Suggestions/11th-May-2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Revision as of 00:55, 26 May 2006 by Grim s (talk | contribs) (Closed)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Closed Suggestions

  1. These suggestions are now closed. No more voting or editing is to be done to them.
  2. Suggestions with a rational Vote tally of 2/3 Keeps over total of Keeps, Kills, and Spams will be moved to the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page by a moderator, unless the original author has re-suggested the Suggestion.
  3. Suggestions under the 2/3 proportion but with more or equal Keeps to Kills ration will be moved to the Undecided Suggestions page.
  4. All other Suggestions will be moved to either the Peer Rejected Suggestions page or the Humorous Suggestions page.
  5. Some suggestions may not be moved in a timely manner; moving Suggestions to Peer Reviewed Suggestions page will take higest priority.
  6. Again, DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. It will be used as a historical record and will eventually be locked.
Suggestion Navigation
Suggestion Portal
Current Suggestions • Suggestions up for Voting • Clothes Suggestions
Cycling Suggestions • Peer Reviewed • Undecided • Peer Rejected • Humorous
Suggestion Advice • Topics to Avoid and Why • Help, Developing and Editing

VOTING ENDS: 25th-May-2006

Toxic Miasma

Timestamp: 09:25, 11 May 2006 (BST)
Type: Zombie Skill
Scope: Level 4 Zombies and above
Description: Many many suggestions have come around that attempt to improve the infection mechanic; either by somehow making the infection more deadly or harder to heal away, or both. However, I believe that by making infections more common, it would improve not only the bite attack for attacking survivors, but also make the bite attack equal to the all-mighty claw attack.

So, how is this done? By adding a new skill on the Digestion Tree, after Infectious Bite. The description would read something like "the zombie has become a drooling, pus and snot-flailing creature of disease, and therefore any close contact can inflict a deadly infection".

The skill itself would change the bite attack to a special (4/1) damage (60%) accuracy attack. After attacking, you hit at a rate of 60%; however, after you hit, you have two possible options, figured by a 50-50 RNG check: either a 4 damage digesting and infecting attack, or a 1 damage infecting attack.
The effect of this change would be to enhance the consistancy of the infection mechanic; rather than being a side-effect of a high-damage successful bite attack, it would be the primary focus of a midling-damage and random attack. The average damage per AP would be 1.5, the same as a claw attack- however, the Claw attack would provide a Grasp change, and under these numbers the Grasp would only provide a .25 bonus to Damage/AP, rather than a .3 for claws. This means that when attacking a single survivor, it would be best to use claws; while for a group of survivors it would be best to use your bite attack.

