Suggestion:20070722 Sewage Plant v2.0

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Revision as of 16:30, 9 May 2011 by Vapor (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search
Stop hand.png Closed
This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Peer Rejected.


20070722 Sewage Plant v2.0

Ducis DuxSlothTalk 03:11, 22 July 2007 (BST)

Suggestion type
New Buildings

Suggestion scope
The city of Malton

Suggestion description
I think it's time for me to submit my second ever suggestion again to the wiki. I'll be adding in stuff that people had a grip with, and get many fresh perspectives as the community has changed much since then. For those curious, here is the original suggestion.

Well, UD is set in the modern age, in a fairly modern city. To say that we want it realistic is certain. How about adding sewage treatment plants? Where else does all of the city's crap go?

  • Building size - 1x1
  • There will be 5 facilities in all Malton
  • Average building mechanics, in regards to barricading
  • Items found - length of pipe, beer, newspaper, knife, radio, mobile phone, wire cutters. All have very low search rates (0.5%)
  • However, the unique functionality of the building is its defining factor.


Because of the stench of the building, the following description will be shown to survivors outside within one square of the plant - A pungent odor wafts from the sewage treatment plant to your [location here].

Secondly, the odor is stronger to zombies and can be detected by them easier from a much further distance using scent death. (This is to create a building important to zombies, which they will be drawn to).

Next, suiciding in this building would be possible. There will be an option to jump into a sewage vat - you are sucked to the bottom and drown in the filthy water. Your body is then dumped outside.

Revivification inside the building is impossible, because of the infectious diseases present.

When the building is ransacked, survivors are infected on their third action inside the building (note: free running will not cause you to infect). The player will be notified in the building description that prolonged time spent in the facility is hazardous to their health when ransacked. Repairing the damage will stop this effect.

The unpowered building description reads - The smell of the dirty, unfiltered water stagnant in the vats and canals is almost overpowering. When powered, the building description changes to - dirty, unfiltered water gurgles through vats and canals by the loud water pumps. The smell is not so bad. In both conditions, there will also be A sign on the wall notifies "prolonged exposure to raw sewerage can be hazardous to your health".

Zombies can also move survivors into the building using feeding drag (however, normal parameters such as 12hp still apply).


I have tried making a building type that will be attractive to zombies (feeding drag inside, easy suicide, smell from a distance) and repulsive to survivors (rp purpose of a smelly building, game mechanics of infection and no revivification). Survivors have their malls, about time zeds had a home in Malton as well!


Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped.
# justification ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above may be struck by any user.

The only valid votes are Keep, Kill, Spam or Dupe. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.


Keep Votes

  1. Author Vote - time to see what you guys think. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 03:11, 22 July 2007 (BST)
  2. Keep - Meh.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 03:13, 22 July 2007 (BST)
  3. Keep - Whats with this meh fad? And can you drag survivors outside, or only in? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:11, 22 July 2007 (BST)
    Re: Both. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 05:20, 22 July 2007 (BST)
  4. Keep - but what if you repaired the building on your third action?--'BPTmz 11:04, 22 July 2007 (BST)
    Re: You'd be fine. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 11:54, 22 July 2007 (BST)
  5. Keep - HARMAN SEWAGE RAIDS GO. --Heavy DDR 20:37, 22 July 2007 (BST)
  6. Keep - seems like a good idea. Humans have malls, so i guess zombies need buildings. Wait though....you get sucked outside, so is the building un-barricade-able? There seems to be an open pipe somewhere.... -Doc Crook 20:52, 22 July 2007 (BST)
  7. Keep- Oh god please yes! The only, only improvement I could possibly suggest to this would be to add an option to push people in.--Seventythree 22:27, 22 July 2007 (BST)
  8. Keep (weakly) - Mostly because its a a game-enforced zombie zone, although the falvor justification is awfully thin (you can revive an infected zombie, after all). I don't see why zombies would really want to hold this building, as its of no use to survivors. However, it does give the young ones a place to hang out until they get Ankle Grab, and I know for a fact that can be a good tactic. Hopefully they would be near malls. .. . swiers BigEYEwitnessLOGO.png 23:13, 22 July 2007 (BST) Note: see the talk page for my description of how survivors could clear this building out (even when it is ransacked) and why its really not much more difficult than clearing out any other building.
  9. Keep - It seems good, but I wish there was an option to light the methane(obviously would be killed, but...). Anyways, problems I see would be the humans wouldn't have any point in controlling them. The methane might be one way, or you could have a special item found in there. --Peterblue 00:58, 23 July 2007 (BST)
  10. Keep - I like the idea of new buildings in general, if only to replace some of the duplicate buildings that are far too numerous in a city the size of Malton. Does any city that size have quite so many Hospitals and Police Stations? This building idea might serve that purpose, but it’s also a nice bit of color.--Sara M 01:10, 23 July 2007 (BST)
  11. Keep - I like the idea of zombie strongholds... could be improved by making survivors want to take the building (perhaps by making the infection affect waft around the suburb unless the sewerage plant is powered?) -- boxy T Nuts block it! DA 14:04, 25 July 2007 (BST)
    Re: That was an idea originally, however out of fear that many people would spam a possible suburb-wide 'auto-attack', I dropped it from the building properties. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 21:20, 25 July 2007 (BST)
    Re: Ah yes, I see your point -- boxy T Nuts block it! DA 12:32, 26 July 2007 (BST)
  12. Keep - A good idea.--Nikitis 22:28, 25 July 2007 (BST)
  13. Keep - I like changing the map around. --Sonny Corleone RRF CoL DORIS CRF pr0n 03:24, 27 July 2007 (BST)
  14. Keep Why the hell not? I want a "Sewage Treatment Plant Uniform" too. --Secruss 20:30, 30 July 2007 (BST)
  15. Keep Sheizer suicide, oh, oh, me like... we need a good place for the real dirty battles. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 15:59, 3 August 2007 (BST)
  16. Keep -Only if I get to mud-wrestle zombies in human shit. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 14:11, 4 August 2007 (BST)
  17. Keep Although NIMBY --DrBowman 13:40, 5 August 2007 (BST)
  18. Keep Sounds like a good idea.When they commit suicide,they could end up in the underground thing (its not yet implemented in the game)--Timo 1 12:28, 6 August 2007 (BST)
  19. Keep - "I want my zombie to have a home". Awesome!! --Savant 11:42, 7 August 2007 (BST)

