Suggestion:20071012 Backpacks (Revision)

	Closed
	This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Undecided Suggestions.

20071012 Backpacks (Revision)

LumiReaver 15:50, 12 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. If a backpack is thrown away the player must remove items from their inventory until encumberment is below 100% before they can move. They may still preform all other actions, except searching, and moving until the encumberment is below 100%. Once encumbrance goes above 100% (110% w/Body Building) Most actions will cost one extra action point, with or without a backpack. The actions that are not effected are talking (including radio operation), and searching. Every backpack after the first is worth 5% encumbrance, and does not provide additional inventory space.

Locations: Mall Sports Stores (3%), Schools (1%), Barracks (2%)

Encumbrance: 0% (5%)

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 (Yes, a backpack like this couldn't realistically allow a player to carry an extra generator but realism couldn't possibly a valid argument in a zombie game. When you can already carry four generators, lugging two more around couldn't kill you.)
• This doesn't buff survivors, or nerf zombies. While players could carry more ammo, or needles, they would still be wasting AP that would ordinarily be spent using the supplies. The potential damage per AP cycle doesn't change much, in fact, it gets worse. Backpacks would not/should not be used offensively, they 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. There's no permanent change to encumbrance, and if you'd like to avoid spending extra AP, you can just throw it away.
• Characters who die with 130% encumbrance must throw items away before the AP penalty is removed. (Getting up is also affected by the AP penalty)
• Transporting supplies en masse would mean less time spent in dangerous buildings.

Discussion Page | Old Suggestion Page (Hopefully I'll convert some kill/spam votes)

I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT EVEN IF EVERY CHARACTER IN THE GAME IS CARRYING A BACKPACK, IT'S PROBABLY NOT A BACKPACK THE SIZE OF A GODDAMNED MINIVAN, thank you for your time.

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. Weak Keep - Dunno about the encumberance, but the trade-off is reasonable. Glenstone 17:03, 12 October 2007 (BST)
2. Balanced Trade-Off Well thought out. I'd suggest allowing players without a backpack to move up until 110% encumbrance if they have Bodybuilding. --Jon Pyre 17:46, 12 October 2007 (BST)
3. Keep - Whatever. Backpacks are cool.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:02, 12 October 2007 (BST)
4. Keeps getting better and better. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 19:19, 12 October 2007 (BST)
5. Keep - Still a great idea. -J. A.
6. Keep - i feel like issues i've adressed are decided --~~~~ [talk] 20:31, 12 October 2007 (BST)
7. Keep - keeps the game fresh.--'BP^Tmz 21:08, 12 October 2007 (BST)
8. Weak keep - This is balanced, and yes, keeps the game fresh. These are not regular backpacks likes you carry your books and lunch in... they're hugenormous... But, as anyone who has lugged around one of those around when they are FULL of stuff knows, they do slow you down. --WanYao 03:05, 13 October 2007 (BST)
9. Keep - Its ok. A trade off. BoboTalkClown 03:37, 13 October 2007 (BST)
10. Keep Works for me. Rebel147 05:29, 13 October 2007 (BST)
11. Keep - To deny the kill voters of their moment. doc crook 15:10, 13 October 2007
12. Keep - It's a good idea. --Humanstyle 16:31, 13 October 2007 (BST) 16:30 (BST), 13 October 2007 (BST)
13. Keep - Good idea. Allow people to carry more items. But can someone carry more than one backpack? --Defender 911 17:44, 13 October 2007 (BST)
14. Keep! - It's a good idea. The AP drag would make it more of an item used when you need to carry 20 FAKs to a sieged building or something. Also, if someone screws up while doing this, it could make for an easy lunch for zambahs. And congrats on getting into the voting section. -The Trichloroethane Potato ^{SGP E! RQ! Winner 1!} 20:00, 13 October 2007 (BST)
15. Keep Yup. Tradeoff is good. --Taint 20:34, 13 October 2007 (BST)
16. Why Not if it'll irritate the kill voters below. Besides I agree with most above, not too overpowered, has it's drawbacks while maintaining some benefits. --Slightly Lions 10:01, 16 October 2007 (BST)
17. Keep/Change The tradeoff is a bit too onesided, with 200% encumberance, or even 150%, it would be more likely to work. --Shatterspike1 23:54, 18 October 2007 (BST)
18. Keep - Seems reasonable to me. Plus, it gives players choices. Choices are always good. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 19:18, 23 October 2007 (BST)

