Suggestion:20080127 Weighed Down v2

	Closed
	This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Peer Rejected.

20080127 Weighed Down v2

Pdeq^Talk* 22:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion type
Improvement

Suggestion scope
Melee attacks against humans

Suggestion description
Survivors who are loaded down with lots of equipment have a more difficult time dodging attacks, while those who are relatively empty-handed more nimbly evade such attacks.

This suggestion would affect only melee (non-gun) attacks against survivors. Attacks against zombies would not be affected. The current accuracy of an attack would be multiplied by a "hit factor" based on the encumbrance of the target. This hit factor would be applied after any bonus (such as tangling grasp).

Encumbrance	hit factor	Comment
0-15%	0.85	This makes it harder to hit these people
16-30%	0.9
31-70%	1.0	This does not change the chance to hit from what it is now
71-90%	1.1
91-100%	1.2
>100%	1.3

Effects:

• Harder to kill new players who have yet to pick up any equipment.
• Harder to kill players who have run out of supplies.
• Easier to kill players who are fully stocked.
• Adds some more strategy to the game

For example, maxed out claws without tangling grasp would have a 45% chance to hit a survivor carrying 15 FAK's, the normal 50% chance against a survivor with an assortment of items totaling less than 70%, and a 60% chance to hit a survivor who is fully encumbered.

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 - I'm the author, and I think this revision is even better. --Pdeq^Talk* 22:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Keep - I liked the Original and I like the revision better. -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 22:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Keep - Adds some interesting variables. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Keep - Encourages smart inventory management. --Karek^maps?! 22:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Keep - You improved it.--Seventythree^Talk 22:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Keep - Makes sense, although in my opinion most survivors (the non-newbies, anyway) are almost always going to be fully stocked. Even pkers. --Private Mark 22:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Keep - Don't be selfish. Vote Keep! BoboTalkClown 00:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Keep I won't be selfish! This is cool! --Darth Lumis^{T! A! E! SR} 03:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
9. weak keep - meh --~~~~ [talk] 08:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Keep - Makes the game more interesting, promotes diversity in play styles, makes sense in real life. Awesome. --Pgunn 14:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Keep - Me still likey. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Keep - I like this much better. --Heretic144 16:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Keep - Adds a layer of realism to the game without too much complexity. 70% encumbrance still is plenty of stuff for any survivor. Nice trade off to carry more. --_└^Frozen_┘^┌_Flame^┐ 19:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Keep- Much better now. Makes it easier for both sides to some degree. --Ciaran Deckardson 21:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Keep - I'm voting keep largely in response to the number of kill voters who assume all survivors use guns.--Aiwe 20:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    I felt that it would encourage the opposite. That people might use local resource buildings more because making mall runs to fill up on supplies would come at a disadvantage. --Pdeq^Talk* 01:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Kill Votes

1. Kill - I'd rather not have to go out of my way to restock more often, which this would force me to do if I don't want to get clawed faster. I tend to get big amounts of stuff and spend three or four days of just playing, then one or two of restocking. My death cultist character would get killed in his sleep way more if he slept close enough to a mall or even a PD in some of the more populated 'burbs to conveniently restock. Please don't screw with my system. --Howard Bentley 22:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Kill - don't screw with the working system we have now. also; as Funt--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 23:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Kill - As Funt and CornDogHolio... --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 23:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Kill - why is the person who is being attacked the only one who gains/suffers from this proposed encumbrance hit factor? for instance, if i am at 118% encumbrance and i take a melee weapon out, would it not be harder for me to attack somebody because i am loaded down with equipment? should we not also include the attackers encumbrance when calculating any hit factor, and not only the attackee? --Scotw 00:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

   RE: Well, first consider that this would mostly affect zombies attacking humans (as humans don't hit each other with melee weapons very often). Thus, that would mainly be making an even more complicated system that would only serve to make zombies have to do through the hassle of using the drop button to drop all their items (which are useless to most zombies anyway). You could explain it away by saying that zombies are so strong that encumbrance doesn't really affect them, if you really need some sort of flavor justification. --Pdeq^Talk* 00:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

   RE:if anything zombies are weaker because they are decaying flesh, not stronger. i still believe that any encumbrance hit system should consider the encumbrance levels of both the attacker and atackee, if it is a hassle for zombies to drop items, i do not feel pity for them. and i dont see why there should be a penalty for people with encumbrances of 70-100%, perhaps i could get behind a penalty for 100%+ encumbrance. --Scotw 01:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

5. Kill - Totally goes against my POWER TO THE PKER campaign, as it would be a huge feral buff.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 03:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

   RE:What do you mean? How would this be a "huge feral buff", how does it significantly effect pkers, and what does your group have to do with this suggestion? --Pdeq^Talk* 03:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

