Suggestion:20070710 Second City

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Stop hand.png Closed
This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Undecided Suggestions.


20070710 Second City

--Sonny Corleone RRF CoL DORIS Hunt! 01:39, 11 July 2007 (BST)

Suggestion type
New Game

Suggestion scope
Buildings, Players, Suburubs, etc.

Suggestion description

Ok. Like every honest player I play with 3-4 characters, none of which use the full 50 AP because of the IP hit limit. But when you think about it 3-4 characters? You cannot play the whole game that way. You cannot experience everything it has to offer with just 3 characters, 4 if you're lucky. And what about the groups? You may find a really cool group you want to join but can't because you're already part of another. I have 2 zombies, a survivor, and a pker. I cannot join any more groups even though I'd like to because of the ip hit limit.

So I propose a second city. Why? Well everyone is against making another Malton. Perfectly understandable, that's stupid. But why not make another city, like a realm in other games? (see Tribal Wars or WoW) Say the infection spread to another city. Put it in America, France, Guyana, Zimbabwe, whatever. Tie it in somehow.

Some differences from Malton:

  • New set of IP limits. You will not use your 150 ip hit limit from Malton with your new characters.
  • Can't use character names used in Malton, this is to stop griefing
  • Totally different Map. Can have different types of buildings like a Prison, City Hall, Chocholate Factory, whatever.
  • Free or not free? Don't care either way but if Kevan likes the idea he could make it for people who donate $5 or something.
  • Same classes and such as Malton.
  • Changes in gameplay will affect both cities.

Now, I don't expect this to ever be implemented. I'd like people to vote on the cool factor. Do you think it would be cool to have another city?

--Sonny Corleone RRF CoL DORIS Hunt! 01:39, 11 July 2007 (BST)

Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped.
# justification ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above may be struck by any user.

