User talk:Spiderzed/Sandbox/HAHP

Halve all hit points

Timestamp: Spiderzed▋ 12:45, 19 September 2010 (BST)

Type: Value change

Scope: Everyone

Description: Let's go crazy and halve all hitpoints. These would be the concrete effects: Starting humans and zombies have 25HP. Bodybuilding/Flesh Rot just grants +5HP rather than +10HP, giving a total of 30HP. Revived humans have 12/15HP (depending on if they have Bodybuilding or not.) drag-eligibility still gets triggered at 12HP, putting freshly revived humans without FAKs at great risk (and giving bodybuilding actually some tangible benefit, as even infected bodybuilders aren't draggable right off the bat) damage from weapons and infection remains unaltered damage from failed Freerunning into ruins is halved to 2HP, rather than 5HP (17-20% of total possible health for stumbling over rubble would be a bit extreme, wouldn't it?) healing still heals 5/10/15HP depending on circumstances and skills, and digestion still grants 4HP per bite XP for healing and attacking remain the same Why go that crazy? Because of these beneficial effects: Zombies Lone ferals get a far better chance to break in and still have the AP to drag/kill someone, making even lone ferals dangerous. Cheap revive costs become far less of an issue in balance, as they are closer to kill costs, without the need to raise the AP costs for reviving to a ridiculous amount At the same time, combat revives remain a viable tactic, as they work reliably for exactly 10AP and just use up a single 2% item (unlike melee weapons, which probably use more than the 10AP, and unlike guns, which clog up more than 2% of encumbrance). Eating corpses becomes a viable tactic, as the AP costs to do so are close to that of receiving a headshot and rising again with full HP PKers PKers would need far less HP to kill, allowing further away bolt-holes and epic striketeam mass homicide PKers could actually make some impact, as the kill costs are so close to revive costs OTOH, the halved HP would put also PKers at greater risk, as even dark places aren't a darn safe protection from every lone wolf without a genny and fuel. A bodybuilding PKer with a flak jack could be killed with a pistol for 20AP on average (((30HP / 4 damage)/65% hit probability)/50% darkness penalty). Carrying genny+fuel for PKer hunting would still be a sensible option, as it allows a.) to "bank" AP in advance that later make it easier to hunt PKers and b.) it allows to collect multiple bounties in dark places swarming with PKers This would also give bounty-hunting/retribution kills some sense, as the costs for doing so aren't so much ridicoulously higher than the costs to revive the PKers (although it would still remain somewhat less AP-efficient than ignoring PKers and putting the APs rather into reviving the victims) Survivors Survivors get a far better chance to break a cade block, as they can kill and dump multiple zeds per individual AP cycle. A survivor loaded with pistols could repel a rotter for 10AP on average, allowing him to kill and dump 4 zeds at once and still cade a bit if he is fully rested. (((30HP / 4 damage)/65% hit probability = 10AP, +1AP for dumping = 11AP per pop) Survivors can fill up their inventory mostly with FAKs, syringes, a toolbox and maybe also a genny and/or fuel, and still put enough guns into their spare encumbrance for them to actually have an effect. A single revolver and a spare clip for a total of 6% would be sufficient to repel a single fully healthy rotter Flavour 3-4 shotgun blasts or 5-8 revolver bullets would be all what it takes to send someone to the boot hill, rather than the ridiculous amount of abuse that folks can take right now before they die The beneficial effects would probably be slightly more in favour of zombies than survivors (as the imperative of zombies is to attack whenever possible, while survivors usually only fight when things have gone wrong), but it would offer something for both, and it would especially nerf the dreaded cade blocking without removing it entirely. I'm aware that it's crazy and extreme, but I see a lot of merit in this. Discuss.

