Suggestion:20071011 Backpacks

	Revised
	This suggestion has been withdrawn for revision, the new version is Suggestion:20071012 Backpacks (Revision).

20071011 Backpacks

LumiReaver 13:59, 11 October 2007 (BST)

Suggestion type
New Item

Suggestion scope
Survivors

Suggestion description
A backpack will allow players to carry items until they reach 130% encumberment. Once encumbrance goes above 100% All actions will cost one extra action point. If a backpack is thrown away, no new items can be acquired until the percentage is below 100%.

Locations: Mall Sports Stores (3%), Schools (2%), Barracks (2%)

Encumbrance: N/A

Notes:

• As mentioned on the talk page, this isn't some light backpack, it's more like the kind someone would go camping with. Something like this or this
• This doesn't buff survivors, or nerf zombies. While players could carry more ammo, or FAKs, they would still be wasting AP that would ordinarily be spent using the supplies. Backpacks would probably be used to get lots of supplies from a mall, or resource building to a more permanent safe house.
• Backpacks can be ditched, just like other items.

Discussion Page

So yeah, how do I withdraw the suggestion to make some revisions, without breaking the vandal rule? Just asking before I do something wrong. A lot of the votes address issues that either skipped my mind, or that I thought were common sense (Mostly the former... :P).

See here, but I've just withdrawn it for you -- boxy • talk • 14:12 12 October 2007 (BST)

Thanks. --LumiReaver 15:52, 12 October 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. Tentative Keep Interesting trade off. I'd suggest that if you discard the backpack without first discarding the items in the backpack you retain those items, but can't move until you throw away enough to get back in the limit. Also, maybe raise the % the 2AP per action to something like 105%, since you can currently go over slightly without any AP cost. --Jon Pyre 14:47, 11 October 2007 (BST)
   • P.S. Also I'd say that additional backpacks should provide no additional inventory space and unlike the 1st with 0 encumbrance, have 5% encumbrance each. --Jon Pyre 15:52, 11 October 2007 (BST)
2. Weak Keep - As John Pyre. I don't really like the "drop the backpack, keep the overwhelming amount of items" and well... Not all actions should cost 2 AP. How does heavy backpack limit speech exactly? Maybe just moving (like zombies without lurching gait)? --~~~~ [talk] 15:04, 11 October 2007 (BST)
3. Keep Sounds interesting and useful, but maybe make the extra AP required dependent on how much over the 100% limit you are, e.g: You are 130% encumbered and each turn has a 100% to use an extra AP. You are 115% encumbered and each turn has a 50% chance to use an extra AP. After all, putting a few trinkets into a backpack doesn't instantly make it slow you down. --Darkren 15:06, 11 October 2007 (BST)

   I forgot to mention that the chance of finding it in a school should be lowered, if not removed. After all, you mentioned it was more of a backpack intended for hiking/camping, not a school backpack. --Darkren 15:25, 11 October 2007 (BST)

4. Keep - Extra carrying capacities at the cost of extra ap per action ? sounds reasonable. But talking should not cost that extra AP. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:39, 11 October 2007 (BST)
5. Weak Keep As above, but the "extra AP" tradeoff is reasonable. Glenstone 15:49, 11 October 2007 (BST)
6. Keep, with one question - What happens to items that bring you above 130% encumberance if the backpack is dropped?Studoku 15:59, 11 October 2007 (BST)
7. tentative keep - I suggested that the original version in brainstorming -- 150% encumbrance and 2 AP for movement only -- was overpowered, because I felt that it allowed for someone to just stock up in a mall and sit there and basically be a one-man army... So he lowered it some... ;) Talking and other forms of communication shouldn't cost more, I agree... This may need tweaking, but overall I like the basic idea: AP for encumbrance, it works for me. --WanYao 16:18, 11 October 2007 (BST)
8. Keep - New character type - pack mule! I think the AP for carry volume is a good approach, and agree with others on it not effecting speech. Actually, I think anyone that goes over 100% encumbrance should be knocked down to 2AP for walking - like when I have 98% and pick up a generator or toolbox. Possibly keep it at 1AP if you have Bodybuilding - but I disgress.--Actingupagain 16:50, 11 October 2007 (BST)
9. Weak Keep - I only vote keep because it seems interesting. However, the penalty for going over 100% with a backpack on is far too much for me. My character won't be using this at all. --Ryiis 17:22, 11 October 2007 (BST)
10. Keep As Actingupagain. Sounds like a reasonable idea. --Acoustic Pie 18:45, 11 October 2007 (BST)
11. Keep - Nice, it even has a trade off. --  AHLGTG THE END IS ACTUALLY NIGH! 18:51, 11 October 2007 (BST)
12. Keep - I like it. Probably won't use it, but still. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 19:33, 11 October 2007 (BST)
13. Keep -Why not?--  Savant  Chit-Chat  19:45, 11 October 2007 (BST)
14. Nice - Another "Unfixable" suggestion is proven viable. BoboTalkClown 21:42, 11 October 2007 (BST)
15. Keep - I can see some uses for this.--Seventythree^Talk 23:52, 11 October 2007 (BST)
16. Keep I like the idea, and it would complement my play style. Rebel147 02:16, 12 October 2007 (BST)
17. Keep - Reasonable, realistic suggestion that'd help the game. J. A. 02:58, 12 October 2007 (BST)

