Suggestions/7th-May-2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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: 21st-May-2006

Tagging Wordfilter

Withdrawn by Author, don't bother listing this. Agent Heroic 06:30, 15 May 2006 (BST) }}

Laser Sight / DC Adaptor

Withdrawn by author. There was one valid point in with all that didn't-read-the-suggestion garbage, so I'll try to develop a version that addresses it. --Dan 00:20, 8 May 2006 (BST)

Infection Alteration

Timestamp: 14:32, 7 May 2006 (BST)
Type: balance change
Scope: Infected Humans
Description: Infections should take more than a Med-Pak to cure. Lower the chance of a cure by a med-pak to 30%.

Votes

  1. Kill - I don't see what's wrong with the current system, it still requires a First Aid Kit --HerrStefantheGreat 14:40, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - Makes infections overpowered. This would effectivly kill anyone whos just revived. - Jedaz 14:43, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill - Infections do not seem to really be about killing people. It's more about them wasting AP to find a FAK if they don't have one. This would also just offset a balance. Saromu 14:46, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill Also, if you get infected without a medkit, the best thing to do would to head straight to a hospital and cover as much ground as possible. If you're nearly dead, go find a relatively secure building to stay in. Spraypaint that you're infected if you want. AllStarZ 15:40, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - Yipee, lets change infections from being underpowered to overpowered!.--The General W! Mod 16:20, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - Offsets balance -- Mettaur 16:25, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - Lets make it so that when you use a FAK on a zombie, it's a reverse infection! ... On second thought, lets not. -Wyn (talk!) 16:27, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - If any change should happen to that, it should be it takes a FAK to cure it with no HP healed - Tirion529 17:39, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill -Mechanically speaking infection is a side effect of bite, making infection more powerful, would overpower bite and obsolete claws, while a more powerful infection whould be in flavor all other zombie attacks should be nerfed to allow that to happen. Not a good trade-off--Vista W! 17:46, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - Overpowered. Enough said. --Swmono talk - W! - SGP 17:59, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill - Hey, lets not. Because that would be overpowering. --ThunderJoe 18:03, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill - Wouldn't it be better if we didn't do that rather than do it? David Malfisto 20:02, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  13. Spam - Let's make a terrible suggestion and not explain our reasoning behind it. It'l be great.--Wifey 21:03, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - SSS. (As above) --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - W! 22:21, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  15. Keep - Suggestions should alter the balance slightly. When the survivors outnumbered zombies two to one, we needed changes that made zombies more powerful; now that it's the other way around, the game needs changes that make survivors more powerful. There should be both types of change in the suggestion list, and this is a reasonable one to have sitting around for when it goes too far the other way. It would make people re-think some strategy, and that's what keeps the game interesting. --Dan 00:23, 8 May 2006 (BST)
  16. Kill - please note what the spam vote is for it's not a Uber-kill. diddo jedaz --revoso 01:16, 8 May 2006 (BST)
  17. Kill - The infection system is currently balanced. Just because creating an infecting is 30% doesn't mean curing it should have the same chance, especially considering it doesn't factor in the cost of finding the FAK. --ism MotA - R'sR 02:20, 8 May 2006 (BST)
  18. Kill - see above comments.--Salicyclic 02:25, 8 May 2006 (BST)
  19. Kill -Note to Dan: Did you read the suggestion? This makes thing harder for survivors. Note to Author: Flesh out your suggestion and re-submit. There has to be a good reason you think this kind of change is necessary or wanted.--Xavier06 16:14, 8 May 2006 (BST)
  20. Kill Needlessly griefs survivors and healers since you can't tell who is infected, and whether or not you cured them. Also, I think Dan needs to reread the suggestion since his vote obviously seems to say something different from what the suggestion is for (unless he thinks that nerfing FAKs helps survivors). --Volke 17:58, 8 May 2006 (BST)
  21. Kill Adds more weight to the already heavy zombie side --DJSMITH 14:53, 17 May 2006 (BST)
  22. kill make it 50% chance to cure and I'll reconsider. Mattiator 05:58, 19 May 2006 (BST)
  23. Kill - would favor zombie too much. and if such a thing were introduced raise the ratio so we dont end up bleeding to death. Nkoi 19:22 19 May 2006 (GMT)
  24. Kill - Unbalancing. –Xoid Talk U! 05:56, 20 May 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 22 Kill, 1 Keep, 1 Spam. 24 Total. –Xoid Talk U! 05:56, 20 May 2006 (BST)

