Suggestion:20080604 Dive For Cover

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

20080604 Dive For Cover

Specialist290 ♠♥♣♦ 22:01, 4 June 2008 (BST)

Suggestion type
Skill

Suggestion scope
Survivors, Firearms

Suggestion description
The problem with the first version of this suggestion was that I approached it from the wrong angle, which led people to make false assumptions about exactly what the skill is. I have therefore tried to correct that with something a little more plausible.

It can be assumed that, as time goes by, the more experienced and / or paranoid survivors would develop an "instinct" for finding effective cover in a firefight, or for using feigned movements or other "tricks" to throw of their would-be assassin's aim. While this wouldn't necessarily allow them to avoid incoming fire entirely, it would, occasionally, allow them to minimize the potential damage of the attacker's weapon.

1. The skill would only be availiable to characters of at least lvl 20 and would branch off of Headshot (assumes maxed-out human skills, in other words).
2. The skill would only affect pistols and shotguns; flare guns would be right out, since getting hit with a flare would cause major burnination (i.e. more of an "area of effect" attack").
3. The skill would only affect survivor vs. survivor combat; zombies would be unable to take advantage of this skill.
4. The chance of successfully "converting" a hit would only be 6.25% (I was originally going for 10%, but decided that was too high.)
5. A "conversion" would not totally dodge the hit, but instead reduce the damage to 1 HP damage for pistols / 2 HP for shotguns. (The presence or absence of a Flak Jacket would not affect this.) This could be justified as the shot being turned into a "glancing wound" (for pistols) or the victim twisting out of the way of the pellets' center of dispersal (for shotguns). It would still be technically be possible to kill a dodging opponent with such a wound if their HP was low enough.

And now, to answer the naysayers:

"This skill would nerf survivors against zombies!" - No, read it again; I specifically mentioned that it only affects survivor vs. survivor. I really shouldn't have to include this at all, but there are some idiots out there who apparently need to read something two or three times before it finally sinks in...

"This skill would nerf my PKer!" - That's a matter of perspective. For one thing, the skill would only be open to a limited range of characters; there would still be plenty of nice, fresh, non-skill-possessing targets out there for you to shoot. Second, there's nothing preventing you from buying the skill and pulling the same trick on those bounty hunters who are inevitably going to come calling.

"This skill is unrealistic!" - No, it isn't. Real-world soldiers are trained to do exactly this. Soldier or not, anyone who managed to survive a combat situation for any lengthy amount of time would probably develop some sort of instinct for this sort of thing.

"Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam..." - *cue Massive Foot Falling From The Sky*

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. Author vote. --Specialist290 ♠♥♣♦ 22:02, 4 June 2008 (BST)
2. Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, argh noooooooo!!! Seriously though, looks alright to me. Can't hurt. -- Cheese 22:48, 4 June 2008 (BST)
3. Keep I'm going against my gut here, but it's realistic and -somewhat- necessary. Plus my character that axes things would not be affected. --H The Person 23:04, 4 June 2008 (BST)
4. Keep - It makes a lot of sense, for who in their right mind would just stand and let someone shoot them. This adds a bit more protection from PKers which I think is neccesary. --Takiel 18:17 (EST), 4 June 2008
5. Keep/Another idea - Another way to calculate the dodge rate would be based on encumbrance. The more burdened you are, the harder it is to avoid getting hit. --Aeon17x 23:21, 4 June 2008 (BST)

   Didn't think of that myself. Nice idea :) Too late to work it into the suggestion now, though, unfortunately. --Specialist290 ♠♥♣♦ 23:24, 4 June 2008 (BST)

