Difference between revisions of "Developing Suggestions"
Bob Moncrief (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
Also, have any of these been suggested before? Other than that, I'm a fan. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 22:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC) | Also, have any of these been suggested before? Other than that, I'm a fan. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 22:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC) | ||
:In order: | |||
:*It would still be there for survivors seeing it. I was hoping the character limit might result is more "cades @ 10pm" rather than "tonight my zombies brothers, we attack the barricades at 10:00 GMT." More like zombies grunt words, rather than speak them. But perhaps a better compromise might be just removing all vowels, so it's easier to communicate but still not 100% clear? | |||
:*They could be repaired. I picture, in my idyllic dream, it taking 3-4 coordinated survivors to retake long ruined buildings or one survivor and luck/revives. It also means that if zombies hold a building for say 1 year, it will take quite the effort/coordination to recover it (would take a single survivor about 7.5 days to repair rather than 1 second and 7.5 days of negative AP). | |||
:*You are probably right. My thought was making survivors really think about what they need/want; however, it's been so long since I've worried about survivor stuff (tool boxes, generators, fuel cans), that I may be overestimating what that allows a survivor to carry. | |||
:*Probably? | |||
:Thanks, Bob. --<sub>[[User:Kirsty_cotton|<span style="color: lightgrey">K</span>]]</sub><sup>[[CLZA|<span style="color: lightgrey">CLZA</span>]]</sup> 23:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
---- | ---- | ||
Revision as of 23:18, 10 September 2015
NOTICE |
The Suggestions system has been closed indefinitely and Developing Suggestions is no longer functions as a part of the suggestions process.
However, you are welcome to use this page for general discussion on suggestions. |
Developing Suggestions
This section is for general discussion of suggestions for the game Urban Dead.
It also includes the capacity to pitch suggestions for conversation and feedback.
Further Discussion
- Discussion concerning this page takes place here.
- Discussion concerning the suggestions system in general, including policies about it, takes place here.
Resources
How To Make a Discussion
Adding a New Discussion
To add a general discussion topic, please add a Tier 3 Header (===Example===) below, with your idea or proposal.
Adding a New Suggestion
- To add a new suggestion proposal, copy the code in the box below.
- Click here to begin editing. This is the same as clicking the [edit] link to the right of the Suggestions header.
- Paste the copied text above the other suggestions, right under the heading.
- Substitute the text in RED CAPITALS with the details of your suggestion.
- The process is illustrated in this image.
{{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.
- 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 month may be cycled without notice.
Please add new discussions and suggestions to the top of the list
Suggestions
Semi-Comprehensive Zombie Balancing
Timestamp: KCLZA 22:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC) |
Type: Zombie Boost (with a touch of survivor nerfing) |
Scope: Zombies and survivors |
Description: So, here goes.
Now some more questionable suggestions (more nerfing survivors than improving zombies):
|
Discussion (Semi-Comprehensive Zombie Balancing)
Most of these I 100% endorse. Comments/questions from section A:
- As to #1, I wish there were a way to do this without removing the flavor of zombies' limited communication.
- For #4, what about buildings that are more than 50 AP ruined? would you have to spend 50 AP, wait until you regained, spend another 50 AP, etc? Or would buildings that fall beyond 50AP be lost forever?
From section B:
- For #4, 60% encumbrance seems pretty low — as a survivor, I rarely have below 50%, and often am running in the 70-80% range. Maybe 75% as the encumbrance threshold? Also, isn't there some item which you can carry to exceed 100% encumbrance by a significant margin (pumpkins?)
Also, have any of these been suggested before? Other than that, I'm a fan. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 22:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- In order:
- It would still be there for survivors seeing it. I was hoping the character limit might result is more "cades @ 10pm" rather than "tonight my zombies brothers, we attack the barricades at 10:00 GMT." More like zombies grunt words, rather than speak them. But perhaps a better compromise might be just removing all vowels, so it's easier to communicate but still not 100% clear?
- They could be repaired. I picture, in my idyllic dream, it taking 3-4 coordinated survivors to retake long ruined buildings or one survivor and luck/revives. It also means that if zombies hold a building for say 1 year, it will take quite the effort/coordination to recover it (would take a single survivor about 7.5 days to repair rather than 1 second and 7.5 days of negative AP).
- You are probably right. My thought was making survivors really think about what they need/want; however, it's been so long since I've worried about survivor stuff (tool boxes, generators, fuel cans), that I may be overestimating what that allows a survivor to carry.
- Probably?
