alt Proximity Warning

Moved to Suggestion talk:20091219 Alt Proximity Warning