Kill Votes

1. Kill - The encumbrance system has been implemented to address situations when a survivor would carry multiple heavy items, like dozens of generators. The current system still lets you carry 5 generators. How realistic is that? No backpack on earth should allow you to carry another one. -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 16:48, 11 October 2007 (BST)

   realism is not a valid kill vote in a zombie game :P --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:03, 11 October 2007 (BST) Non author RE -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 17:10, 11 October 2007 (BST)

2. Kill - How do you think you're carrying half a dozen guns, an ax, a crowbar, ammo, several first aid kits, your DNA extractor, syringes, and so forth? In your pants pockets? Survivors already have backpacks.--Jiangyingzi 20:13, 11 October 2007 (BST)
3. Kill - As Jiangyingzi. --The Hierophant 20:19, 11 October 2007 (BST)
4. Kill - I always thought of the ability to carry so many items meaning that we already had a non mentioned backpack. - Whitehouse 20:48, 11 October 2007 (BST)
5. Change - Two issues are kinda glaring at me. The first, you could get multiple backpacks. The second, that when you lose the backpack, something bad should happen like losing enough stuff to get you back under 100% encumbrance. Change those and I'll be fine wit it. --Taint 21:56, 11 October 2007 (BST)
6. The biggest argument against is that a lot of players presume you carry a backpack of some kind to lug all the crap you carry. Unless everybody just dumps all their stuff in a Walmart bag and slings it over their shoulder. That having been said, I'd think it would be logical that items would have to be put in/taken out of the pack, kinda like the pack was a seperate inventory.--Pesatyel 03:36, 12 October 2007 (BST)
7. Kill - Us survivors can carry around enough crap as is. --Sonofagun18 05:32, 12 October 2007 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - This is a game breaker in many ways, mostly because the encumbrance limit is there for a reason, the game, for survivors, is about stocking shit, that's stored AP which is a big advantage, everything a survivor does is about stored AP, it's why guns are so effective, FAKs are efficient, and needles are so powerful, it lets you do more shit in less time for having to build it up before hand. Then there is the complete lack of mention of what the backpack's encumbrance would be, if it's over 30% it's useless but if it's less it's game breaking. So many things wrong with this and I don't want to make my comment much longer so I'll just throw in how crappy the downside is because you can drop the backpack after you have 150+ encumbrance and it's negated.--Karek^maps?! 19:53, 11 October 2007 (BST)

   You don't think that the AP penalty makes up for it? If you didn't get an AP penalty, it WOULD be overpowered, severely. And if you drop it while having 100-130, you could be unable to move until you get under 100% again, or you just retain a 100% 2-AP-per-movement penalty. ... And why is this under Spam/Dupe? --Darkren 20:41, 11 October 2007 (BST)Non Author RE, if you want to comment on votes do it on the talk page, please.--Karek^maps?! 20:56, 11 October 2007 (BST)

2. Spam - encumberance balances the game. Also, as Karek pointed out, the suggestion is incomplete. --Pavluk ^{A! E!} 20:19, 11 October 2007 (BST)
3. Splam - Im sure people are just as happy with sticking the items in the pockets of their trenchcoat. doc crook 23:00, 11 October 2007 (BST)
4. Spam - Increasing the allowed encumbrance is a really bad idea. Stored AP is one of a Survivor's biggest advantages. Increasing the potential for stored AP would break the game, even with an associated AP penalty for actions. I can easily imagine situations where it is advantageous to carry more stuff at the price of extra AP. If you're having problems carrying stuff, you should drop your third generator and your eleventh shotgun. --Steakfish 01:54, 12 October 2007 (BST)
5. Spam -By attempting to "balance" it, you 100% nerfed the thing. Less useful than a crucifix. The few useful bits would throw off game balance in other areas- for instance, finding a syringe would cost double AP while making one would cost one more. --AlexanderRM 02:37, 12 October 2007 (BST)
6. Spam - Survivors already have enough carrying capacity. There's absolutely no need to add more.--the one, the only, sushiknight ^{(talk contribs HARD E.N.D.)} 05:54, 12 October 2007 (BST)