Faster Manufacturing

Timestamp: 19:02, 7 May 2006 (BST)
Type: Balance Change
Scope: NT Revivers
Description: Currently, Manufacturing a syringe costs 20 AP and requires a powered NT building. Searching in an unpowered NT building will get you a syringe roughly 10% of the time. Manufacturing a syringe is thus effectively pointless - with the lights on you can usually find 3 with the AP it takes to Manufacture just one.

Suggestion is that the 'Manufacture Syringe' AP cost will be lowered to 10 AP.

Note that even with half the AP cost, searching will still be more effective than manufacturing so this should not upset the game balance in any way. Manufacturing has the out-of-game advantages that you don't have to hammer the search button and discard the useless duplicate GPS Units and DNA Extractors searching gets you (not to mention the network/server load from repeated searches and drops).

Votes

  1. Author Keep- -- Mettaur 19:02, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep - I don't mind. It still takes 10 ap to revive someone --ramby T--W! - SGP 19:18, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  3. kill - Personally, I think the two available choices are making comprimise of both, using more Ap for guranteed number of syringe, and risking no syringe find with searching. --Changchad 19:42, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  4. keep - even thoyou got your numbers wrong, even in a powered building it takes about 11/12 searches to get a syringe, i think wasting 10 to get 1 is a fair gamble tbh--xbehave 19:46, 7 May 2006 (BST)
    Re: I should have mentioned the Search_Odds/Necrotech_Building_Data earlier. According to DEM's data it was 12.6% chance to get a syringe before lighting is taken into account. My 10% was on the conservative side. -- Mettaur 20:51, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  5. kill - Yes that is done intentionally. Want to comfort of not having to search, you pay extra AP. That extra comfort pulls in a lot of people. When the manufacture syringes came out, even though it cost more to use then simply finding them, the number of syringes sky rocketed. A ten AP boost to the revive was needed to balance the game. Wanna speculate what lowering it 10AP whould do? I for one like the new balance and don't want to go to 30%/70% zombies/humans again. massively overpowered.--Vista W! 20:09, 7 May 2006 (BST) edit reply to DavidMalfisto That conveniance effects game balance. as people use manufacture more then searching. go look at the stats tracker what manufacture had for influence. That 10% to 15% swing was because of convience. reviving made more dificult: a reversal of that percentage. every aspect of reviving is crucial to game balance. That's why it costed more in the first place, not because of RT combat, but because the added convience whould draw in more people creating them. the higher cost was to offset that effect a bit.
    Re: I put searching will still be more effective than manufacturing in bold for a reason - you are still paying for the convenience. The cost of that convenience is ludicrously high at the moment. -- Mettaur 20:51, 7 May 2006 (BST)
    I read it and that will be in no way enough, at the end of the link is my reasoning.--Vista W! 23:39, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  6. Keep - Seeing as you get the syringe instantly it was supposed to cost more than searching as it would screw RT combat. Now it costs 10 AP for a revive and combat revives just aren't going to happen. If an NT building has a genny, it's more efficent to search and there's no reason not to search. Not to mention the fact that making a syringe is a third tier skill. I'd prefer seeing it cost 15 AP to make a syringe (to counter the fact that you're sure to get one), but 10 AP isn't game breaking. And Vista, now we have boosted search rates from powered buildings the cost of reviving has already dropped. This is merely convience, not game balance. DavidMalfisto 20:08, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep - i was in favour of lowering the cost to manufacture a srynge since the day using one started to cost 10 ap. --hagnat mod 20:12, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - Too low AP cost.--Wifey 21:05, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  9. Keep - I agree with Hagnat. It would still be 20AP to get and then use a syringe. Isn't that enough? --HerrStefantheGreat 21:15, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  10. Spam - Vista's vote. This would completely and utterly break the back of the zombies AGAIN. Guess what? Zombies dont like being ground into the dirt. For the first time... well... ever, zombies have equalled humans in numbers. Making it far more easy to manufacture syringes would revive another syringe glut, and just like the last time, the population would be utterly devestated. And before anyone dismisses me for being a "zombie player", i have an NT alt in the Guns of Brixton. Yes he would LOVE easier syringes, but i wouldnt want them at the cost of killing the game. --Grim s-Mod 21:26, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill - Same thing as some of the others: The extra AP cost is for the security of not having to dance with the RNG - Mia Kristos 21:29, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  12. Keep - I helped the DEM with what we called the DEM syringe search chalange and discovered how much more effective searching was. Then the new feature showed it would be even easyer to find things in a powered building, making it even less effective to Manufacture. I think Manufacturing should only be a little more costly then searching as opposed to several times more costly (I could search 20 times and average much more then 1) --Teksura 21:53, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  13. Spam - Vista and Grim pretty much nailed the problems I had with it. Unblancing the game and all that. --ThunderJoe 22:14, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  14. Spam - SSS. (As above) --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - W! 22:20, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  15. Keep -Suggest making it 15 so it isnt too easy to manufacture other than that im for it --LCpl Mendoza 22:51, 7 May 2006 (BST)