Kill Votes

1. Kill - As the initial version. -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 19:31, 12 October 2007 (BST)
2. Kill - Wheres the balance? Sockem 20:14, 12 October 2007 (BST)
3. kiLL - I'll get the semi tractor trailers out to balance this one... hell, only thing I could think of to balance it would be removing freerunning- that's how gamebreaking it is.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  20:23, 12 October 2007 (BST)

   It isn't. If you think it is, give me some evidence. I don't want an empty statement, and I'd be interested in hearing what you think is wrong with it. --LumiReaver 22:49, 12 October 2007 (BST)

4. Kill - Leave it alone. Its fine as is. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 23:05, 12 October 2007 (BST)
5. Kill - I dunno, it just seems so balanced that there's no buff. Extra AP just to move? The point of a backpack is to carry your crap for you; therefore increasing mobility. --Hhal 01:18, 13 October 2007 (BST)

   That's true, and all for regular backpacks, but camping backpacks are huge. Can't argue your other point though. Using a backpack for anything other than moving things from one place to another would be inefficient. ...Wait, what are backpacks for...? :P --LumiReaver 12:03, 14 October 2007 (BST)

6. I think Hhal's comments are more true than Nalikill's comments. Still, as Grim s. Encumbrance is added in for a reason.--ShadowScope 03:49, 13 October 2007 (BST)
7. Kill - As Grimch. --Perne 05:17, 13 October 2007 (BST)
8. Kill - As before, no. --Sonofagun18 05:25, 13 October 2007 (BST)
9. Kill - pointless to increase enc to 130% but also increase movement cost to 200%. --Funt Solo 11:05, 13 October 2007 (BST)
10. Kill - As Funt, you managed to fix some of the stuff that was a problem last time but now the thing is completely useless.--Karek^maps?! 21:35, 13 October 2007 (BST)
11. Kill - As per my previous vote (survivors already have backpacks). Also, this just isn't a necessary, or even an interesting addition to the game.--Jiangyingzi 01:11, 14 October 2007 (BST)
12. Kill - I always want to carry more... but doubt it would be good for the game -- boxy • talk • 12:40 14 October 2007 (BST)
13. Kill - I misunderstood it (see below). I still don't like it, though, for all the reasons above. --Steakfish 13:03, 14 October 2007 (BST)
14. Kill - -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:49, 14 October 2007 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

Vote Changed - Doesn't buff Survivors? Doesn't nerf Zombies? Did you even read your own suggestion? If you stay in one spot, or don't move much, it's a HUGE buff. You can find one in a mall or fort (where you can find nearly every usefull item), search that same location without any AP penalty (you said that talking and searching have no penalty) until you max out at 130% encumbrance, then drop the backpack. You won't be able to go anywhere, (and why would you want to, when you have everything you need already?) but in a mall or fort, the Zombies will come to you. Once they've broken down the barricades, you can unload all those extra shotgun shells without an AP penalty (you said that once the backpack is dropped, there is no more penalty). People wouldn't use this to carry supplies from resource buildings to safehouses, they would use it to turn every building that contains ammo into a trenchcoater's paradise. --Steakfish 03:29, 14 October 2007 (BST)

Most actions will cost one extra action point, with or without a backpack. Trenchcoater paradise does not involve 2AP to fire a gun. This vote isn't even valid as your entire justification hinges on them being able to store up more ammo without a penalty.--Wooty 04:49, 14 October 2007 (BST)

I'm going to go ahead and say exactly what you said before they NON AUTHOR RE!! you. 'Cause people making valid points shouldn't be stricken out. "Most actions will cost one extra action point, with or without a backpack. Trenchcoater paradise does not involve 2AP to fire a gun. This vote isn't even valid as your entire justification hinges on them being able to store up more ammo without a penalty." --LumiReaver 12:03, 14 October 2007 (BST)

I stand corrected. The wording confused me. Still don't like it, though, so I'm changing to kill. --Steakfish 13:03, 14 October 2007 (BST)

1. Spam D'oh! I thought I voted on this, but I put the vote on the wrong page. I really see no significant difference. And what the hell is actions will cost one extra action point, with or without a backpack? 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 21:13, 14 October 2007 (BST)

   If that's the biggest argument against it, I should be getting some more keep votes real soon. :) The "actions will cost one extra action point" thing is just to prevent people from taking the backpack off to remove the AP penalties associated with lugging an entire convoy's worth of supplies. --LumiReaver 21:50, 14 October 2007 (BST)