Suggestion:20100404 No Binocular Use In Ruins

	Closed
	This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Undecided Suggestions.

20100404 Binocular/Ruin Nerf

--

 

 

 

 

07:32, 4 April 2010 (BST)

Suggestion type
Balance

Suggestion scope
Survivors

Suggestion description

summary

Being alone in UD most of the time, Binoculars are always a helpful thing.

In the current system, a survivor can enter a ruined building and look outwards with binoculars. This is regardless of how many zombies are inside/outside.

In my proposed mechanic change, towers/buildings/hotels/motels that have been ruined should be unusable as binocular surveillance posts during the period in which they are ruined. At the point where they are repaired, they can be usable again with binoculars.

Trying to use binoculars in said ruined building type would just display a message explaining that the tool doesn't work in ruined buildings.

extraneous: flavour/fail cost/dupe?

Regarding flavour (for those concerned by it), it's already established that buildings take on huge physical metamorphosis when they become ruined. This is used to accommodate certain game mechanics already employed in the game, eg. free-running into ruined buildings. Obviously the roof is too unstable for someone to access to use binoculars, or pillars cover the stairwells to higher floors of the building, whatever. Kevan is a man who historically prefers the actual works of a gameplay change rather than how it fits into the game (thank god), so I'm not too fussed about the flavour.

Using the Binoculars on a ruined building will fail, but not cost 1AP. Seriously, I don't deem this aspect of the suggestion enough of a problem to vote kill, even if you disagree and think it should cost 1AP anyway. The actual balance is my concern, not trivial things like this which Kevan could easily decide himself, but either ways, vote at will.

I have searched this in the files of Suggestions on UDWiki and have not found it to be a dupe. On DS no one noted to have heard of it before or produced any sort of suggestion that is dupish, though if someone knows of one, obviously it should be brought here, don't hesitate.

Discussion from DS is here. Whilst I summarised a large amount of it above, it's worth a read if you want to get into the nitty-gritty of what was also suggested and left out of the final product.

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 Voting --
    
    
    
    
   07:34, 4 April 2010 (BST)
2. I like it. 07:38, 4 April 2010 (BST)
3. Isn't there a thing that says, "Don't say, 'We'll let Kevan decide'"? Other than that, I do have some gripes noted in the text from DS, but still would support the idea anyway, since it has merit worth implementing. —Aichon— 07:47, 4 April 2010 (BST)

   There are conflicting articles/points arguing both views. On one hand, there are parts in "suggestion tips" that say "Don't say you are leaving important bits for Kevan to decide on, it's your job to do it", but on the other hand, there are tips I've read around which also advise "Statistical numbers can be rough, don't take a suggestions' maths at absolute value, because obviously Kevan can tweak them if the inherent suggestion is good". I like to take both philosophy under advisement and aim for a rather large line between the two: which offers a good core suggestion, but not bog down Kevan with codified annoyances such as 1AP cost/no 1AP cost. I see where you are coming from, as I did when the original author coined the term. But I also believe the principle needs to be the strongest, most focussed on part. Obviously, I don't mind if people vote against me for disagreeing with my outlook/presentation though. --

    

    

    

    

   12:11, 4 April 2010 (BST)

4. Ruins are far too useful. If every building in Malton suddenly turned to ruin, survivors could HIPS and find enough items for a comeback. This is one of the best things that can be done about it; It's realistic, works with the current mechanics, and fits into the guideline of Keep It Simple, Stupid (KISS). --VVV ^RPMBG 07:52, 4 April 2010 (BST)
5. Keep That's a ridiculous amount of words to say. "You can't use binoculars in ruins". --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:08, 4 April 2010 (BST)
6. Keep. While I honestly don't see that doing much, as a zombie player I'm in favour of everything that gives a bit more sting to ruins for the hassle of creating and maintaining them. --Spiderzed 11:41, 4 April 2010 (BST)
7. Keep - I'm a chunky monkey from funky town. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 15:46, 4 April 2010 (BST)
8. Keep - Justification. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:30, 4 April 2010 (BST)
9. Keep - I thought this was already in the game... D: -- Rahrah is not too happy about another dead lexicon. 16:55, 4 April 2010 (BST)
10. Peek -As Ross --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 17:19, 4 April 2010 (BST)
11. Keep - Another one of those things that should have already been implemented. -Devorac 16:46, 6 April 2010 (BST)
12. Keep - Heh. --Skin 00:57, 8 April 2010 (BST)
13. Keep - A no-brainer. Mikhos 03:58, 9 April 2010 (BST)
14. Keep - I agree with Rorybob and Devorac; Something like this should already have been in the game. But I also agree with Giles_Sednik; no unrealistic/ectoplasmic metamorphosis should happen to the building. The solution? I propose the flavor text: "The upper-level windows are too obscured with splashes of blood to see anything useful." This suggestion would also mimic the in-game flavor text seen from outside buildings. TripleU and Author's suggestions about unusable stairways also sound good. If the stairway is blocked or otherwise unusable, I could tell that at-a-glance, and shouldn't have to waste an AP. If I have to go up the stairs before I see the windows are smeared with bloodstains, 1 AP sounds reasonable. --Dr Heward 19:49, 15 April 2010 (BST)