Hide
Timestamp: Matt Aries (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC) |
Skill Name: Hide |
Type: Survivor combat change |
Scope: Balance game mechanic |
Description: Allows for a survivor to spend half it's current AP to allow for a hiding spot. Making it less likely to be seen by others in the building. The more AP spent the better the chances of not being seen. Can only be done once every 24 hours. |
Seek
Timestamp: Matt Aries (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC) |
Skill Name: Seek |
Type: Zombie combat change |
Scope: Balance game mechanic |
Description: Able to find a hidden warm body. Due to this being unsuspecting by the one hiding, the first hit is a 100% to hit. |
Info on Hide & Seek: A building can not be ruined if someone is hiding inside. The AP spent by the person hiding is needed to find the one who is hiding. If successful, only the one who spent the points can view the hidden survivor. Others inside can not attack, heal, etc. unless they too spend the AP to "find". All communications over transmitters and in building conversations are unclear. If the survivor who is hiding moves or does any action, they are visible like normal. You can spend up to 25 AP to hide / seek and can go into the negative, same as if repairing a ruined building. These two skills will assist survivors, zombies, and even PKers in the game. If someone is hiding, a zombie can still ransack a building just not ruin it. A notification of if you are found, or if someone found you will show if successful.
Imagine if you will the following scenarios:
* PKer killed someone and is running. They can spend all of the remaining AP they have and never move. Those looking to track down a PKer have to spend AP in every potential building to find them. | ||||||||||||||||
* Survivors gather for a typical last stand in a mall. If several of the survivors use hide, and even 1 remains hidden the building can't be ruined. Until they are all are found and killed. Allowing for more of a balance in siege situations. | ||||||||||||||||
* Zombie wants to take a TRP to cripple a suburb, someone is hiding inside. A group of 5 zombies break in. One spends the AP and finds the only survivor hiding, who is now infected and at 2HP but the zed has no more AP. The other four need to spend the AP to find the survivor as well or the building can not be ruined. Said hiding survivor is safe at 2HP until they are found. | ||||||||||||||||
* Zombie has 20 AP spends 25 to seek, finds a survivor, but now has -5 AP. Survivor is notified, and can now escape without getting attacked, but allowing the building to be safe
Discussion: Hide & SeekSo, theoretically, if I hide in a building and then repeatedly hide over and over again each 24 hours such that I keep spending more and more AP, no one else would ever be able to find me, since I would stay ahead of them forever in terms of the AP spent, right? If so, this mechanic could be used quite easily by zergers or unscrupulous sorts to perma-maintain buildings so that it becomes impossible to ruin them and they'll always be available for free running. Which isn't to say that I don't think it's a neat idea, since I do. But in its current implementation, I see it as being ripe for abuse, I'm afraid. —Aichon— 03:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
So, let me get this straight. I’m a typical lone survivor, holed up in my EHB fortress of doom. Let’s assume it’s EHB+3 to make the maths easier. I decide that, given there have been zombies (!) sighted in my suburb, I should take appropriate precautions, so I decide to spend 25 AP hiding. Lo and behold, my paranoia is vindicated when a crack assault squad of four zombies decides my building is going down. Given it’s EHB+3, that’s 80 AP on average to take down the cades, if they’re lucky and the RNG decides to play nice. Now, of course, the zombies burst in, only to find… an empty building. Sigh. Well, at least they can ruin– no, wait! Ruin fails! There must be some harman hiding here! Luckily, one of the zambahz had bought the new Seek skill, and… oh dear. With the cost of rising from the headshot the previous night, and moving here, they’re now below 25 AP, meaning that even if they blow all their AP on seeking, they’re not going to be able to spot the hiding harman, let alone do any meaningful damage. Meanwhile, if they give up in disgust and leave, all their damage can be repaired in a fraction of what they’ve spent. TL;DR: This skill suggestion only further amplifies the AP disparity between zombies and survivors. HELL FUCKING NO ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC) Flares as more than physical damage.
Discussion (Flares as more than physical damage.)I agree that in real life there would be a lot more to happen from a flare going off inside a building. What you were describing sounds like a lot of work to be implemented, and then a lot of work to be balanced. The blinding effect you described probably would not effect anyone but the attacker seeing as most things happen to people offline. Ido think though that alerting people that someone was attacked by a flare in a building would be a good start, seeing as someone attacking someone with flares in a building would be easy to spot.JoshCz (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Random Events
Discussion (Random Events)I was trying to go for a similar thing with lottery, being like a game event. I really believe its ideas like these that can help keep the game going. I think the first step is keeping the players still here interested enough to keep playing, and stop the decay. Next would be to get the players playing together. Finally would be to getting the players playing with new players, expanding the game. Random events could accomplish the first two, and maybe even the last step of getting the game back on its feet. We'd have to brainstorm a lot of ideas for events. I have a few ideas if you want to hear some.JoshCz (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC) BIG RED BUTTON
Discussion (BIG RED BUTTON)I like thisJoshCz (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC) So there's no indication of exactly what it does yet? A ZOMBIE ANT 00:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Lottery
Discussion (Lottery)Previous Discussions User:JoshCz/Lottery
Suggestions up for votingThe following are suggestions that were developed here but have since gone to voting. The discussions that were taking place here have been moved to the pages linked below. |