    Re - Then that should be a "kill," not a "keep."--Wifey 23:24, 7 May 2006 (BST) Author RE's only please.--The General W! Mod 21:45, 9 May 2006 (BST)
  16. Kill - If you do that, then there will be a 50% decrease of Zombies. My logic is that 50% increase for syringes (because that's 5 a day instead of 2.5) will mean 50% more zombies can be revived which means 50% less zombies. Point is, KILL!!!! --Dudefromhell 23:09, 7 May 2006 (BST)
    Re - Please read above where I put searching will still be more effective than manufacturing. There will not be 50% more syringes. In fact, many players will still use searching as even with this change searching will still give more syringes. --Mettaur 23:25, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  17. Keep - Searching improves the odds of finding one, and it was previously stated that the AP for manufacturing a syringe was balanced to be only slightly more than the average AP cost to find one. Rebalance it, pleasekaythanks. -Wyn (talk!) 23:33, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  18. Kill - However, you may want to work with the AP cost and then it might become a keep. --Darkstar949 23:35, 7 May 2006 (BST)
    Tally: 9 Keep, 6 Kill, 3 Spam. -- Mettaur 23:30, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  19. Kill - This would utterly destroy the ballance of the game. As you said we can alredy get cheeper syringes just by searching so why change it? Manufacturing was designed to waste stupid survivors AP. If you don't like the AP cost just search, simple. - Jedaz 00:06, 8 May 2006 (BST)
  20. Kill - Suggestions should alter the balance slightly; this one does so by too big an increment. When calculating the effect, don't forget the clicks spent dropping the junk when searching: most characters are limited by the IP-address hit limit, not by the rate of AP gain. --Dan 00:26, 8 May 2006 (BST)
  21. Keep - reasons for this vote= 1. to many f'in spam votes this last week.2.It would be great to get 5 syringes a day --revoso 01:23, 8 May 2006 (BST)
  22. Kill - Until we have comprehensive data on what the new search odds actually are, I don't feel comfortable trying to bring Manufacture more in line with them. --John Ember 01:44, 8 May 2006 (BST)
  23. Keep - Now that syringe use is throttled, stockpile as many as you want. The revive rate is what dictates the survivor:zombie ratio, and this doesn't change it, unless you're considering scientist zergers, but that is a metagame issue. --ism MotA - R'sR 02:26, 8 May 2006 (BST)
  24. Kill - I think the cost is fine as it is, and I think we need to wait a while and see excatly how the improved search odds in powered buildings is going to impact on the game before making these sort of changes. -whoops --Salicyclic 02:30, 8 May 2006 (BST)
  25. Kill - Convenience has an effect on game balance, as said. Not everyone likes to click 50 times to search each day. 10 AP is too drastic a change--McArrowni 03:21, 8 May 2006 (BST)
  26. Kill - First rule of business logistics: Convenience always costs more. Dickus Maximus 04:01, 8 May 2006 (BST)
  27. Kill- I'd go for it at 15, but altogether you might want to hold off on this suggestion and wait until we've got a good picture of the current search rate. My experience tells me that the rate seems higher than it was before, meaning that Manufacture should be brought down a little. I've gotten 6-8 in a 50-AP search and 3-4 doesn't seem that uncommon. But let's back this up with some more hard data, then worry about whether Manufacture is priced too high.--Xavier06 16:29, 8 May 2006 (BST)
  28. Kill- for time reasons people will still probaly manufacter and for realism sake i think searching for one would take less time than making oneAvicm 02:03, 9 May 2006 (BST)
  29. dupe Don't dupe me. please. [Necrotech skills]Mattiator 02:08, 10 May 2006 (BST)
    Re: Caught Not Reading - this suggestion does not introduce any new skills. Please read before you post. -- Mettaur 12:49, 10 May 2006 (BST)
  30. Kill If searching is better, then search. Manifacturing may take longer, but you'll at least know for sure that you'll get a syringe.--William Raker 13:53, 19 May 2006 (BST)
  31. Kill - While I play as a scientist, and this would REALLY help me out, I have to say that it would unbalance things far too much. While yes, the lower server hits and higher rev rate is good, I still have to say that it pushes things too far against the poor already-outnumbered zeds.--Craer 00:12, 20 May 2006 (BST)
  32. Kill - Too low an AP cost. –Xoid Talk U! 05:53, 20 May 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 11 Keep, 17 Kill, 3 Spam, 1 Dupe. 32 Total. –Xoid Talk U! 05:53, 20 May 2006 (BST)