Discussion (Halve all hit points)

I figured the reason why everyone's so tough to kill in this game is because we're all descendants of Keith. So having everyone literally miss half of their life is more than a bit... unsettling. --Aeon17x 13:43, 19 September 2010 (BST)

MAKE IT SO 18:39, 19 September 2010 (BST)

It's an interesting idea. I could see the benefits of it but also see how it would be much less beneficial to survivors. Ultimately I think it would drive away players, especially those that play strictly as survivors. Therefore I would likely kill vote it if it comes up in the suggestion portal. --~ 18:53, 19 September 2010 (BST)

It's not like a survivor has to put up with a lot of death, unless he seeks it out. The last three times a survivor of mine died was when I purposefully slept in red zones and in Blackmore NT. Remember also that this suggestion does nothing to cades - they remain the roadblock that they are right now, and probably even more so, as it becomes possible to break a cade block. It just makes things more exciting when the cades actually break (which is rare enough). -- Spiderzed▋ 19:33, 19 September 2010 (BST)

The main issue I see here is Dealt in lead syndrome. Once somebody dies, they'll die again so quickly that the game loses loads of its playability. Griefing becomes ridiculously overpowered, not to mention zerging. Ultimately, it's steps to speeding up the game, the same thing as doubling AP would do. Too much could happen while somebody was offline for this to be a completely logical decision.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:04, 19 September 2010 (BST)

That's what you should carry FAKs for (and they aren't really hard to find, unlike healing items in DiL). Even my PKers carry at all times at least 1 FAK, and more likely 2 or 3 of them. If you are really more concerned about being killed than anything else, then sleep in the dark. -- Spiderzed▋ 19:33, 19 September 2010 (BST)

Damages newbs. Newbs are the future. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:54, 19 September 2010 (BST)

Ross is right, especially when you consider that flaks would now be twice as effective, and lots of newbs don't have them.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:02, 19 September 2010 (BST)

I can see Ross' point about survivor newbs. They'd probably need something to partially offset the hardships of this suggestion, such as free Lurching Gait by the rage mechanic, or bonus healing items (FAKs, beers, wines) at the start. That would be a different suggestion, though. (And linking this suggestion with an unrelated suggestion would most likely greatly diminish the chance to get this through the suggestion system. I'm open to be convinced to the contrary, though.)

OTOH, babah zambahz would greatly profit from this. The early ZKing becomes far more profitable, as the 10XP kill bonus is more often handed out. (This also goes for newb survivors who gain their first levels by killing zombies in the streets.)

Don't see the point about flaks, though. Most honorable PKers don't target newbs at all, and even if they target newbs, PKers are the least sorrow of newbs compared to zombies. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:31, 19 September 2010 (BST)

I don't like it, I think it will reduce fun. - User:Whitehouse 21:06, 19 September 2010 (BST)

Coming from a survivor/PKer/zombie background, I have to say that I like it. Granted, it'll hurt survivors that end up in the crosshairs/claws of their enemies, but it'll help smart survivors, since it'll let them clear buildings more quickly, and it shouldn't hurt them much, since barricades are still there. That it buffs PKing is a nice fringe benefit. —Aichon— 21:36, 19 September 2010 (BST)

I'm a new zombie. Every time I die it takes me 10 to 15ap to stand up. Halving my HP is not a good thing. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:42, 19 September 2010 (BST)

To paraphrase the Prophet, zombies don't have 50AP. They have 44AP. Learn to accept it and embrace it. Though, in your case, it's a bit less. :P Besides, this won't increase the rate that you're killed very much at all for the simple reason that they can't kill you twice. When I first started out, I woke up dead as often as not (come to think of it, not much has changed...), but until I stand up again, they can't kill me again, which means that you'd still be starting off each day with 35-40AP, just as you are now. —Aichon— 21:50, 19 September 2010 (BST)

Except now instead of knocking down a single newbie zombie per venture outside, I'll be knocking down two. - User:Whitehouse 22:04, 19 September 2010 (BST)

