Suggestion:20070515 Supply Cache

	Revised
	This suggestion has been withdrawn for revision, the new version is here.

20070515 Supply Cache

Culsa 09:29, 15 May 2007 (BST)

Suggestion type
Improvement.

Suggestion scope
Survivors.

Suggestion description
The nature of Urban Dead means that survivors can only survive in the long term if they cooperate with each other, and form into groups for protection. One facet of this in real life would be the pooling of resources, especially material. However, direct trade would be difficult and irritating to institute in Urban Dead, due to reasons explained by others many times. However, to create a sense of material cooperation, I propose this addition.

Players, if in a building with no zombies (other conditions, such as requiring power or a level of barricade would make sense) may "cache" items. The player loses the item, and it disappears. However, each item cached increases the cache's value in that area. For example donating a crowbar or fire axe may add 1 to "melee weapon cache", increasing the chance for melee weapons to be found in that building by a small amount. The size of a cache could be shown with flavor text, such as "You are inside the Gaston Building. There is a large cache of medicine and handheld weapons here." if the cache was mainly FAKs and fire axes.

Ransack would of course destroy caches, an act which should give XP proprotional to the size of the cache.

Voting Section

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. # justification ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above may be struck by any user.

The only valid voting sections are Keep, Kill, Spam and Dupe. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

Keep Votes

1. Provisional keep As a rougth idea, this works. However could you plaesa provide what sort of percentages we are talking about?--Seventythree 10:31, 15 May 2007 (BST)
2. Could be considered further: I have read all the votes, and when I first read the suggestion it sounded like a great idea. However I can understand the objections made. But this is just another thing that, if rules only allowed subtle use, as opposed to large use that would make it possible to easily abuse, then it can work well. If used properly, this tactic could simply add another level of competitive gameplay. Although I understand and agree with the points on zergers being able to cache weapons for their alts and not the general survivor population, I would say the suggestion should be open to more consideration and proactive modification. --BlackScarletLove 21:01, 16 May 2007 (BST)
3. Change -- You need Catches to shrink when they are used, that way people don't abuse them to set %'s StarDolphin 17:35, 21 May 2007 (BST)
4. ChangeI would like to make some changes to my idea, in response to very helpful points made. Firstly, cap the bonus to search percentages at 10%. Secondly, Have the caches decay with use - every time a syringe is found in the building, remove one syringe "point" from the cache. After a few are found, the cache will decay. That is all. Note: I don't believe that this would "OMG help zergers WTF", because the bonus is capped and there are already safeguards against zerging - which could simply be extended to caches (penalty on characters from same IP using the same cache). Same thing for malls - it would be useful, but not game-breaking. As for making the game more "mall-centric", well...if you zombies really wanted to win a siege, all you'd have to do is LEAVE. Survivors wanting to DO things would chase you, and with less active users concentrated it would be easier to kill them. Note ends.

Kill Votes

1. Kill - Large amounts of hording would mean that you could always find any item you wanted. For example NT's could cache alot of syringes. Soon it would be a 100% chance to find a syring bringing revives down to 11AP! - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD CT SR: 10:09, 15 May 2007 (GMT)}
2. Kill Jedaz makes a good point. - BzAli 22:36, 15 May 2007 (BST)
3. Kill - Might want to try resuggesting with some numbers and capping the bonus you can obtain from it. I don't know if that would make it a keep, but it would be a lot closer to one. --Rgon 22:45, 15 May 2007 (BST)
4. Kill - What others have said already -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 10:04, 16 May 2007 (BST)
5. Above. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 14:04, 17 May 2007 (BST)
6. Kill - As the others--Vista ⁺¹ 18:14, 18 May 2007 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - This could be easily abused in order to have a building filled with items. Then the only limitating factor for a survivor resistance would be AP. No. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 09:52, 15 May 2007 (BST)
2. Why a Bad Idea - to complete and answer kill/spam votes above. It wouldn't make resource buildings a search heavens that easy. For the purpose of someone searching, say a syringe in NT for few AP, someone else should before this search for that syringe (a lot of AP) and drop it. So what suggestion is actually doing is moving search AP waste from one character to another, i.e. 100% Zerg-abusable stuff. Even if you'll try to balance it by making extremely low percentage add or caps - it won't change situation.
3. Spam - A similar idea was voted on before. This one is bad for the same reason. Mall plus tons of survivors plus attached NT plus caching = teh winzor! Don't make the game more mall centric / trenchie friendly. --Seb_Wiers VeM 12:35, 15 May 2007 (BST)
4. Spam - Seb is completely right about the mall thing. Also this would basically make nothing matter, zombies quit again, make the game completely human vs. human, all that other regular your suggestion will horribly break the game jargon. Anything that can a. limitlessly improve search rates, b. allow search AP not to be wasted, or c. screw with the syringe rate in a large way. Ruins the game for zombie players, which in turn ruins the game for all players.--karek 06:34, 16 May 2007 (BST)