Kill Votes

  1. Meh.--ShadowScope 04:08, 22 July 2007 (BST)
    Re: Sorry to pull a technicality, but you do have to justify your vote. Plus it helps me if I want to do a revision of it down the track. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 04:15, 22 July 2007 (BST)
    Re: Fine. I just saw that there seems to be no real pressing need for such a building. The "no revives" bit did perk me a bit, but it just seem as though it is not worth Kevan's time. Making "wastelands" be no-revive places would work a bit more effectively, turning that into a great zombie safehaven. The outside is already a zombie haven, stand outside and you'll get eaten. Turning wastelands into places to avoid combat revives would have been icing on the cake. Still, there really was nothing I could do to suggest making a revision, so the "Meh".--ShadowScope 04:39, 22 July 2007 (BST)
  2. Kill/Change Well, what reason would survivors have to even use a building that they can only suffer from? Maybe add a survivor perk or something along those lines. -- SgtBopTalk|Maris Viridis 10:09, 22 July 2007 (BST) (And Meh)
    Re: Yes, this was brought up last time. The only reason for survivors to hold this building would be to deny the zeds. Why else do survivors hold buildings such as railway stations, schools, libraries, cinemas and other 'non-important buildings'? It would also be a badge of honor for the trenchy survivor groups to hold these buildings from the 'zed menace'. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 11:54, 22 July 2007 (BST)
    Re: Well, besides the bragging rights to hold on to said building, this is fundamentally different from other pointless buildings becuase other pointless buildings wouldn't HURT the defenders if they get attacked. -- SgtBopTalk|Maris Viridis
  3. kill - what this has to do with a modern city o_O Do you have heavy-smelling buildings in city you live? As SgtBop, it looks like nothing but disgusting for survivors so building will just be permanently empty—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Duke Garland (talk • contribs) 20:02, 22 July 2007.
    That is why they will be in desolate locations, like big-city outskirts. -Doc Crook 20:56, 22 July 2007 (BST)non-author Re struck. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 01:17, 23 July 2007 (BST)
  4. kill As last time. There is no benefit to survivors holding the building and no penalty to them for not thus they can and will ignore it. Zeds gain brainrot while inside and can feeding drag harmanz from outside.... well whoop-de-frag! Any harman outside is soon to be a dead harman anyway so whats the point? Unless there are strong reasons to fight over a new building then there is no point implementing it. --Honestmistake 13:54, 22 July 2007 (BST)
    Re: Excuse me for trying to add some flavor. Shall we call other building suggestions such as prisons and the Malton tower useless as well? --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 14:02, 22 July 2007 (BST)
    RE: Pointless things for flavour can be good but this is basically trying to sneak a few non-rotter staging point into the game without adding any actual value to either side! It must be possible to come up with something better than that and i am sure there were some good ideas thrown around last time. --Honestmistake 18:21, 22 July 2007 (BST)
  5. Kill Survivors would have no point in holding on to these... and frankly I don't like the idea. --Vault 15:07, 22 July 2007 (BST)
  6. Kill - Not keen on this. It's not terrible, but it's still not something that I would like to see added. --The Hierophant 21:14, 22 July 2007 (BST)
  7. Kill - Auto-attacks = bad, even if you do not think of them as auto-attacks. Automatic infection after 3 AP is spent is an Auto-attack; deal with it. --Saluton 22:10, 22 July 2007 (BST)
    Re: It is not an auto-attack in the normal sense - Only when the building is ransacked and after 3 actions do you become infected! --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 01:17, 23 July 2007 (BST)
  8. Kill - Zombies have a safehouse too. Its called "nearest faceless horde" or an empty building. We might as well select 5 squares and make it a zombie invincibilty square. Once ransacked, the only way to clear the zeds out would be suicicide...all this does is make an empty building.--Wooty 22:39, 22 July 2007 (BST)
