Suggestions/22nd-Apr-2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Revision as of 05:33, 6 May 2006 by Grim s (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, 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 SuggestionsSuggestions up for VotingClothes Suggestions
Cycling SuggestionsPeer ReviewedUndecidedPeer RejectedHumorous
Suggestion AdviceTopics to Avoid and WhyHelp, Developing and Editing

VOTING ENDS: 6th-May-2006

Zerg-Free Trading

Timestamp: 05:03, 22 April 2006 (BST)
Type: Trading Items, about the fiftieth variation
Scope: Harmans/Survivors ONLY
Description: For the cost of one AP, a character may trade one item to a character in his/her current location.

Restrictions as follows :

Players may not exceed inventory limits. If the target player is at the inventory limit, the trade event fails.

All items are now tagged with the originating IP address of the player that originally searched for and found the item, as well as the player ID of the original searcher. No player may possess :

Items from multiple characters from the same IP (IE : two zerg accounts may not feed items to the same unaligned character.)

Items from characters with the same IP (IE : items from a different character, but the same originating IP address as the player in the player's inventory cause the items to disappear if the player logs in with the same IP address as an item in thier inventory that they did not search for and find themselves.)

I believe tagging items with IP addresses and user ID's as illustrated may solve the zerg issue, or limit it dramatically as it relates to trading. It is not for me to judge how feasable or easy it is for Kevin to implement this suggestion, I merely offer it as a realistic solution that would prevent zerg-stacking items on one or more characters.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author Vote Timid Dan 05:03, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - 2 words: Dial-Up. it takes a matter of seconda for a dial up user to get a new IP adress. It takes ME 2 minutes to reset mine (I have DSL) It takes 20 minutes to go to a public computer like at a Library. any of this lets someone do 160 pageviews worth of undetectable Zerging untill they get their hands on another IP adress. I'm going to let someone else mention the server load from having to remember what IPs are attached to what Items. --Teksura 05:08, 22 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re I'm not disputing your vote with this RE, but this is a good place to mention that server load is not a valid reason for a kill vote. That's for Kevin to decide the pros/cons and implementation problems. Timid Dan 05:18, 22 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re If you would read my comment, you'd see the reason I said Kill was because IP adresses are far to easy to reset. one more thing --Teksura 05:29, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep - Finally someone addresses the real problem with trading. --Cinnibar 05:14, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - Not enough thought has been put into the ip tagging. As stated above it is to easy for some users to get a new ip. Now if the Ip Tagging is more of a wild card implementation. (ie No users from 69.124.xxx.xxx can trade as most ip's by their addresses in some sort of block, but as with every rule there is an exception) But as I said before this would really be difficult to implement and needs to be more than superficially thought out. --Steel Hammer 05:53, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - Too easy to get around. --McArrowni 05:55, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - Like McArrowni said. It's too easy to get around. - Jedaz 08:07, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - Proxies. Seeing as most people who would be likely to abuse this already use them, it doesn't solve the problem. – NubisAW! 08:09, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - Easy to circumvent. Also against the general concept of trading in that factory line inventory filling will negate search rates in a variable and unpredictable manner. This would result in item usage rate limiting to correct it, most easily achieved with increased AP use costs (such as with syringes), which would ultimately make the game less fun as AP is whittled away. --ism 08:31, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill - But I just want to make it known that there will never be the 'perfect solution' to trading while AP is part of the game. Seeing as how once people get to level three, they're more likely to stay around, I'd support any trade suggestion that had a minimum level of three and the purchase of a skill. Nothing wrong with a support-class civilian with bargain shopping providing a first-aid kit to a doctor with surgery. If anything, it promotes specialization in a way that isn't currently present. -Wyndallin 08:42, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - "Hello deathMASTA (with an IP of 143.220.0.1), would you like to trade with me? I am called deathMASTA1 (with an IP of 143.220.0.2). I'll give you 10 shotguns with full ammo and 10 pistols with full ammo. You'll give me nothing? OK! You've got a deal." Nothing suss! --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - W! 10:51, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill - Wow dude Cool I'm a newb' with no skill at all, thanks for all the Shotguns and Everything. Now I don't have to struggle and the game is pretty boring from the off, btw eat lead sucka ha ha ha --Zombiegod 11:22, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill - Someone could search/give at work, play at home. No good.--Mookiemookie 15:16, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  13. Keep - Good idea. And eveyrone else: PLEASE TELL HIM WHAT TO DO. DON'T JUST CRITICISE. It is sort of unbalanced though. Plus you'd both have to be active, which means it would be hard for you both to trade. Maybe a delayed trade where it says someone wants to trade with you, you offer, they offer, etc. --Peterblue 15:50, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  14. Keep - By jove! I think he's got it! --MrAushvitz 19:39, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  15. Kill There are so few useful items in UD that a barter economy doesn't make sense. There's no need for division of labour, just search for the item you want to use and the use it. Also, zerging. --Jon Pyre 20:41, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  16. Kill- i doubt im the only person with 2 combuters and therefore 2 ips so we will still have to worry about zergingAvicm 23:52, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  17. Kill - Hay guys let's make UD just like every other game, also let's have guild chat and PK flags. --einexile 18:29, 2 May 2006 (BST)