Against survivors, it would mean that for 5AP a zombie would have an average of 3 survivors infected; while humans would be able to heal that damage per survivor with 4 to 5 AP per FAK, meaning that, over time and averaged across Malton, you would not be able to heal them all without suffering some effects of infection, making FAKs more valuble and infection far more feared rather than an after-thought.
Furthermore, this would not enhance the claw attack at all, avoiding any kind of barricade nerf, and would be easier to impliment, as it is in the same form as a barricade attack, with the two layers of hitting (Hit, then Creak or Collapse) being the same form as the above coding. The final result would be that a single zombie unsure he is able to kill an entire room could instead infect a group of survivors and still have an effect on them.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author Vote; a change to make bites equal to claws while still remaining interesting and different with also a bonus increase in infection deadliness while not griefing survivors. --Karlsbad 09:25, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  2. kill - Do not mess with my health! --ramby T--W! - SGP 09:45, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill - Only because I don't quite understand what this does. If you put a summary of it on the Talk page I'd be able to think about it better... --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - W! 09:53, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - Yeah I don't quite get it properly either... from what I can tell it modifys bite so that it has a 60% chance to hit, but it can do either 4 dammage, infect the other person and the Zombie gets HP or it can do 1 dammage and just infect the other person... thats how I understand it. But based off that I'm voting kill - Jedaz 10:11, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - Zombies are powerful enough now. There's no need to make them stronger. --Abi79 The Abandoned 11:40, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - [[1]] Sorry. i liked this. but there is no need to make it a multi step skill. why not have it as an option to attack? claw, bite, infect. ok well i think that would work nicly. Nazreg 12:11, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - Doesn't really make sense to me why anyone would get it... That means you have a 30% chance to do claw damage that digests, or 30% to do 1 damage to infect... Why would we pay for that? -- Tirion529 11:45, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - Like others here, I'm not sure that I understand this. The only thing I really understand is that bite goes from 30% max to a new 60% and has a 50/50 chance of doing 1 damage and infecting OR 4 damage and digesting. I think. I'm a little confused. -Wyn (talk!) 12:10, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill - Confused. And I do have to say that the ridiculousness of the "don't mess with my health" comment made me laugh. --Mookiemookie 12:18, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - I'm killing, because I'm confused as to what this does. --HerrStefantheGreat 13:48, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill - say what now --CPQD 14:38, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill - Well I've been away for a while but I see that creative and slightly silly suggestions haven't. --Thelabrat 14:57, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  13. Kill - A max claw attack is actually capable of a 1.8 average, not 1.5. More pertinently, this is a step down for zombies -- with Tangling Grasp zeds can hit 1.6 average on the bite; you've actually bumped this down slightly by changing up how much damage the bite does -- though I admit I'm unsure how you intended this to work with Grasp. Would it still add a 10% rate bonus -- for a max of 70% accuracy? --John Ember 15:37, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  14. Keep - A little confusing to read, but I like the idea. - Nicks 17:29, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  15. kill - Because i could decipher what the heck is going on. --Grim s-Mod 18:34, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  16. Kill - I'm with Grim. What the hell are you on about? --Krazy Monkey 19:36, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  17. Kill - I think I understand. With this, bite now has a 60% chance to hit. Upon a successful hit, there is then a 01-50% chance of doing regular bite damage (and Digestion) OR a 51-100% chance of doing 1 point of damage and infecting (or whatever the RNG numbers are). That being how I see it, THAT is why I'm voting kill. If my zombie is trying to go for a kill, I don't care as much about infecting and I don't want to waste a successful hit for 1 point of damage instead of the 4 I was going for. Maybe if you had a choice ("do you want to infect or digest?") or something instead. Give ME the choice, not the computer.--Pesatyel 19:52, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  18. Kill - Infection is fine the way it is. That about all I got out of your suggestion, because sense not stopped it making. --Timid Dan 20:32, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  19. Kill - Make it clear and resubmit. Nothing wrong with having suggestions that strengthen zombies. Zombies are strong enough now, but the balance goes back and forth: sooner or later the zombie will be on the losing end and need a boost. And it's only the whole set of changes implemented at once that need to be balanced or balance-restoring. Extremely unbalanced ideas (like machine guns and making infections highly contagious) are useless, but minor balance changes do not invalidate an otherwise good suggestion. --Dan 20:55, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  20. Kill - Too confuseing in its curent form. --Teksura 21:22, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  21. Spam - Because it's very confusingly written. If I spent some time to puzzle out your wording, I'm sure it would make sense, but I've entirely lost interest. IT seems rather overpowered, from the gist I got, anyways.--Wifey 21:53, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  22. Kill - Bite average damage should not be as high as 1.5 damage/AP. Quick explanation of what I understood. When you attack with a bite, you get 30% chance to do normal damage (including infection and digestion), 30% chance to deal 1 damage and infect (but not digest) and 40% to miss. The problem with this, is that the 30% chance to deal 1 damage means 30% * 1 = 0.3 extra damage per AP, making bites nearly as effective damage wise as claws, and making the claw's only advantage to be that of starting tangling grasps, opposed to the bite's infect and digest, which is clearly making bite too powerful. --McArrowni 23:00, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  23. Kill - I'm ashamed that it took so long untill somebody did the math.--Vista W! 12:05, 12 May 2006 (BST)
  24. Kill I'm reminded of a song by "They Might Be Giants". David Malfisto 23:41, 12 May 2006 (BST)

Storage Trunk

Timestamp: 02:00, 11 May 2006 (EST)
Type: improvement
Scope: Survivors and Zombies
Description: It would be nice to be able to build a Storage Trunk in a building (needing construction skill as a pre-req) that could hold, say, #100 30 items (this number is just off the top of my head, can be changed).