6. Keep - Would all the spammers just stand still during a firefight? --Heretic144 23:28, 4 June 2008 (BST)
7. Keep - I dislike PKers --Larspcus2 00:00, 5 June 2008 (BST)
8. Keep - I like it. I also like Aeon's little addon idea for it. But either way... keep. And Billy... how is it too pro survivor if PKers can also get it, and it's just for survivor vs survivor? If anything it makes PKer vs Bounty Hunter more interesting. Wouldn't you like to dodge when the bounty hunter comes for you? --Tselita 00:09, 5 June 2008 (BST)
9. Keep - Cool, I like this one.--Jamie Cantwel3 ^TalkAll glory to the Hypnotoad! 00:48, 5 June 2008 (BST)
10. Conditional Keep-Make it so that you can only dodge fire with 10+ AP, just to counterfire the PK nerf an add an "exhaustion makes movement sluggish" element, which WOULD be realistic since many fighters would not have military discipline, and even soldiers would be worn down with extreme exhaustion.--Rofl. 01:31, 5 June 2008 (BST)
11. Keep - I wish Pesatyel would exlain how this "promotes PKing", because I don't get that at all. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:45, 5 June 2008 (BST)
12. Keep - Interesting. --Pvt human 13:55, 5 June 2008 (BST)
13. Keep - I like it for various reasons mentioned on the last version of it.--Karek^maps?! 20:56, 6 June 2008 (BST)
14. Keep - This is a blatant attack on YOUR MOM. --BoboTalkClown 22:07, 6 June 2008 (BST)
15. Keep / Change - I like the idea of humans being a bit more capable of avoiding gunfire than zombies. I'd lift the level restriction, though; it could in fact increase PKer targeting of lower level players.--Jiangyingzi 00:54, 7 June 2008 (BST)
16. Keep - Sorry, spam voters. I tried to understand your reasons, but I can't speak idiot. --UCFSD 15:29, 9 June 2008 (BST)
17. Keep - The light at the end of the metal tunnel is not God. Why do I keep looking down it...? doc crook 18:48, 10 June 2008 (BST)
18. keep- realistic->Schizoidgull 20:39, 10 June 2008 (BST)
19. Keep - Decent sounding new skill. - Fred Fredfredson 05:09, 14 June 2008 (BST)
20. keep - because PKers need to be eliminated from Malton (or at least made a roleplaying choice rather than an effective tactic), and this is progress.--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 21:52, 17 June 2008 (BST)
21. keep - PKers are a pain, if you want to kill humans become a zombie! --Kamikazie-Bunny 12:46, 18 June 2008 (BST)

Kill Votes

1. Kill - Has the same problem is the previous version. It's a skill with a similar effect to the flak jacket, except your enemies can see it. And PKers are more likely to target you if you don't have it, which is bad news for new players. --Explodey 00:05, 5 June 2008 (BST)
2. Kill - As Explodey. - W 00:07, 5 June 2008 (BST)
3. Kill - I think it is a bad idea to have a skill to give a chance to reduce damage like this. Flak jackets are enough. Just simply, i don't like it. - F4tal3rror 20:00 5 June 2008 (+10 GMT)
4. kill hit %s are already assumed to include me hiding behind something. and same as explodey. A damage negation skill makes me a saaaaaad panda. along with the fact most combat is I shoot at you while logged off. Assuming the skill crosses over, like diagnosis, body building, ankle grab, and any of the others, we have a uber-zombie who probably wears a a flak jacket, can take cover while swaying mindlessly, etc etc. if it doesn't carry over, PKer who does wear a flak jacket, has free running, decades, has ankle grab, and can take cover when sleeping. Padfu-Zomfu 12:05, 5 June 2008 (BST)
5. Kill - Holy hell. I see how this would be useful for me, but I'd rather shoot the higher levels than the lower ones. Also, by no means should this be a branch off of a ZOMBIE HUNTER skill. You yourself said it doesn't concern them at all, and that it was military. If you eventually come out with another version, keep it out of zombie hunter. --Vandurn 23:55, 5 June 2008 (BST)
6. Kill - Seems more like a nerf to PKers, rather than equal benefits between PKers and survivors. --ZsL 00:00, 6 June 2008 (BST)
7. Kill/Change - I knew there was still something wrong with this, just could point out what it was. As Vandurn. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 00:04, 6 June 2008 (BST)
8. Kill - As Larspcus2. --Sir Bob Fortune ^RR 06:58, 6 June 2008 (BST)
9. Kill - I think that being behind cover is implied by the hit percentages. --Officer Dick Trickle 16:39, 6 June 2008 (BST)
10. weak kill - a much better suggestion than the first attempt, i just cant vote for it though --Scotw 20:53, 7 June 2008 (BST)
11. Kill - I wouldn't spam it, but I do believe it is unfair for death cultists who characteristically kill more often than be killed. ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 17:26, 8 June 2008 (BST)
12. Kill - PKer should be attacking older players. Forcing them to attack new players is not a good thing for the game. --Karloth Vois TALK ^RR 17:36, 10 June 2008 (BST)
13. Kill - Same reason as Karl, and don't nerf mah PK.--drawde ^{Porn!•RR•RRF} 20:05, 10 June 2008 (BST)
14. Kill- You never specified wether the skill is passive or not, and I am too lazy to figure it out. --BKM 20:36, 12 June 2008 (BST)
15. Kill - No. To complicated. --Jack ^{S13 T! PC} 21:35, 12 June 2008 (BST)
16. Kill - would encourage PKers to attack new players. Kill. --Irounds 14:08, 15 June 2008 (BST)
17. Kill - Encourages PKing newbies, doesn't make sense branching off of a skill tree called Zombie Hunter if its meant to avoid Human Hunters. --Atticus 17:56, 18 June 2008 (BST)
18. Kill - As above. Bryce Wright 21:09, 18 June 2008 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - Not needed. --The Hierophant 22:46, 4 June 2008 (BST)
2. Spam - This suggestion is horrible, unsalvageable, unnecessary, too pro-survivor, and stupid.  Billy Club Thorton  T!  RR  23:30, 4 June 2008 (BST)

   All right, I can understand (if disagree with) the rest, but how is it "too pro-survivor"? It doesn't affect zombies at all, and nothing is going to stop a PKer from possessing it and using it against bounty hunters except not meeting the requirements himself. And would you stand still if you were being shot at? --Specialist290 ♠♥♣♦ 23:38, 4 June 2008 (BST)

   I kill more survivors than bounty hunters kill me. Period. This is a blatant attack on PKers. Also, this suggestion is completely unnecessary.  Billy Club Thorton  T!  RR  01:34, 6 June 2008 (BST)

3. Spam - No. Unnecessary.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 01:03, 5 June 2008 (BST)
4. Spam - Passive defenses from PKers are not needed when humans have methods to tell almost every human in the city who a pker is. You have the means to catch and eliminate Pkers. Also, this really is a Pker nerf, because Pkers are attacking a lot more than they are defending, which means they suffer from this a lot more than they benefit. Pkers do not need a nerf, what is needed is for humans to get up off their lazy arse and actually do something about them, but since that kind of thing involves doing actual work instead of just sitting around in the safehouse waiting for kevan to do it for you, i doubt such efforts will be made. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 01:22, 5 June 2008 (BST)
5. Spam - As Grim. -- T^HEL^ORDG^UNS^LINGER 02:13, 5 June 2008 (BST)
6. Spam - So, basically, you changed the WORDING, but not the actual suggestion. It still has the same problems. It promotes PKing and its overpowered.--Pesatyel 04:02, 5 June 2008 (BST)
7. Spam - As Grim. Except that, almost always, the best defence against PKers is not to put on the trenchcoat and sharpen the katana -- but to ignore them and focus on reviving your fallen comrades. --WanYao 12:09, 5 June 2008 (BST)
8. Spam - As Grim, sort of. Am generally against any passive defense that is THIS strong. Flak Jackets are one thing, and at least everyone can use them. But this is an unneeded survivor nerf. Say "This doesn't make zombies more powerful", and you're right. It makes zombies LESS powerful and effective. Fewer successful pkers is more unsuccessful zombies is more living survivors is a bad idea. Jerith 21:06, 5 June 2008 (BST)
9. Spam - Survivors already have the RG,DEMON, and their army of katana-wielding trenchcoat-wearing BHers. They don't need another buff, and PKers don't need another nerf. The whole point of you're "This would nerf my PKer argument!" is defeated by the fact that both my PKers do post PK suicide. So, no defending, all attacking. This means nerf. --Trav 21:18, 5 June 2008 (BST)
10. Spam - as grim. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 04:37, 6 June 2008 (BST)
11. Spam - Trying to make your PKer nerf "realistic" in a game where it takes 10 shotgun blasts to the face to kill anyone (without bodybuilding or a flak jacket) is a little disingenuous. As grim with the addition that this would give an awfully big incentive for PKers to target low level characters which would be further bad for the game. --Riseabove 20:53, 6 June 2008 (BST)
12. Spam - You are not Agent Smith, and this is not The Matrix. --#19 - DrPain ^TMG 01:03, 7 June 2008 (BST)
13. Spam - Ocular does not support this product and/or service. --Druuuuu ^OcTRR 02:24, 7 June 2008 (BST)
14. Spam - Above. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 15:07, 8 June 2008 (BST)
15. Spam - A skill like this just doesn't fit in, for one thing. But more importantly, we don't need a skill that is specifically made to address PKers. If you haven't noticed, almost all of the survivor skills were made against zombies, and those that aren't are a pure benefit to the player itself. We already have the Flak Jacket. This skill is too powerful against PKers and it is a direct attack. Although I don't support it and am strongly against it, PKing is still a legitimate way to play the game. There are many other reasons why this is a bad suggestion that I don't even feel like going over. Just a ridiculous idea. --L33t 0wn3r 00:55, 11 June 2008 (BST)
16. Spam - Strong kill. The only reason we have so many PKers is because zombies are so weak. - Grant (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2008 (BST)
17. SPAM - Totally unnecessary. Uh..and don't encourage people to kill newbies. --Jasonjason 11:11, 11 June 2008 (BST)
18. SPAM - As grim and L33t Own3r. This is not a balanced idea. --Ghills 20:17, 11 June 2008 (BST)
19. Spam - The Cleric has rated this suggestion EC-10. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:39, 18 June 2008 (BST)