   Well considering that more than likely the feral are going to have no equipment, while humans are, and the scope of the suggestion says attacks against humans who have equipment. Ergo, it will be easier for zombies to attack humans who have equipment, which affects pkers because pkers are typically loaded up with guns and ammo, while a feral zombie who again will probably have no equipment will be harder to hit with melee attacks (assuming humans actually use that anymore), and my group stands up for the rights of the pker, and we demand no more zombie buffs until we get some pker buffs!--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 04:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

   ^{discussion moved to talk page}

6. Kill - Hit rates are fine, plus I vote against anything that makes it harder to hit other players, which goes against the very nature of Anime Sucks' POWER TO THE PKER campaign.  Billy Club Thorton  T!  RR  04:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Kill - It makes you a slower and therefore easier to hit target except against guns because? It makes you slower and therefore easier to hit except when you're a zombie because? Also, it's redundant. If Kevan wanted to encourage players not to carry as much equipment around, he'd have introduced an encumbrance rule. Oh wait, he already did. And one last thing, and it will just encourage survivors to play closer to the malls since it will penalise anyone who decides to play further out and occasionally visit the mall for supplies. Turkmenbashi 04:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

   (1) Because voters on a previous suggestion (not mine) thought the idea of people dodging bullets was ridiculous. (2) Because voters on the previous version of this didn't like it affecting the chance to hit a zombie. --Pdeq^Talk* 04:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

8. Kill - Just a zombie buff. There needs to be some offsetting buff to survivors or you're changing the balance of the game. If it's easier for you to hit me when I'm encumbered, then it should be easier for me to hit you when I'm not. - Headshot Hal 15:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

   There is an offsetting buff. It's easier to hit you when you're encumbered, and it's harder to hit you when you're not. Being that survivors don't use melee weapons as much as guns, and zombies only use melee, it's better than making it easier to hit zeds when you're not encumbered. What you're suggesting would be worse for survivors. --Pdeq^Talk* 19:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

   It's not an offsetting buff. If I'm encumbered, zombies come out better because I'm easier to hit. If I'm not encumbered, zombies come out better because I have less stuff to hit them with. - Headshot Hal 22:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

9. Kill - As the other kill and spam voters. --Z. slay3r •  Talk  17:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Change - I'd like it if the numbers were shifted up about 10% and 1.2 multiplier was the cap. --Cpt Masterson 18:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

    I'm not going to tweak the numbers again. If you like the idea, and the numbers are close enough, I suggest you vote keep. Kevan usually tweaks the numbers on such things anyway. --Pdeq^Talk* 19:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

11. Kill - The system works fine as it is. Sheana ^{T / TMZ} 19:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Kill - I hate the whole thing. Hurts survivors and zombies. -Inky 05:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Kill - No. --Amanu Jaku 06:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Kill Playing as both a zombie and a survivor, I find it much easier for my zombie to kill the living than my survivor to kill the dead. As such, though I find this to be an interesting and worthwhile suggestion, I'm disinclined to support it given the current game balance. --Nightforge 17:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Kill My reasons are all listed by Funt... Oh, and Axe Hack said a good point, too... I would vote spam, but I don't believe in it, unless the suggestion is utter crap... ~A`Blue`Jelly^TME*V*I*L*_? 23:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Kill -- You know, at first I liked this idea, but I think that it would encourage mall-centrism among survivors, and thus make the game more obnoxious and boring for non-mall rat types. Karaburma 23:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Kill - I just don't like it for no reason. --The Gecko PKer 02:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Kill - I already hate encumbrance because you can't stockpile realistically. This just makes it more frustrating. --Diano 20:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Kill - I am with the guy above on this one, VERY FRUSTRATING!--Jamie Cantwell3 07:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - I fail to see the difference, except that now you've made zombies immune from it. Why's that fair? As before, retroactively punishing all survivors for carefully maintaining an encumbrance system that is already stricter (and fairer) than the previous space system is just shit, as well as buffing a zombie side who have been getting so buffed recently that they're now resembling the borg. No thanks. Not unless you reduce the weight of various items, or do something else to offset the punishment to the survivor side. --Funt Solo ^QT 22:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

   RE: Your "except" is the main difference. The numbers have also been changed somewhat. Something to offset the punishment? How about the boost to all low encumbered people? --Pdeq^Talk* 23:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

   Re - there's no reason zombies should be immune to the effects - that's clear bias. And I meant something to offset the punishment to any survivor at 100% encumbrance. You see - there's already an in-game punishment for that: it's called not being able to carry any more. Now you want to make it worse. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Spam - I just don't like anything that can shift with encumbrance. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 00:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Spam - When Karek votes keep on something, it's generally a sign that it would hurt survivors more than zombies. I don't want to get hit more because I'm carrying 36 needles.--Labine50 ^{MEMS | MHG} 02:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Let's take a look at one thing here...The newbie part. You state it's harder to hit them cause they've yet to pick up any items? Not so. About 45% of many of my real life friends who've joined Urban Dead recently started as one of the classes who start with firearms and went on a searching spree. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 14:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Spam - As the spam voters above me. --Hhal 16:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Spam - As Funt. -Downinflames 00:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Spam - As above.--Kolechovski 18:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)