The Storage Trunk could be filled with items, such as guns, ammo, FAKs, Syringes, etc. at 1AP per item, and emptied at 1AP per item.

This would be useful for people defending remote sorts of building (ie, far away from a mall) and would make "Re-Stocking Runs" and Supporting-type players have a bit more of a job. (Not everyone likes to get their hands dirty)

So the drawback: There really shouldn't be any way to secure the trunk that a crowbar or axe wouldn't get by quickly, so the stash is really a community stash, subject to all the dishonesty in the world.

For the Zeds: Lets say your stinky self breaks down some barricades and you find yourself in a building with a storage trunk, what would you do? Smash it to pieces destroying everything in it of course. And since it has in a way hurt the Survivor cause, you would get XP for it. Either a flat rate, say 5XP (high so that people don't build them in every building they come across for no reason), or one based on the contents, 2XP minimum, to a maximum of 10XP, 1XP per 10 items within (based on 100 item Storage Trunk). This would reflect the ?joy? that the zombie would get breaking all of this stuff, and the damage done to the human cause. Also makes people think twice about keeping a filled Storage trunk around.

Votes
Votes here

  1. Keep - Author Vote --zizanie13 02:00, 11 May 2006 (EST)
  2. Keep - It seems an OK idea and would add a bit of community spirt. One worry I have though is zergers using it as a way to transfer items between their characters. Thats my only concern. Kill - After thinking more on this, I have decided that the zerg problem would be too big to control. I like the idea but it has too many problems attached. --Krazy Monkey 19:34, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill - This one took me a while to decide. I like the idea, in principle. However, I think in practise it could caue more problems than it solves. Other than a few very kind, nice (and most likely foolish) survivors, I could see this being a cheap-skates way of getting items fast, and they'll wait until there's a box in the room, and then sneak in and take everrything they need. I think it would also work well for Zergers, as they'll be able to find a secluded building and use multiple characters to fill a box, and take the stuff as one character. As you put it, "subject to all the dishonesty in the world" - which is a lot. Really, if human nature was better I would love these, but as it is they would just be a way of taking advantage of the thoughtful. --HerrStefantheGreat 19:34, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - I'm fairly sure something like this has gotten shot down before. I'm not going to vote dupe. But I don't think this should go in simply because it would encourage 'settling down'. Survivors aren't supposed to do that - they're supposed to be on the run, not having teatime with biscuits, while the zombies come knocking. 'Oh, Harold, put another couch by the door, will you?' -Wyn (talk!) 19:40, 11 May 2006 (BST) To ZedKilla: Trading is quite possible, with the appropriate features. I'm working on a suggestion on the talk page. Don't make blanket statements; please look at my proposal there. Might change your mind. -Wyn (talk!) 19:54, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - Trading will NEVER be a part of Urban Dead. Bad idea. --ZedKilla 14:45 (EST)
  6. Kill - Gigantic potential for zerg abuse. --Grim s-Mod 19:44, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - Zerging. -- Buncy T GBP 19:46, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - How come you didn't use any of the ideas on the talk page?--Pesatyel 19:54, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill - Zerging. --Swmono talk - W! - SGP 19:59, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - Zerging--Mookiemookie 20:15, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill - Zerging. And I'm confused on how the scope includes Zombies, seeing as how they can't search for or use items. --Timid Dan 20:31, 11 May 2006 (BST)To Timid Dan: The scope included zombies for the experience they would get thrashing the trunks. -zizanie13 (talk!) 11:48, 11 May 2006 (EST)
  12. Spam - Zerging. - CthulhuFhtagn 20:43, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  13. Spam - Zergers would love this. So would griefers. Sonny Corleone 20:56, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - We can't trade for a reason, that reason has been stated many times already. What about if you made it your "personal stash" so only you can get the items you hide inside? --Teksura 21:19, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  15. Spam - LOLlerz so ist trading without rly trading!1 ... No.--Wifey 21:54, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  16. Kill - If you changed the amount of items it could hold to... say 20, and made it only accessible by the person who built it, this vote would be a Keep. --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - W! 22:18, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  17. Kill -I agree with cyberbob on this one. --LCpl Mendoza 22:51, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  18. Kill - If you could solve the Zerging problem then It would be prety cool. --Technerd 23:16, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  19. Spam - Don't make a trade suggestion (which this essentially is deep down, as it allows you to give stuff to others indirectly) without knowing the problems that come with it. --McArrowni 23:18, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  20. Spam -"subject to all the dishonesty in the world" like people cheating/zerging--Vista W! 12:08, 12 May 2006 (BST)
  21. Kill See all above. David Malfisto 23:42, 12 May 2006 (BST)
  22. Kill -I've been working on something along these lines on the talk page. When I have the ambition, I'll get it up in here, so it can be killed. There is plenty of potential for zerging or for just being a jerk, but its not an idea without merit. Even though searching works on a individual day-to-day basis, it would be a good idea for groups (especially those HQed far from a mall or whose local mall is comprimised) to have a way to cull resources. But it must be limited.--Xavier06 13:19, 13 May 2006 (BST)
  23. Kill Too much potential for abuse --DJSMITH 15:05, 17 May 2006 (BST)
      • Tally 1 Keep, 17 Kill, 5 Spam, 23 Total

