Suggestion:20070825 Reflexes

	Removed
	This suggestion has been removed from voting for revision.

20070825 Reflexes

Nalikill 02:30, 25 August 2007 (BST)

Suggestion type
New Skill

Suggestion scope
Experienced survivors

Suggestion description
Reflexes would be a subskill of Headshot, and add 5% accuracy onto the Shotgun and Pistol. This would apply only to the 8000 or so zombie hunters, as opposed to the 16000 zombies that recently got two boosts... For a pistol, this change means, on average, 1.5 more damage per clip. So this small change would allow zombie hunters to kill zombies faster, to whom death means nothing, but the ability to kill them faster would balance the game for survivors.

Simple change that would re-balance the game. The game, quite frankly, has lost any semblance of balance when the past two updates are combined. So this is a small boost to survivors that, if implemented, will re-balance the game and allow survivors to pull the game back into neutral.

Reflexes: The RP justification is, survivors that have been around long enough to develop the knowledge that only a headshot can truly harm zombies, have developed some reflexes that allow them to fire more accurately; they have learned the quirks of their weapons and have some level of instinctual knowledge in addition to whatever training they have. Training with the weapon on a range or with targets- which is presumably what BFT, ST, AST, PT, and APT are, drilling and practicing on targets- are different than battlefield experience.

Clutter free version:

Experience=better accuracy

5% increase in accuracy with guns for those who buy this skill that's a subskill of Headshot.

NOTE: I think I get the picture, but if you have anything CONSTRUCTIVE about how to change this skill to achieve true balance in the game, please, please, please leave a comment on the talk page. I ain't removing this, and I'm going to pray it don't get removed. Nalikill 03:56, 25 August 2007 (BST)

NOTE: TO those people whom I was a prick to last night, I'm sorry. My prickdom was a result of a nasty affair with a sysop and arbitration, where I was dismayed to learn that being a prick wasn't a crime, and so I unfairly took it out on y'all. Nalikill 14:11, 25 August 2007 (BST)

I've removed this and my other suggestion for the purposes of developing them. Nalikill 03:36, 26 August 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. Nalikill 02:31, 25 August 2007 (BST)

Kill Votes

1. Kill. The game does need a rebalance, but I don't think this is a very interesting way to do it. If we are to see one, I would rather that rebalance be "spent" on something more interesting. --Pgunn 03:07, 25 August 2007 (BST)

   I guess I did too good of a job designing it then: I designed it to be as small, as unnoffensive, and as acceptable a rebalance as possible, without nerfing zeds outright Nalikill 03:08, 25 August 2007 (BST)

2. You assume 16,000 zombies got a boost, but how many have the ransack skill? Anyhow, your small boost is bigger than you think- it both lets survivors kill zombies faster (1-2 AP per zombie faster on average) AND spend less time searching for ammo (they use 1 shell or 2 bullets less killing a zombie). Try taking some time in assessing how game balance has been impacted- from what I see, these updates have very little actual impact, and mostly just let zombies scare the pants off survivors by forcing them to see ruined buildings and travel outside more often. Zombies ARE on an upswing, but that momementum was building well before the updates came along.  Swiers 03:22, 25 August 2007 (BST)

   16000 DID get a boost. Why? It nerfed survivors. Forced us to spend at least 2 extra AP when travelling over ruined territory. Plus the weight requirement of carrying a toolbox taking away from gun-space... You see? Survivors have been nerfed more than you know. Nalikill 03:25, 25 August 2007 (BST)

   More than I know from playing my TWO paid for survivor alts, in addition to my paid for PKer alt? No, I think I know pretty well how survivors play, given that I play 3+ of them a day, with unlimited IP hits...  Swiers 03:30, 25 August 2007 (BST)

   Thank you, elitist, for that "I'm better than you because I have more time on my hands" attitude. I notice you haven't countered my ACTUAL points at all.Nalikill 03:34, 25 August 2007 (BST)

   Nor you mine- you've just made ad hominim attacks rather than logical asserions. You said "Survivors have been nerfed more than you know", and I gave specific reasons as to why I would know how much they have (or have not) been nerfed. That isn't elitist, but assuming you have knowledge other lack IS.  Swiers 04:02, 25 August 2007 (BST)

   1. This needs to be moved to the talk page. 2. I countered your original points, you haven't made any since then, nor have you countered my countering of your points. Nalikill 04:06, 25 August 2007 (BST)