GPS waypoint entering

Timestamp: 23:14, 7 May 2006 (BST)
Type: Item upgrade
Scope: humans with GPS's
Description: I would propose that users with a GPS be allowed to enter waypoints with short description of what it is (say, a safehouse, necrotech building, hospital, etc.)for a 1AP cost, and could activate a "find" function for previously entered waypoints, also for 1AP. You couldn't have more than 50 waypoints stored on your GPS at a given time.

Votes

  1. Kill - To meny waypoints. Cut that to 5 and you can have a keep --ramby T--W! - SGP 23:19, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - Indeed. 50 waypoints per person? Though, even if you resubmit it as 5.. I think I'd still give a "Kill." I just don't see the utility of this.--Wifey 23:23, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill - What would be the point to this? I already have all the stuff that this would do just by using the UD Map and a pencil and paper. Saves AP and server hits. --ThunderJoe 23:24, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  4. Spam To find out the waypoint you'll need the X and Y coordinates. Meaning you'd need the map to find out. Therefore it's a waste to even have this since you're already using a map. Saromu 23:27, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - It's completely useless. Do what ThunderJoe said - Tirion529 23:28, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - While I usually promote in-game solutions to using out-of-game info, this is too clunky to merit a keep from me. -Wyn (talk!) 23:29, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill -5 places in a dropdown list would be better and simpler.--Vista W! 23:33, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - This is what a simple text file on your computer is for. --Darkstar949 23:37, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill - Limit to 5 and i'll vote keep. I immagine you mean it works kinda like 'scent' when you use it? (Place 1 is #Y#X) --Certified=Insane 01:38, 8 May 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill -Limit the waypoints to 5 and it a Keep. A snazzier interface can't hurt.--Xavier06 16:32, 8 May 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill - I like this but its lacking. i think it might also be a dupe but I am too lazy to go look. Nazreg 15:23, 9 May 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill I'd vote keep if: 1) you could only enter the co-ordinates of the square you're in and 2) you could keep <11 locations stored. David Malfisto 18:21, 9 May 2006 (BST)
  13. Kill Change the amount and we talk. But seriously, good idea, just needs reworking. --William Raker 13:54, 19 May 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - Limit to 5 and make it so you can only set a location you are curently at. The map makes this useless tho, so I doubt it'll get through even with the fix --Teksura 04:34, 20 May 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/7th-May-2006&oldid=254664"