Generator Defense version 2

Timestamp: 21:40, 11 May 2006 (BST)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: Generator defense would be a military skill. When you have the skill and are in a building with a generator, a button shows up. If you click it, you get the message "You take up a vulnerable position defending the generator." You remain a defender only until you take an action (or die). Attacks against generator defenders have +10% to hit. Up to three characters may defend the generator at a time. Characters defending the generator are listed on the room description.

Attacks may be made against a defended generator: On each attack, the RNG rolls a d4. If it rolls a 4, the attack is applied to the generator. On a 1, 2, or 3 it's applied to the defender in the corresponding slot, if any. So if there's only one defender, you have a 75% chance of attacking the generator, and a 25% chance of attacking the defender; when all three defender slots are occupied, you have only a 25% chance of having your attack go against the generator. No matter which target the attack is applied to, it still has to make its normal to-hit roll. The to-hit bonus applies only when the defenders themselves are attacked, not when attacks on the generator are redirected to defenders. After all, you weren't even trying to hit that person, so it doesn't make sense to give you a bonus to do so, but it wouldn't be right to make you lose your AP by not getting your normal chance to hit some target.

So attackers have two options: take out the defenders at a discount, if there are enough of you to be destroying the generator and munching some bra!nz too, or go after that generator directly if you're just trying to bust in and take it out so as to make some trouble for the harmanz. Either way, if it's a serious attack you'll probably still get the generator, but at least the active defenders have a chance to try to take you out before you do.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote. And you guys were right that the original version was too strong. --Dan 21:40, 11 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - I should have said, this would enable the find rate on generators (or fuel or both) to be put back down to about where they were before the last changes. I can't propose exact numbers, since only Kevan knows the current find rates with any precision, but next version will explicitly include a decrease in the generator/fuel find rate. The main goal is to add strategy, not to give survivors an advantage. As I've said elsewhere, I think it's ok to have some changes benefit survivors and others benefit zombies, rather than insisting that every change be exactly balanced between zombies and survivors. --Dan 15:18, 12 May 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep - Nice mix I like it. - Deadeye207 21:48, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep - I like the idea, There are no advantages to you for defending, however it helps the building as a whole by protecting the valueable Generator. --Teksura 21:50, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  4. Keep - I like it too --ramby T--W! - SGP 21:51, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep - Actually, this doesn't seem overpowered. Adds some more strategy, too. Good job.--Wifey 21:57, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - With search rates as high as they are, all this will do is lead to a glut of excess generators. All this does is give survivors an additional edge against zombies in the form of an automatic defense mechanism. I vote kill/spam on automatic defense mechanisms. --Timid Dan 22:07, 11 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Unless I've misremembered been misinformed about search odds, you can't have a glut of generators, because you don't find generators while searching for other stuff. To have a fueled generator, someone has to spend AP searching for it. This wouldn't change that. Instead, searching for generators and fuel would be a smaller part of the survivors' overall AP budget. And that will be removed in the next version because I'll include the change to find rates. --Dan 16:34, 12 May 