3. Kill - The zombies have not been given a combat boost for I don't know how long. It is simply free-running mechanics that have been tweaked. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 03:27, 25 August 2007 (BST)
4. Kill Your forts are useful now. Effectively, you just got two extra malls. You can SEE which buildings aren't safe now. Besides, you can free into buildings from ruined buildings still. --Secruss 03:35, 25 August 2007 (BST)

   Forts? Small comfort. They were useful- as individual buildings-before. This update did nothing for their individual usefulness, just made it into a useful unit. We didn't get two malls, Kevan fixed what was broken. And you can still go OUT OF THEM, but that don't mean you don't waste the AP. Plus, forts have nowhere NEAR the search rates that malls do, especially for high level survivors. Nalikill 03:37, 25 August 2007 (BST)

5. Kill - Survivors already have a huge advantage in firepower. The answer to survivors' problems isn't game updates, it smart playing, something the vast majority of survivors have never been able to realize or pull off.--Insomniac By Choice 04:11, 25 August 2007 (BST)

   Huge advantage? Surely you jest. Have you ever taken the time to work out the relative 'advantages?' Taking searching into account- full survivor skills, lit mall- it takes 957 AP for 10 survivors to kill 10 zombies. Given the same circumstances, that figure for 10 zombies is 400 AP to take out 10 survivors. Huge advantage? Yes, to the ZEDS! (By the way, nicely partisan voting, be sure to keep up the zombie bias. When I vote, I vote along true fairness, not pure survivor vs. zombie.) Nalikill 04:16, 25 August 2007 (BST)

   Yeah, you're pretty consistently a dick.--Insomniac By Choice 05:19, 25 August 2007 (BST)

6. Kill - What imbalance? Let's say we have a Zombie that has purchased every single zombie skill, and magically hits every time he attacks. He will start outside, since that is where most Zombies spend most of their time. Now let's put him up against a level 5-ish survivor who has freerunning, construction, and has maxed out his pistol skill. For our purposes, the survivor will have normal chances of success in his actions. He will start inside a building, since that's where most survivors spend most of their time. Now, what can the luckiest zombie in the world do with his 50 AP? Assuming he starts outside of the same building he wants to attack, AND the building actually has at least one survivor inside, AND none of the survivors are currently logged in, he can break down one EHB barricade and completely kill one survivor (remember, our magic zombie hits EVERY time). What can our mid-level survivor do with 50 AP (and without the aid of magic)? If the building he is in is unbarricaded, he can barricade it to the point where no single zombie could realistically break in within 24 hours (except for a VERY lucky one), and still have enough AP left to peek outside, heal, attack, or search for stuff. If there are too many zombies outside, he could freerun a pretty good distance away, leaving behind an empty, barricaded building for zombies to waste their AP on, or for other survivors to use. --Steakfish 04:30, 25 August 2007 (BST)

   Take into account the chances for failure for barricades. Take into account that once that cade is down, ALL of the zombies outside need not make the same investment- so if this were a game of one person per building, your points would be valid. However, with 100-500 survivors gathered in one 4 square building, the coordinated zombies become exponentially more powerful the more of them there are. Nalikill 04:33, 25 August 2007 (BST)

   That's like saying that tic-tac-toe is imbalanced in favor of whoever goes first. Tic-tac-toe is always a draw if both sides play correctly. If there are too many zombies outside, just put up a couple levels of barricade (it's close to 100% success below VSB) and freerun away. If the zombies find you again, just set up a few more barricades and run some more. As long as survivors stay mostly inside, and pay attention to their barricades, they will always be more AP efficient than the zombies trying to kill them (and thusly be able to keep away from them). Survivors are good at running and barricading. Zombies are good at combat. Don't engage the Zombies on their terms (in combat), and you'll be ok. --Steakfish 05:32, 25 August 2007 (BST)

   You're correct, but, you don't always have the luxury of engaging them on your terms. Inevitably, the zombie groups will take buildings. Ferals will take buildings. When they do, supplies are needed to clear them out, especially heavily squatted buildings like malls or NT's. So if you believe the zombie groups never, ever coordinate and never, ever take a single building, then yes, your point is valid. But zombies do coordinate, they do take buildings- almost regardless of levels, it's accomplished by pure numbers banging at one time-so, I must contend that your point isn't correct. Nalikill 13:28, 25 August 2007 (BST)

7. Kill - after reading the rest of the comments made, I don't feel it's worthwhile. Perhaps realistic, maybe even fun for survivors, but not balanced. --the one, the only, sushiknight ^{(talk contribs HARD E.N.D.)} 05:21, 25 August 2007 (BST)
8. Kill - The above have said it all. Also, Nalikill, you don't need to reply to every single kill vote, especially when you are just saying the same thing over and over. --Druuuuu 05:45, 25 August 2007 (BST)