A More Balanced Set of Hand-to-Hand Reforms

Withdrawn by author, due to minor slip-up. ---- Jack Brandenburg


A More Balanced Set of Hand-to-Hand Reforms (the remake)

Withdrawn by author. All kills except one (author vote), but I now know what needs to be changed. ---- Jack Brandenburg 2:25, April 22 2006 (EDT)


Barricade Attack Notify

This suggestion has been Spaminated with 4 kill votes and 8 spam votes due to Message and Server flooding. – Nubis NWO 15:27, 22 April 2006 (BST)


Alternate/additional Zombie hand attack text

Timestamp: 13:02, 22 April 2006 (BST)
Type: improvement
Scope: Zombies
Description: Add additional random text to say the Zombie rakes you or rakes at your skin for 2 amount of damage'

Votes

  1. Spam - BuncyTheFrog Talk GBP 13:22, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  2. Spam --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - W! 13:26, 22 April 2006 (BST) Dupe - TheTeeHeeMonster reminded me. --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - W! 15:33, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  3. Spam - Don't forget to give them rocket launchers. -Wyndallin 13:31, 22 April 2006 (BST) Dupe Still. Rocket launchers! -Wyndallin 16:29, 22 April 2006 (BST) - Thanks, Grim. Mod addendum removed -Wyndallin 18:06, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  4. Dupe - Incomplete suggestion (and spelling for me)- Jedaz 13:32, 22 April 2006 (BST) - Well yeah TheTeeHeeMonster but don't forget the link Flavor Text For More Actions - Jedaz 15:50, 22 April 2006 (BST) - Vote not specified. Please remove strikeout when you specify what you are voting. --Grim s-Mod 17:58, 22 April 2006 (BST) - Whops, did I realy forget the vote, oh well it's fixed now - Jedaz 00:16, 24 April 2006 (BST)
  5. Dupe - Anyone else remember my long-ass list of flavor text? --TheTeeHeeMonster 15:32, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  6. Dupe - The WCDZ has quickly conspired to use a time machine to submit a whole list of such things so that this would be a dupe. --McArrowni 16:31, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  7. Dupe - Look above. --Brizth W! M T 19:12, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  8. Dupe - Yar. Velkrin 19:55, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Alphabetical Names