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep Love it. -- Buncy T GBP 22:13, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  8. Spam - Broken as all hell. - CthulhuFhtagn 22:21, 11 May 2006 (BST) - Changed to Spam. - CthulhuFhtagn 22:37, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  9. Spam - No Passive Auto defenses. --Grim s-Mod 22:24, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  10. Spam - SSS. I was about to vote Keep when Grim enlightened me. Thanks Grim! --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - W! 22:27, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  11. Keep - It is a nice way to keep FU from destroying the Generators -Lyoko is Cool 22:35, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  12. Spam - What part of no auto-defences do you people not get? Sonny Corleone 22:39, 11 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re The part where barricades, flakjaks, ransack, and the top of the zombie stack were removed from game. Also the reason. --Dan 14:53, 12 May 2006 (BST)
  13. Keep - Nice idea. Avoids being an auto-defense by not adding any additional to-hit penalties - it just means you might hit someone else instead. I think you'll find the official policy on passive auto defenses here. --Reverend Loki 22:41, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  14. Keep -Not bad. --LCpl Mendoza 22:51, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  15. Spam - As above, no auto defence. Velkrin 23:01, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  16. Keep - Because I want Kevan to decide whether or not it breaks Auto defense rules. --Rozozag 23:04, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  17. Keep - I agree with rozozag. --Legom7 23:07, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  18. Keep - I quite like the idea. it is not really an auto-defense, as the player attacking the gereator is at no risk of retribution whilst a player is offline, but yet adds some level of protection to a generator. A script would have to be added in the event of death whilst defendeing a generator, saying you died defending the generator, as it would seriously screw with PK reportings if you died as a result of GKing attack, not PKing, which is often met with death penatlies. I know it would at least cause the DEM some grief. Other than the user created problem of G/PKing, I see no reason why not to use it. I like it, and I think it would work. --HerrStefantheGreat 23:08, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  19. Kill - As others pointed out, no auto-stuff. If the suggestion required the "defenders" to allocate X amount of AP to defense, it might work better. Say, the defender allocated 10 AP to defense. Then the next 10 attacks on the generator would work like this suggestion. But, basically, the most common problem with the auto-defense is that you are giving the defender free actions. Or the person is "spending AP" while offline (imagine logging in and instead of being at 50 AP, you are only at 40 because the computer spent your AP in an auto-defense). And Flak Jackets don't count as "auto-defense" as Flak Jackets don't use AP.--Pesatyel 23:09, 11 May 2006 (BST) Rethinking my vote based on the talk page discussion.--Pesatyel 00:00, 12 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - You're not auto-doing anything. You're just located where you're in the way. So allocating AP to defending doesn't make sense to me. --Dan 14:53, 12 May 2006 (BST)
  20. Keep - I like it. And i wouldn't exactly call it a passive defense, as it puts you in increased danger, not only are you always listed you are easier to hit, giving zombies with tangling grasp up to a 70% chance to hit.It makes you way the pros and cons, is it worth it to put yourself at risk so that when you come back there will still be a generator?--HamsterNinja 23:12, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  21. Spam - Autodefence = BAD --Technerd 23:14, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  22. Kill - no auto defence--xbehave 23:32, 11 May 2006 (BST)
