User:JoshCz/Lottery

This page is meant to contain the discussion of the Lottery Idea

Round 1

I do think microtransactions might be something interesting for UD but I don't know if I like the idea of gameplay changes tied to it. Buying cardboard crowns, halloween sweets, or new guff like that might be interesting though. Maybe vanity weapons that function like all the other dud melee stuff. But this would tip us over into pay-to-win status and I think UD's main strength has always been strategy over financing. 20:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take out the monetary part. being like pay-to-win was one of my concerns, I think the micro-transaction could be a better way to make the game money. What do you think about the rest of the idea?JoshCz (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Making the game money would've probably not happened so much anyway, because of the VATMOSS EU tax BS, as it'd probably fall under that rule and be a huge nightmare to deal with. As for the suggestion itself, I thought of something kind of similar with the temp buffs/perks, etc, and almost suggested it in the survey. Mine was more of a focus/frenzy bar though that'd build up quite slowly (maybe over a period of days.) and then you could use it when full (at a time of your choosing, by clicking a button to activate it.) for the duration of a set amount of ap's. So I like the second part, just not sure about the lottery ticket bit. If it could be done in a way that would prevent players/groups hoarding them and then spamming them for ages, it could work. I think it'd have to be a kind of rare thing though if done via tickets, to avoid that problem. -- Xyu 07:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I suppose you could add a cooldown period of 48-72 hours or something inbetween using tickets. That could at least remove the spamming option, which otherwise could cause problems in big battles (as in, the game could be too focused on who has tickets, instead of who's using the better strategy, etc.) -- Xyu 07:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

As said above, this would make urban dead a pay-to-win experience, that would be my main problem with the idea too. The lottery could create a two tier system of players, premium and free members. Those that donate/pay $5 can win gameplay advantage over those that do not, negating any sort of strategy. Also using xp to pay for lottery tickets favours those with surplus xp, most likely those at max level. Those still gaining xp for skills may be less likely to buy tickets, choosing instead to level up, and find themselves at further disadvantage against higher level players with special abilities/prizes. I do like how hunting the prizewinners would give a further objective or ingame activity for each side. As long as the temporary perks are balanced I think they could be a lot of fun too. Xyu's idea of a focus/frenzy bar may be a better way to achieve them than the lottery. Futuyama (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Took out the monetary part. I probably didn't make it clear enough how it would work. The lottery is held once a month. Your tickets go into a raffle and if your ticket is drawn you randomly get one of the classes. So you can spam tickets, but at the drawing you'll only get one win. This is so people with loads of xp can actually use it on something. I see your point though, some players with loads of xp can just win every month blocking out everyone else. Maybe that could be fixed with varying ticket prices. Everyone level 15 and below 25xp regular players pay 100xp players with over 25000xp pay 1000xpJoshCz (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Round 2

I don't think this is a bad idea but it's absolutely something I don't think should be in UD. And players under level 15 shouldn't be able to enter it. A ZOMBIE ANT 00:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on why it wouldn't fit for UD? In my view it can save UD. There aren't any big battles anymore, at least nothing worth writing about. UD needs heroes and villains. It needs more momentum to generate play, and this is a way to do that.JoshCz (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

UD isn't about being able to do a lot on your own, it's about the opposite. You need several people to be able to achieve something. Like I said, this isn't a bad idea, and in a different game I'd certainly enjoy it, but I, and others who have been in UD for a while would probably hate it. Likewise, I emphatically reject the idea this could save UD. UD well beyond saving IMO. Also, I disagree with your notion of what makes a hero. Look at UD's old heroes, they weren't heroic and historic because they had the most guns and ammo, they were heroic because they could round up hundreds of people to a cause, keep them there, and make it fun. This makes things fun for like 50 people, and less fun for everyone else.

Could it work? Yes, could it make UD a bit more interesting? Yes, but if you're hoping it'll do what you just said it might, I would have to disagree. A ZOMBIE ANT 00:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Your right that the game won't be saved by this one idea. I do think though this idea has some points to it that you may be overlooking. I don't intend to say your arguments are invalid, I respect your opinion greatly and assume that many veteran players share your views. If I can convince you then I can hopefully get the votes needed to pass this suggestion.

It still requires multiple people playing together to accomplish a goal, its just now the goal can be larger. the winners can't do everything by themselves. Sure they can do more than the average player, but they aren't the heroes. The heroes are the ones that organize these players, who are spread out over Malton, part of different groups, that's the real challenge.

A well designed mechanic is not only fun for the person using it, but also the person its being used on. Say a group of three zombies are huddled in their favorite building, they get shot out by a lot-winner. They now know that lottery winners name, and they know he's in the area. Maybe they find him, maybe they don't, maybe they just keep retaking their building luring their prey into a trap when they call more zombies. The fragility of the power, the fact that it can easily be taken away, makes it fun for everyone. Not only hunting the opposing side, but trying to preserve someone's life.

The game won't be saved by one idea, but I think its a good step. It's a good step towards creating memorable instances, and play. I never got to be a part of what the game was, and it may never get that way again. I want to try my idea and see if it works. If it keeps people playing UD a bit longer, than that is a success in my book.JoshCz (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Am kind of mixed really. I think some parts of that could work, but there's still the chance of things getting pretty imbalanced if those players are gathered, and I don't really like the idea of winners keeping that type of power until they're killed. At the same time though I can see how it'd be great to get into a building with a bunch of Zombies and see a group of lottery winning Humans gathered there to eat. There's also the scope of it, it could take quite a bit of work for one change, but then again I'd like to see a new area (underground for instance), and that would probably take a fair bit of work too. That could be kind of straightforward though, making an area, but this could have all types of balancing issues that might need several updates to fix.

Anyway, not trying to be negative, I just think this could be pretty complex for one suggestion. At the same time, I'm not brilliant when it comes to working out how this type of thing would be added, and that's partly why I've hardly ever commented on suggestions in the time I've played here. I do think it's a good attempt though, and good that you care about the game enough to try with something like this. Sorry I couldn't help more! -- Xyu 08:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)