Timestamp: 08:40, 22 April 2006 (BST)
Type: View names
Scope: Humans, maybe zombies
Description: Lately i have been making my civilian character start taking some scientist skills (Diagnosis, Necrotech Employment) and am(are?) spending a lot of time healing in a mall. I've noticed it can be a large hassle finding and healing someone who needs it. First you have to find someone who needs it on the big view name lists and then track them down on the drop down list. I frequently get lost and have to verify their location and try again. What i suggest is that there be an option in the edit profile screen to have names sorted alphabetically. This wouldn't force people who like the current system to change, but it would give those who'd like a choice something. I can't really see this hurting or helping zombies at all (unless they have a bizarre hatred for names that begin with the letter M or some such.) so that shouldn't be a problem. Thank you and good night.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author Vote. On a completley unrelated note, how do you find what time it is in BST? I've always just kinda guessed based on other's votes. If it helps i'm in the central standard time zone.HamsterNinja 08:51, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep - Agree completely. --DJ Dave 21:54, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep I'd agree. But it shouldn't be that way for zombies too or they might just attack people whose names start with the letter A in their name each time, simply because they're at the top of their list. To avoid penalizes people based on their name I'd say to alphabetize the FAK and Revivification Syringe lists, but keep the attack list in the current order.--Jon Pyre 22:25, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - Guy with the A in the begining of his name gets the shaft when the zombies come knocking. Might also be a dupe... --TheTeeHeeMonster 22:29, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  5. KeepSince it doesnt affect actual order of activity in the room just how they are listed in the Drop down box for First Aid. Oh and We are at BST-6 in Central so Add 6 to your current Time. If its Six P.M. Central its Midnight BST (except for the few days where Daylight savings times in the two countries don't match up.) Conndraka 22:35, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - Wasn't this suggested before? Anyway, I don't want to always die first when zombies break into my safehouse. Nor do I want all new users to have names starting with Z. - Asrathe 23:37, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - this is an insane zombie nerf. Are you even aware of the amount of metadata that is given to people by the order? --Jorm 00:28, 23 April 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - As much as I hate all those people with names starting in "A," I've got to kill it. Lets go back to the way it used to be, when players were sorted by when they joined the city! --Ron Burgundy 03:05, 23 April 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill - I don't feel this is necessary at all, and in fact, this resolution is dangerous, if the author didn't see that this would cause the slaugher of people, but in alphabetical order! Yay! ... No. I like the current system, where your place on the list depends on how active you are. There's nothing wrong with it; it's completely perfect as it is now. -Wyndallin 03:09, 23 April 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - Massive zombie nerf. Order indicates activity, among other things. Additionally, use your browser's abilities to address the issue of healing. Put focus on the drop-down and press the key for the letter a character's name begins with, and keep pressing it to go to the next person whose name also starts with that letter. Also, there are Firefox plugins that highlight and colourize HP by degree of wounds. --ism 04:00, 23 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re While i can see your point that it would hurt zombies, you did read the part that said it was an option right? If you feel this would hurt your zombie then don't click the option on. People who leave it off take no penalty.HamsterNinja 05:11, 23 April, 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill stop picknig on people whos names start with symbols --xbehave 16:11, 23 April 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill - Don't punish people the name they picked. if you can't seem to find anyone who needs healing may I sugest a firefox extention? --Teksura 22:28, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Blunt Combat

Timestamp: 17:27, 22 April, 2006 (EDT)
Type: Skill/Balance
Scope: Anyone with blunt weapons
Description: Several times, I have offered ideas on how to reform the hand-to-hand combat system so that the Fire Axe no longer holds a monopoly as the only useful melee weapon (for combat purposes). The first time, my ideas were a bit drastic and overpowered. The second and third suggestions were snafu'd by a single idea that didn't go down so well. But now, with the help of the voters, I think I know what to do now. I propose that these skills be put into place:

Blunt Combat (appears under Hand-to-Hand Combat tier): An extra +25% or +30% (percent is negotiable) to all blunt attacks (including Punches).

Fist Fighting (appears under Blunt Combat tier): An extra +10% to Punches.