  9. Kill - Zombies gain benefits while inside, but cannot take those benefits elsewhere, so this is not a Tactical Resource Point. As such, neither side will bother doing anything with it other than Free Running through it. Zombies are already really safe outdoors. --Magentaine 01:02, 23 July 2007 (BST)
  10. Kill - as per others above. Survivors wouldn't hold it (no advantage for them), and zombies might stay in it once in awhile... might. If we are going to be adding buildings, even for flavour, maybe we can add less "putrid" ones ;-) --Ryiis 03:41, 23 July 2007 (BST)
  11. Kill - I went back to read the old version and votes. You only made minor changes: insignificant items found at a pathetic search rate, defining how many in Malton, and now survivors get 3 actions instead of 2 before they are infected. That's a pretty powerful autoattack. You guarantee that these buildings are safehavens for zombies. I don't see them EVER becoming unransacked, because how can even a dedicated group of survivors clear out all a significant number of zeds from inside? Perhaps you could have gone for a infection simulation, where survivors only lose HP when inside the building. And perhaps only 50% chance per action. This building could be a safehaven for newbies, as swiers points out. Which may be another reason why survivors wouldn't want to try to keep a building which is pointless for them to keep - they'd be griefing newbies primarily. 'arm. 03:54, 23 July 2007 (BST)
    Re: It may seem minor to you, but those small, minor changes were gripes that many of those who voted 'kill' last time had problems with. No items. No number of how many in Malton. And I think comparing this to the last one is a little unfair. I would think that you should approach all suggestions with a fresh mind; I know I do. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 06:34, 23 July 2007 (BST)
    True, the number present in the city is an important thing to have, and the number you picked seems about right. However your changes are not things I object to in your suggestion. It's the powerful autoattack. I went to see the old version so I could see this one in the context that you see it - having had keep, kill and spam votes on the last version. It also helped me see some additional angle on the suggestion that I hadn't seen with votes on this one. I don't think you've solved everything yet. 'arm. 11:19, 24 July 2007 (BST)
  12. Kill - No revive,ransack and third action infect you......Humans won't bother with it,and there isn't really a good point for humans to hold it...--Perne 12:27, 26 July 2007 (BST)
  13. Kill -AlexanderRM is right. Overpowered area effect, I mean even in malls Survivors die and healing & revives aren't build-in. The RRF found the right way to give zombies a home, arbitrary and completely unparalleled hard coded penalties are not the way to go.-- Vista  +1  22:00, 30 July 2007 (BST)
  14. Above. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 05:09, 7 August 2007 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam/dupe -The zombies have a place to call home, it's called "the streets". there are 10,000 or so streets and you may wish to note that survivors aren't strengthened or protected at all just by BEING in a mall, so the mall/sewage plant analogy doesn't work. Plus, there don't seem to be too many differences from version 1.--AlexanderRM 21:45, 22 July 2007 (BST)
    Re: - That would be a 'KILL', not a spam. Unless you can't tell the difference. Which might happen when staying in thigh-high sewage. --Peterblue 00:58, 23 July 2007 (BST) non-author Re struck. (although yes, Peterblue you are right. This would be a 'kill' vote, not a spam. Read the guidelines AlexanderRM for what constitutes as spam. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 01:17, 23 July 2007 (BST)
    Note Spam is based on a purely subjective judgment. This vote fall within the bandwidth -- Vista  +1  22:00, 30 July 2007 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestion:20070722_Sewage_Plant_v2.0&oldid=1882796"