   I ain't saying the same thing over and over, if you took the time to read it. Different people make different points and I counter those points individually. Nalikill 20:01, 25 August 2007 (BST)

9. Kill - Unbalanced and unnecessary, Guns are accurate enough as is. --Sonofagun18 07:10, 25 August 2007 (BST)
10. Kill - Even if the game was unbalaced, this would not be the way to fix it. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 09:34, 25 August 2007 (BST)
11. Kill - As above. And next time you cry zed boost, swing by the freshly reclaimed forts, k? --Thelightguy 10:46, 25 August 2007 (BST)
12. Kill - Meh. No.--Seventythree 18:22, 25 August 2007 (BST)
13. Strong Kill - Nah. Survivors don't need to be super-ninja-marine-snipers. Besides, shifting the so-called "imbalance" back towards the survivors would probably require boosted search rates, not boosted hit rates. And just so you know, you sound like you just uncovered a massive zombie conspiracy to take control of Malton via Ruining buildings... --Hhal 20:52, 25 August 2007 (BST)
14. Ad hummina hummina hummina!. First off, firearms have the highest accuracy of any attack in the game, they don't need boosting, much less in the almost completely unrelated tree of Headshot. Second, with respect to your declarations that zombies got an improbable boost, tell me, at what point does a survivor with free running really NEED to leave their network of buildings? They can heal for XP, repair barricades, and as long as one "entry point" is left at the minimal barricade level for entry, you can even go out and shoot, scan, or revive zombies. If they want, they can even shoot other survivors and still get XP. Unless zombies break into their barricaded building (which is like a three-card monte, except there's more like twenty cards and the guy running it can shift the cards around invisibly and push your hand away) they're invincible. It's a balance change in and of itself that doesn't need to be balanced out. Third, in my own recently-attacked area (got killed a few times, then broke a few barricades with claw powah) none of the buildings are ruined. Not one. For something so crushingly overpowered, I sure don't feel suddenly shafted. Fourth, how exactly does a firearm accuracy boost correlate to preventing the ruination of buildings? I get the basic "AP for standing up" deal, but you're not harming the zombie's AP any more than before individually, and you can't exactly off more zombies per 50 AP cycle dealie. And finally, nerf doesn't look like a word anymore. Nerf nerf nerf. Kalir FTW! _{Z/S UD Potato Words} 21:25, 25 August 2007 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

Comment Vote' This could be worthwhile voting keep for, but I'm not sure at this point. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the UD mechanics could comment on the percentages and such? --the one, the only, sushiknight ^{(talk contribs HARD E.N.D.)} 02:41, 25 August 2007 (BST) Use the talk page for comments The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 03:06 25 August 2007 (BST)

1. Complete Crap Hmm...A 70% chance to hit. Yes,balancing indeed. --User:Axe27/Sig 03:19, 25 August 2007 (BST)

   Look at the total numbers of survivors and zombies. Almost 50/50, and the zombies have barely begun their comeback. We need to find a way to reduce the scale of these changes- from 40/60 and back again down to 55/45 and back again or so. And survivors have been SEVERELY nerfed by these past few changes Nalikill 03:21, 25 August 2007 (BST)

   RE: more like kill, Not spam or dupe. Unsigned comment struck. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:36, 25 August 2007 (BST)

2. Spam - Fundemental assumption is flawed. The way to balance the game is not to make guns more accurate. If a horde of zombies are outside your safehouse, it doesn't matter if you can kill none, one, or all of them using your AP. They aren't going away until they want to. -- Pavluk 18:09, 25 August 2007 (BST)

   That's not the 'fundamental assumption.' My assumption is that with the new toolboxes, survivors have less room for ammo- to clear out infested buildings- NOT to attack zeds outside, because that's useless in all but mall sieges. Don't assume all survivors- or even a reasonable percentage- are stupid enough to kill zeds outside.. Nalikill 19:48, 25 August 2007 (BST)

   All I have to vote on is what you put in the suggestion. You don't say anything about toolboxes, and you explicitly state that the idea of this is to let survivors kill zombies faster. If you want to address the encumberance issue, why not suggest less bulky toolboxes? Finally, shooting zombies outside during a mall siege hasn't worked since Headshot was changed. You spend 20-odd AP putting them down, they spend 1-6 AP getting back up. -- Pavluk 01:30, 26 August 2007 (BST)

3. Spam - crap --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 20:56, 25 August 2007 (BST)