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


Keep Votes

  1. Keep - author keep. --Sonny Corleone RRF CoL DORIS Hunt! 01:50, 11 July 2007 (BST)
  2. Keep - Me an a few other wiki members were talking about this sorta thing a few weeks ago on the discussion page. It'd be pretty fun, and it'd let Kevan implement other stuff that he probably wanted to put in from the start, but didn't want to because it would affect the current game too much.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:54, 11 July 2007 (BST)
  3. Keep - Malton is getting a 'lil crowded. Torec T-CC/CS 02:24, 11 July 2007 (BST)
  4. Keep - I love this idea despite the fact that it's ridiculously improbable.--Globule13 02:26, 11 July 2007 (BST)
  5. Keep - wont happen but still is a kick ass idea.--'BPTmz 02:33, 11 July 2007 (BST)
  6. Boo! - Change is good.--Lachryma☭ 05:25, 11 July 2007 (BST)
  7. Keep - It would be a very different game, especially if both sides started off with the current skills instated as gain-able. Think about what Malton would be like if survivors didn't have high level players to depend on when they started. The strategies and game play would be very different and quite possibly very interesting.--karek 10:03, 11 July 2007 (BST)
  8. Keep - If it was placed in america, you'd be able to find guns in almost every building :D! How about Suburban Dead? --Midianian 12:01, 11 July 2007 (BST)
  9. keep but mostly because i want a game reset and for that to happen without alienating a lot of the player-base means a second city! All the good suggestions that won't work because they change the existing balance or map or whatever could be re-evaluated. Quick fixes that are less than satisfactory could be done smoother without breaking the games continuity. I think we would get a pretty different experience and a lot of old players would return while many more would continue to play on both cities! Oh and as for the IP limit.... donate and solve the problem! I would want the IP hits shared just to encourage this. --Honestmistake 13:09, 11 July 2007 (BST)
  10. keep - i think it would be cool. although i don't agree with whole You cannot experience everything it has to offer with just 3 characters thing --Duke GarlandTLCD SSZ 13:39, 11 July 2007 (BST)
  11. Keep - Making a fresh start without getting rid of the already established one. --Vault 16:27, 11 July 2007 (BST)
  12. Keep - I like it... A new city= new fun. --Iphoenixsongi 17:40, 11 July 2007 (BST)
  13. Keep - I think that (for the story) that there was some explosion, and the infection crossed the boundries, then infected a whole new city. Then the military created a new quarantine. Also, for the IP restriction donaters, I think that they should be the only people allowed to play, if not forever, then maybe the first few months.LemonHead7t7 *̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡|͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|]]| ̡̡̡ ̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡*̡͌l̡* Talk/PDA/Red Rum/MOB 07:40, 12 July 2007 (BST)
  14. Keep - Good idea, as long as we can have one pop-up asking each character in malton if they want to move or not (when they pay the $5)User:Bank1 19:12, 12 July 2007 (GMT)
  15. KEEP I play honestly with one character so i wouldn't really know how the ones with alts feel. but i think another city is cool. --RayHanley 06:37, 14 July 2007 (BST)
  16. Keep - Sounds good to me.--Labine50 MHG|MEMS 07:53, 21 July 2007 (BST)
  17. Keep - Sounds like fun, I wonder how it would be to have all low level characters in a city. Thelightguy 09:40, 21 July 2007 (BST)
  18. Keep - it could be very interesting, especially if there is a path in Malton that you could go to, say a subway, ride the train, and come out into a different town. A unique idea. And it might allow you to gain new updates with new abilities in the said new town. My vote is yes. Zigs 14:27, 23 July, 2007 (BST)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - No, I don't think it would be cool. Since your suggestion is basically to allow more IP hits on a server that already bogs down, its not cool. Plus, I'd prefer Malton have a higher population; rather than splitting people off into another city, find a way to let those people play in Malton. It really seems odd that if you want more characters for a broader expereince, you don't just donate; you say Kevan could make the new city cost $5 (which would leave it empty) but won't kick in $5 to play a character in Malton?
    I paid for 4 characters, and its really been well worth it. I do however think it would be nice if you could switch your donation benefit from one character to another by some process, or that donating just upped your total IP hit limit, letting you use them on whatever characters you like (still with a reasonable max per character, to prevent abusive botting).
    That's not to say I don't see merit in a new city- which would effectively be a new game, so call it that. How about a "Rural Dead" that takes place in a non-urban location and focuses more on isolated strongholds (rather than buildings "connected" by free running moves), allows for "evasion" in the outdoors as a survival mode (rather than just barricades), and has some sort of mechanic where survivors actually need to gather food (fewer canned goods outside the city) just to stay alive? But like I said, that would be an entirely different game, not just a "new city". . . . swiers BigEYEwitnessLOGO.png 02:31, 11 July 2007 (BST)
  2. kill - As Swiers said, the population of Malton is already to low. Lets not make that worse. Sanpedro 03:02, 11 July 2007 (BST)
  3. Kill - No for a new city >.> If you make this p2p,it is going to be a ghost city.If you make it free,the server is going to be laggy.Furthermore,I don't really think Malton is so overpopulated to the stage of needing a clone.To be honest,I just don't like it.Malton is going to be underpopulated if there's a new server as newbie will all rush there,and we will get a empty Malton at the end.--Perne 03:03, 11 July 2007 (BST)
    To be honest I doubt people will play only one city and not the other. In NW people have tons of characters and don't have a problem with juggling 6+. People would play on both Malton and the new city. Even Kevan though about it here. He doesn't think it is that bad. --Sonny Corleone RRF CoL DORIS Hunt! 03:32, 11 July 2007 (BST)
    He thought about it doesn't mean I think it is good.--Perne 04:34, 11 July 2007 (BST)
    No, but it means he took under consideration lag and other problems. --Sonny Corleone RRF CoL DORIS Hunt! 04:53, 11 July 2007 (BST)
  4. Kill/Change - Another entire city would be bad for the game for the reasons listed by others. Instead of a new city, why not expand Malton? Maybe the military blockade failed on one side of the map. New items could be located like military supplies from the blockade. Drop the ip limit thing from the suggestion as well, live with the current amount.-- Forge 07:32, 10 July 2007 (PST)
    Because that does not fix the 150 IP limit. --Sonny Corleone RRF CoL DORIS Hunt! 03:43, 11 July 2007 (BST)
  5. Kill - As everything that Swiers said. You can donate to get around the 150 IP hit limit, so when I see people complaining about it, it just makes them sound cheap to me. You wouldn't have to donate to all characters, as you can run 2 comfortably off the 'free' 150 IP hits you get. If you want more from Malton, put more in. 'arm. 04:53, 11 July 2007 (BST)
  6. Kill- As above, for the most part. And if you don't like the 150 IP limit, donate. You'd probably need to in order to create this new city anyways, but donating is a much easier, practical alternative to starting another huge project to eat into Kevan's likely limited free time.--Grigori 06:31, 11 July 2007 (BST)
  7. Kill Just expand the city we've got.--Seventythree 12:23, 11 July 2007 (BST)
  8. Kill - There's enough space in the map as it is, and if you need more IP hits, learn to use a proxy, or to reset your IP. It's fairly easy. (Disclaimer: While I could use a proxy, I've never bothered to. My estimates of how easy it is may not reflect the experiences of people using Windows.) --Saluton 16:48, 11 July 2007 (BST)
    Note I said I was an honest player. I would never do that. And IP hits is only one advantage of another city. Not the biggest issue. --Sonny Corleone RRF CoL DORIS Hunt! 17:00, 11 July 2007 (BST)
  9. Kill - Kevan is still working on making Malton more balanced and fun. I'd really rather he continue working on that then drop it and make a new game. --Magentaine 17:51, 11 July 2007 (BST)
    Where did I say he'd give up on Malton? --Sonny Corleone RRF CoL DORIS Hunt! 01:27, 12 July 2007 (BST)
  10. kill - As Magentaine said. -- Teleport 00:43, 12 July 2007 (BST)
  11. Kill - As Magentaine Said... If you want to experience more, shell out the five measly bucks to get the limit removed. Also, in regard to your "Not that this will ever get implemented" comment, read the Do's and Do Nots, take a look at it, especially the bit regarding suggestions you know will not be implemented. Makazaru 02:44, 12 July 2007 (BST)
    Do's and Do Nots are for conformists. I'm a rebel. --Sonny Corleone RRF CoL DORIS Hunt! 06:46, 12 July 2007 (BST)
  12. Kill - Virtually akin to a city re-write, except keeping the current Malton. I don't see the point for all of the extra work. I'd rather the current city improved. Kevan has mentioned a few ideas about how to do an in-game user driven city reshape. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 06:11, 12 July 2007 (BST)
  13. Kill - as Dux. I'm actually working on a suburb...-- Vista  +1  18:36, 12 July 2007 (BST)
  14. Kill - What would be the point of making a new city? and have you asked yourself how much time and money it would cost Kevan to make a new city? All in all, its just a bad idea. --REHUNK 17:58, 17 July 2007 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. I remember seeing something similar to this, but I'm not looking for it...so read all kill votes. --Axe Hack Talk 18:14, 16 July 2007 (BST)
  2. Kill Just no. A new suburb or two would be cool (Ok, that doesn't really help your IP issue - can't you just reform your PKer?) but an entire city would space out the Malton population too much. --DrBowman 18:26, 19 July 2007 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestion:20070710_Second_City&oldid=1896304"