  23. Kill - Chances to hit the generator are not good, and now you want to drop it even more, with a meatshield of 180HP ? No way. If only when the person attacking the generator hits one of the defenders he drops from his position (thus, he will be no longer defending the generator), then this sistem could work out. --hagnat mod 00:00, 12 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re Chances to hit a generator are very good. In fact, on any break-in there's currently about a 100% chance that the generator will be destroyed. It takes an average of about 4 AP, as far as I can tell (half the normal hit rate, which tops out at 50% for targets you haven't grabbed hold of). --Dan 14:53, 12 May 2006 (BST)
  24. Spam - Grim gave the reason. --ThunderJoe 00:02, 12 May 2006 (BST)
  25. Spam - Broken concept. Generators are already hard to hit. With 3 defenders, which would be fairly common in most tactical resource buildings, this effectively lowers the chance to kill on a generator to 5%. Waaay too low. And the humans don't care about the damage that much. At worst they have a 20% to take 3 damage, and the attacks aren't targeted at that so there almost nil chance of taking lethal damage. --Zaruthustra-Mod 00:09, 12 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re It would lower the chances of hitting the generator only if you're not going to be killing survivors anyway. If you are going to be killing survivors, the ones willing to defend are your top-priority targets and now you get them at a discount. And a break-in so small that you can't kill people isn't much of a break-in. PS If you want a character to take lethal damage in one hit, you're way out of balance. --Dan 14:53, 12 May 2006 (BST)
  26. Kill - No auto defense. However if you applied a 20 AP cost (without allowing anyone to go negative) for which they would get like 5 defensive moves while not in the game I might think on it. That way it really wouldn't be auto defense. A player couldn't go negative (like they can with manufacture of syringes). --Steel Hammer 00:15, 12 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re If it involved making moves while off-line, or doing anything so overpowered as to require a 20AP cost, then even I wouldn't vote for it. But it doesn't. --Dan 16:42, 12 May 2006 (BST)
  27. Kill - Some work is still needed on the idea (i.e. perhaps defenders take more damage when they are hit) but the idea is still viable. As has been noted, I have yet to see a no passive defence rule on the books. --Darkstar949 00:20, 12 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - I don't see any flavor-text justification for having them take more damage. They're not taking off their coats or being clawed differently. Nor do I see any reason to prefer a damage bonus, when a to-hit bonus increases the average damage just as effectively. --Dan 16:42, 12 May 2006 (BST)
  28. Keep - I always thought "auto defense" meant defense of oneself. Think about this, kill-voters: any building you position yourself in, you are auto defending it against Ransack just by virtue of being there. (Zombies can't ransack human-occupied buildings.) This is the same thing -- acting as an AP sink in order to protect a resource. --John Ember 01:34, 12 May 2006 (BST)
  29. Spam - Thought about keep for a few seconds, then quickly changed my mind after reading the discussion about it. -- Tirion529 01:47, 12 May 2006 (BST)
  30. Spam - No defending anything ever. Only breaking things. No knights, only outlaw bikers. -Banana¯\(o_º)/¯Bear 01:51, 12 May 2006 (BST)
  31. Kill - The fact that generators are fragile is A Good Thing. They should be consumable objects, much like other important resources in the game. -Murgatroid 02:02, 12 May 2006 (BST)
  32. Kill What Murg said--Mookiemookie 02:27, 12 May 2006 (BST)
  33. Kill -- Slot system artificially limits defense and makes no sense. Are zombies deciding to play Eenie-Meenie-Meinie-Moe to the doors of the generator room, and are humans uniformly forgetting to defend one of these doors? Almafeta 14:23, 12 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re It's not doors. If it were doors, we could barricade them. You're standing next to the generator, and there's still some room to get past you. They're trying to hit the generator, but you're in the way so sometimes they hit you instead. --Dan 14:53, 12 May 2006 (BST)