Personally, I support +30% (though I would be willing to concede this). This way, blunt weapons could hit with +55%, making them significantly more accurate than the Fire Axe, but not over the top. Also, I think it makes more sense for punches to have 65% accuracy. It just seems odd that a Shotgun should be more accurate than a Punch.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author Vote. ---- Jack Brandenburg 17:27, 22 April, 2006 (EDT)
  2. KeepThere we go...I think that will work. Conndraka 22:41, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  3. Dupe [[1]] Same idea, different numbers. --Mookiemookie 23:09, 22 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re It's not quite the same idea. The link you provided makes no mention of a Fist Fighting skill. ---- Jack Brandenburg 19:37, 22 April, 2006 (EDT)
  4. Keep Since the peer reviewed said "raise the percentage", I was under the impression that it pretty much suggested someone doing this. Once the basic idea is deemed good, the exact implementation matters, IMO. --McArrowni 00:08, 23 April 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep Sure, I'm all in support of skills that make base ballbats used on skulls in Malton. And punching people in the head, there are times even the most heavily armed guns guys run out of ammo. I just realized with this suggestion we could actually have fistfights break out in safehouses! Refuse to use an FAK on a fellow infected survivor will ya.. I aughtaa... --MrAushvitz 00:55, 23 April 2006 (BST)
  6. Keep Yeah, why not --Lord Evans W! 01:05, 23 April 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep I do not acknowledge MookieMookie's dupe vote as is it dissimilar enough (higher percentage rates, specific fistfighting skill) to not warrant being removed. -Wyndallin 03:13, 23 April 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep - Sounds good to me. --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - W! 03:14, 23 April 2006 (BST)
  9. Dupe - I'm gonna call dupe since the numbers, here, aren't definitive. Pick a % and stick with it for a keep.--Pesatyel 04:29, 25 April 2006 (BST)
  10. Dupe - My suggestion doesn't need a competitor [[2]]Mattiator 04:24, 30 April 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill There's nothing here to distinguish situations: either the percentage is good enough that the bat or pipe becomes the only useful h2h weapon, or it's low enough that the axe remains the only useful h2h weapon. Replacing a monopoly infinite-use weapon with another accomplishes nothing -- and it unbalances infinite-use vs firearms. The only redeeming feature of this suggestion is that there's no risk of Kevan being stupid enough to take you up on it. --Dan 00:01, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Regurgitation

Timestamp: 19:03, 22 April 2006 (EST)
Type: Balance Change and Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: To acquire this skill, the Zombie must first have the skill Digestion. The Regurgitation skill allows the Zombie to throw up the bits of Humans or Zombies it had been feeding on. This can be found and eaten by other Zombies and act much in the same way as a first aid kit.

The draw backs are that it costs 1 AP to throw up plus HP equal to the amount contained within the vomit is now subtracted from the zombie who chooses to regurgitate. If they do not have enough HP to vomit the maximum amount of HP that can be given, a message saying, “Your stomach is empty, there is nothing to throw up.“ or something similar shows up. So a Zombie can’t kill them self by using this skill.

The amount of HP that a Zombie will receive is a random 0-3 HP. It will also cost the Zombie who chooses to find and eat the vomit AP to do so. Yes, Zombies will have to search for it, but must eat it when they find it, they can’t take it with them. Instead of searching for it, it could also just be put into the area description for as long as it is there, making it only cost 1 AP to eat it. Please let me know which idea you like better if you vote to Keep.

Votes

  1. Kill Why would anyone do this? Its just gross and not useful. Its basically a small child. -Banana Bear4 00:44, 23 April 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill That was the best analogy ever. You are my god.--Mpaturet 00:57, 23 April 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill Only if Survivors can eat the vomit too --Lord Evans W! 01:06, 23 April 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill Banana, it's like a small child that I want to beat with a crowbar. Jesus... -Wyndallin 03:14, 23 April 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - Even reading this makes me want to go drop kittens into boiling water. --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - W! 03:15, 23 April 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - Less effective per AP than simply biting humans (average of 0.75 hp healed per AP with your suggestion vs. 1.2 with Digestion + Neck Lurch. Throw in Tangling Grasp and biting becomes more than twice as effective for the purpose -- 1.6 hp per AP). And what's the motivation of the regurgitating zombie to leave these... packages... for other zeds to find? --John Ember 03:54, 23 April 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep - When I thought of this it seemed like the right thing to do to keep it less than the amount you would get from Digestion so that those who ate the vomit would rather have the Digestion skill. I musn't have been clear enough in saying that the benifits were XP for the one who regurgitates and that it doesn't require that a zombie have Digestion to get HP from eating it. I don't see any reason why a human would choose to eat a zombies vomit though. -- savat 19:02, 23 April 2006 (EST)
  8. Kill - I can't say its a dupe of New_Zomibe_Skill and Projectile_Vomit, but you might want to look at Vomiting. There were also these in Peer Rejected Acid_Spit and Vomiting. I don't see that the idea CAN'T work, just that none of these do alone.--Pesatyel 04:50, 25 April 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill - I love the idea of allowing zombies to vomit, however I can't imagine it doing much damage besides infecting. The HP drain makes it very pointless and the fact that other zombies would eat it makes me a little sick --Teksura 08:00, 25 April 2006 (BST)

