Suggestion:20070418 CCTV

	Closed
	This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Peer Reviewed.

CCTV revision 1

Timestamp:	Seventythree 22:45, 18 April 2007 (BST)
Type:	New Static Item
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Ok, revised version of CCTV cameras. Found in mall tech stores 3% of the time, police stations 2% of the time and at warehouses 1%. They take up the same encumbrance as radios and consist of 3 cameras and a monitor. These cameras can be destroyed by people outside by selecting attack cameras from the attack menu. Being fragile, cameras are destroyed by a successful hit. There is a 10 % chance of hitting a camera, and once hit and destroyed the number of cameras remaining is displayed in brackets next to the attack cameras selection. (for example Attack: cameras (2 remain)) When placed in a powered building (which takes 5AP and also sets up the cameras as well as the monitor) it creates a new button next to the broadcast button. Clicking on this button costs one AP and will display a message based on how many players are outside the building. Due to the crappy nature of the cameras and monitor it is impossible to tell weather the players are zombies or survivors, or, indeed exactly how many players are out there. The message would also state how many cameras are still operational. The message would look like this. There are (1, 2 or 3) cameras still operational. Peering at the grainy pictures on the monitor you can detect roughly 10 to 20 indistinct figures outside The number displayed would work like this. 1 outside - There is one Indistinct Figure outside 2-10 Outside There are a handful of Indistinct Figures outside 10-20, 20-30, 30-40 there are 10-20 (or 20-30, or 30-40) Indistinct Figures outside 40 plus There are too many indistinct figures outside to count. The monitors set up in buildings are destroyed by ransacking and can be attacked and destroyed the same as radios. If the monitor goes, so do the cameras. If the cameras go, the monitor does too.

Keep Votes

1. Author KeepHope this clears up some of the problems. Thanks for reading.--Seventythree 22:45, 18 April 2007 (BST)
2. Keep/Change - I think the to hit should be whatever it normally is for the weapon type, and that zombies should get XP for smashing each camera. Otherwise, the limits on numbers viewed, and the high set-up cost out-weight the issues of X-Ray vision. --Funt Solo 22:58, 18 April 2007 (BST)
3. Keep - Personally I'd prefer first one for simplicity, but I like this one fine too. --S.Wiers^ctdp_NTmap^x:oo
4. Keep - Looks even better and I voted keep last time if my memory serves me right. --Heretic144 23:36, 18 April 2007 (BST)
5. Keep - Assuming this gets destroyed by ransack, this sounds good. I would use the same 1/2 regular hit % as generators though, for simplicity sake. --Gm0n3y 23:56, 18 April 2007 (BST)
6. Keep - Yeah, that's a keeper. Edited to add that I agree with Honest Mistake. It makes more sense for a ransack to destroy the monitors inside, thus necessitating reinstallation, than to believe in zombies forming a human pyramid outside the building to reach and destroy the camera.The Hierophant. 01:04, 19 April 2007.
7. Keep - Yeppers, easier to kill. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 01:55, 19 April 2007 (BST)
8. I believe there is a suggestion like this in reviewed, but not a complete dupe...but if there is...I seem to like this one best. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 02:11, 19 April 2007 (BST)
9. Keep - I'd keep the to-hit percentages as they are. They seem fine.--Vista 09:22, 19 April 2007 (BST)
10. keep - i like it, it clears up the problems people had before (mostly) but i would strongly prefer the cameras to only die if the building is ransacked and only be fixable if the inside and outside are zed free! --Honestmistake 12:18, 19 April 2007 (BST)
11. Keep I totally disagree with HonestMistake. The ability to smash them from the outside swings me 100% to the keep-vote. - BzAli 15:18, 19 April 2007 (BST)
12. Keep - with these limitations it won't disturb anything, so why not? --Duke Garland 19:48, 19 April 2007 (BST)
13. Keep -Sounds cool.--Grigori 21:08, 19 April 2007 (BST)
14. Keep - see below - Jonny12 ^talk 22:35, 19 April 2007 (BST)

    Keep - Agree with all above. Improperly signed. --^T 00:14, 12 May 2007 (BST)

    Keep - I like it. --User:Axe27/Sig 01:56, 10 May 2007 (BST) Vote posted past deadline. --^T 00:14, 12 May 2007 (BST)
    

Kill Votes
Change - I like this. I just think the tohit should be 20% and there should be a maximum number of cameras you can set up. (because if there's 5 then that's 50AP disappeared to destroy them all). Otherwise, I think this could be a viable x-ray situation. Jonny12 ^{talk . w(m)^∞} 22:55, 18 April 2007 EDIT: Sorry, I'll read it next time. Ignore the bit about maximum cameras! Jonny12 ^talk 22:59, 18 April 2007 (BST)(BST)

RE (it is ok for me to RE, isn't it?) Essentialy, i had the destroy cameras at 10% because as there are only three it would only take 30AP to knock them out, on average. I can change that to 20%, or higher if there are any other people agreeing with you. Personaly I'd love to have people looking out of the CCTV to see there is one camera operational. There are too many indistinct figures to count. It'd scare the cacky out of you! P.S thanks for everyones help with this, by the way. --Seventythree 00:03, 19 April 2007 (BST)

Fair enough, well consider this a keep from me then. Jonny12 ^talk 22:35, 19 April 2007 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here