It's not the number of times you die, but the chance of waking up dead I'm worrying about. Looking at this its things like, a level one private being able to kill me on his own, or a dedicated survivor able to deliver a one shot kill --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:07, 19 September 2010 (BST)

This is really my only real concern with the suggestion. I could most certainly go for lowering the health of survivors and zombies across the board, but the possibility of a one-shot kill due to a fuel+flare gun combo seems too much. Raise the health to a level where a rezzed survivor doesn't have that issue and then I would vote for this. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:56, 21 September 2010 (BST)

*blinks* Uh, rezzed survivors already have that issue. Potentially. A freshly rezzed survivor in fuel-soaked clothes who wears no flak jack can be one-shot killed by a flare. Not that this is bloody likely, or effective compared to other weapons. Still, a slight increase (such as reducing max HP to 30/40 rather than 25/30) would probably help this suggestion to go down better. -- Spiderzed▋ 16:04, 25 September 2010 (BST)

It encourages people to travel in large groups instead of the 1-5 survivors all huddled in a building barricading/the lone zombies trying to tough it out. Also encourages people to be a little smarter in their actions... I like it for the most part, even though there are a few ways this could be bad. (such as has Ross has mentioned, new players. --Gat 04:44, 20 September 2010 (BST)

Yeah, right. Seems like newbs are the big roadblock that this suggestion has to deal with. Ideas on goodies that could be linked with this suggestion and are still minor enough to not kill it? Personally, I'd be inclined to give new zombies Digestion for free, and to give new survivors 1 bonus FAK and 1 wine/beer for free. Importing the Rage mechanic could also work to help both kinds of newbs (and would be easy-peasy, as the code already exists and would just need to be applied to Malton). -- Spiderzed▋ 08:52, 20 September 2010 (BST)

Becomes way to easy to max out your characters. Firemen and Corpses basically become gods with this implementation. I'll admit it would be fun for awhile, but whats the point of making max characters so easily? also, it would be easy to grief people like this, just stand in revive points like cemeteries and kill everything, which because of the half life, becomes much easier.--TheWritingWriter 23:50, 20 September 2010 (BST)

At best, it means 20XP per day more, as the 10XP kill bonus is handed out more often. There are still 50AP, and base XP for attacking remain the same. In the case of newbs it are probably even far less then those 20XP, as they don't have the hit% to kill effectively. -- Spiderzed▋ 08:01, 21 September 2010 (BST)

I like the idea in theory, in practice, not so much. Everybody's listed a bunch of good reasons, so I'll add another voice to those, but the thing that gets me most is "The limit of 50AP per 25 hours is to keep the game balanced and to stop too much from happening overnight; if we doubled the recharge rate, it'd mean people getting in a hundred APs' worth of actions while other players were offline, which is enough to cross the city or deal an easily fatal amount of combat damage."

Ignoring the bits about movement and barricades, there's still the point that while ferals and small groups would gain a lot of benefits, large-scale engagements won't be happening again. At least not as we know them. They'd end way too quickly. RinKou 05:30, 21 September 2010 (BST)

Large-scale engagements? What large-scale engagements? There haven't been any since cade blocking has been introduced. The last two things to happen that were close to large-scale engagements were No Escape and Blackmore 404, and they were more save-or-die affairs that turned into hopeless slaughterfests as soon as the beachhead stood. Less HP for everyone might even counter that, as it becomes thinkable to put a serious dent into a beachhead (alone, or in a small ad-hoc strike team in case of groups using IRC), so that cading becomes possible again. -- Spiderzed▋ 08:01, 21 September 2010 (BST)

In a new city? Yes please. In Malton? Noooooooooooo. Call me conservative -- LEMON #1 12:20, 21 September 2010 (BST)

The suggestions specifically says that UD is intended to have a slow pace, health is a big part of this, I'd kill this suggestion, sorry mate. --Tabbitha Duo 13:49, 23 September 2010 (BST)