Pile Up, Revised

Timestamp: 19:51, 22 April 2006 (EST)
Type: Balance Change and Improvement
Scope: Large groups of Zombies
Description: To prevent something like a Human simply escaping a siege on a building by leaving the building or walking amongst a large group of Zombies to kill a few then walking back out just as easily, I suggested that the number of Zombies in any given area should affect how easily one can enter or exit that space...

1-4 zombies in a space has no affect.

5-9 Zombies in a space causes anyone, Zombie or Human, to use double the AP required for them to move into or out of that space.

10+ Zombies in a space requires that Zombies in that space to be killed down to 9 in order to leave it with the double AP penalty. To enter that space, one will lose triple the AP required to walk, so that is 3 AP for Humans and Zombies with Lurching Gait, and 6 AP for all other Zombies. Should there be 20+ Zombies it a space, that space can not be entered at all till there are no more than 19 Zombies left standing in that space.

All actions within the space in question have no penalty, just entering and exiting. Furthermore, dead zombies do not count until they stand up, which has no penalty until they attempt to leave the space.

Votes

  1. Kill Overpowered. Waaaaaaay overpowered. Also the author screwed up the page--Mpaturet 01:03, 23 April 2006 (BST)
    • You are familiar with the concept of a horde right? 20+ zombies prevent all movement in/out? Zombies can get this # easily
  2. Kill Yay, zombies willl always win seiges now! --Lord Evans W! 01:08, 23 April 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill I agree with this idea on it's basic premise, but I'd say it takes a LOT more zombies to make it cost a player more AP to get to a location. If you asked me since zombies are slow and stupid, it's not like they're football players who work together so well, more like swarming back and forth to slow you down. How about 25 or more free running costs +1 AP to enter that locations (player gets a message that "you barely made it inside!" or something to that effect (they still get in even if they hit - AP.) Then make it 50+ zombies to make it +1 AP to enter the building on foot. In this manner it doesn't "nerf" free running (many will bitch that it does), but it gives zombies a reason to "mob up" which is something I and many others have no problems agreeing to. Think it over, listen to the votes, repost it when you're sure of the numbers. --MrAushvitz 01:24, 23 April 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - I've been more open to these kinds of suggestions when the zombie had to grab on first to invoke the AP penalty. Passive area-of-effect just isn't as interesting or scary. --John Ember 03:12, 23 April 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - Just. Plain. Horrible. --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - W! 03:13, 23 April 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill Overpowered. 10 zombies is not a horde, just a bunch of 'em hanging out. Caiger mall had 700 or so on two squares at once at some point (note: humans didn't live long in there). I'm not sure which side it would hurt, but it would hurt it bad... It's interesting to note that similar suggestions were once made. Unfortunately, the peer rejected page breaks my browser, plans global warming, eats babies, and in many other ways prevents me from finding which and why (AKA the page won't load :( ). --McArrowni 03:15, 23 April 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - Would hate to see the original, if this is the revised one. Basically, raise and scale the zombie numbers required, restrict it to when the survivor tries to leave the space, and make it an addon to Tangling Grasp; you'll have me. -Wyndallin 03:19, 23 April 2006 (BST)
  8. Spam - As I said on the orginal - Don't mess with hordes! - DavidMalfisto 15:42, 23 April 2006 (BST)
  9. Re - This is not spam as it is not a bonus or a disadvantage, just a change in the gameplay. I agree, that the numbers need to be tweeked alot, but I was only using those numbers as an example. I would take into consideration it becoming a skill if it didn't violate the sugestion dos and do nots. -savat 19:18, 23 April 2006 (EST)
  10. Kill - With this idea we only have hoards of Zombies of upto 20 Players at tops, and then they are invincible as no one can enter the same location as them. Not fun! - Jedaz 00:23, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Personal tools
advertisements