  34. Keep -Fuck you guys. I hope this stays. Knee jerkers kill/spamming stuff simply because it adds a defense to somehting. why not have a defence for it? we have one for everything else thats valuable. buildings get cades, people/zeds get flak jackets. with the generators doing something other than helping surgery it makes it a higher priority for both sides. maybe if you were limited to two people on the generator. But if what dan said is true, then in a break in with more than 2 zeds it wouldint stand up at all. this isnt a be all and end all solution. its just something that can help ease the tension a bit. meh im doneNazreg 15:55, 12 May 2006 (BST)
  35. Kill - Coming up next, guard zombies preventing you from barricading, moving into a square or searching --wcil 16:25, 12 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - what is ransack for then? it stops you from searching.Nazreg 16:30, 12 May 2006 (BST)
      • Re - Ransack doesnt stop you from searching, just like attacking a generator now doesnt break it. Also, refer points : barricading, moving --wcil 17:00, 12 May 2006 (BST)
  36. Kill - this seems a bulky coding effort (adding player states, targets hooking into attack rolls) and doesnd add anything to the gameplay. a zombie breaking in and smashing a generator is atmospheric and certainly not crippling to the defending community. Mortificant 17:08, 12 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Coding complexity isn't supposed to be a reason to vote Kill. And crippling or not, the generator is a very valuable item that survivors put a whole lot of AP into setting up. --Dan 18:51, 12 May 2006 (BST)
  37. Keep -The previous version was insanely overpowered, but this is a much more reasonable. This is just good strategy. I do agree that, at full effort (all three), this does make a direct attack on a generator near-impossible, but then again, Ransack makes it damn hard to find anything too and there's no upper limit how many zombies can "guard" a ransacked place, either. If a large enough horde of zombies decided to take a building, ransack it, and camp out there (going in shifts if they still wanted to pop off for a quick bite), the survivors would be best just to write that building off until the zombies decide to move on (No passive autodefenses, my ass!). This suggestion simply allows only 3 survivors to stop zombies from taking out the generator, at the risk of being easier to kill themselves. This would really stop the casual GKer, not a concentrated assault. GKing still remains a valid strategy, if not a griefing one... --Xavier06 14:01, 13 May 2006 (BST)
  38. Keep -This is a great suggestiong that fits in the theme and mechanics of the game perfectly. It's passive defense, yes, not passive offense. Overpowered would be if deffenders attacked the attackers back, this puts the defenders in a vulnerable position to save the generator, but they are still not entirely protected. This stop's GKers, but does nothing to stop a dedicated zombie horde. Also, think about it, when zombies break in, what should they go for first, the delicious generator, or the inedible, noisy, foul-petrol-smelling humans? Please remember, Kevan's heard enough complaining to not release this without a balance, e.g. ransack and powered searches came out at the same time. This could even be implemented at the same time as a suggestion I saw a while ago, involving mechanics that hampered survivors barricading skills while the zombies outnumbered humans inside. --Burgan 19:43, 15 May 2006 (BST)
  39. Keep - This is a good idea, but is still overly complex. NO new skill(change the sug type) should be needed(esp another military skill), and NO multiple defenders. I do like the bonus to hit the defender and the chance to bypass them. --Raystanwick 20:32, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  40. Keep - I liked it better before it was a skill. --Spraycan Willy MalTel 01:38, 19 May 2006 (BST)
  41. Spam - No auto defenses, and if you really need a genny in your room, always carry one with his fuel can too =). --Matthew Fahrenheit 21:44, 24 May 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/11th-May-2006&oldid=262806"