Kill Votes

1. Kill - I'm not generally in favor of pointless nerfs that reduce functionality of existing items where the flavor doesn't make any sense. Seriously, a tower gets so ruined that you can't look out a freaking window or stand on the roof? What kind of "physical metamorphosis" are we talking about here? Does the building transform like that gozer building in ghost busters? I hate it. Binoculars are the cool low-tech alternative to NT scans, don't mess them up please.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 19:00, 4 April 2010 (BST)

   You're going to have to define "pointless nerf" to me, because at the moment I don't think any nerf to survivors is "pointless" since they've had quite a strangehold on the game for over a year. No, this doesn't solve that problem. But in the greater scheme of things it's probably more appealing to ease into many small nerfs than few massive ones. As for flavour, ugh. If you take a look at something like [1] and think of the amount of those which have flavour so flimsily explained that if it were suggested through this system it would inherently be rejected: ones like "Hungry for convenience food, zombies have begun to distinguish feeding groans made inside secured buildings from those echoing through open doors." Zombies eat convenience food instead of harmans? Awha? Furthermore; What does this mean? It means Kevan cares less about flavour than the actual UDWiki community do, and we "filter" the suggestions for him. And when we are actively rejecting suggestions on grounds that Kevan doesn't care about, then we have a problem. I'm not particularly targeting you about this, but I also think suggestions shouldn't be shot down because the flavour doesn't fit the voter's idea of realistic explanation. In a zombie apocalypse. This is a game, not a movie. --

    

    

    

    

   01:47, 5 April 2010 (BST)

   n. Pointless Nerf 1. A nerf that makes the game less fun under the guise of "adding balance", while in practice only removes functionality or causes annoyance. Balance should be achieved by making the game more fun for the "losing" side, not less fun for the "winning" side.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:52, 11 April 2010 (BST)

   author replied on talk page

2. Kill - It's just bad shift in game balance.--Girobu 11:35, 6 April 2010 (BST)
3. Kill - Why? Doesn't seem like the game needs this. -- BoboTalkClown 19:12, 8 April 2010 (BST)
4. kill I still think it should be possible but risky... at the end of the day though its such a minor alteration that it hardly seems worthwhile. --Honestmistake 14:12, 11 April 2010 (BST)
5. kill Few enough people use binocs (or enter ruined buildings) as it is- why discourage both. And Statistics gives lie to the claim that survivors have "had quite a strangehold on the game for over a year"; zombies outnumbered survivors as little at 5 months ago. Though I'd agree that cross-over swings did occur less in 2009 and 2010 than previously, I think its a sign of lower populations and more stable rules than inherent imbalance.  Swiers 02:08, 13 April 2010 (BST)
6. Kill - I agree that it's kind of silly that you can't just look out of a window with the binoculars, and barely anybody uses them. Quentin Julius ^talk/ask 01:59, 14 April 2010 (BST)
7. Kill - if a building's too ruined to look out of, then it's probably too ruined to enter in the first place. Seeing as we can all enter a ruined building, this doesn't seem logical to me at all. Chief Seagull squawk ^{don't mess with the Seagull!} 09:47, 15 April 2010 (BST)
8. Kill, I like it the way it is. - User:Whitehouse 13:44, 16 April 2010 (BST)

   Kill - I don't like nerfing solo survivors, self dependency is very in-genre. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:09, 19 April 2010 (BST)

   post-deadline, struck --

    

    

    

    

   08:17, 20 April 2010 (BST)

   Kill - Hiding in ruined buildings is, as Iscariot put it, very in-genre. Binoculars are just fine the way they are. Wil Truman 23:35, 19 April 2010 (BST)

   post-deadline, struck --

    

    

    

    

   08:17, 20 April 2010 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes