Suggestion:20080619 Campfires

	Spam!
	This suggestion was voted as spam and closed for voting, with 5 keep, 2 kill, and 6 spam votes.

20080619 Campfires

I Am Sabbo 05:41, 19 June 2008 (BST)

Suggestion type
Skill

Suggestion scope
Survivors; outside, darkened buildings.

Suggestion description
A civilian skill with no prerequisites used in darkened buildings and outside anywhere (for safety reasons - having fires near generators would be a bad idea). It would have the character use nearby objects to create a fire (ie. no items required), which would make it easier for anyone nearby to find normal items lying around - the search rates would be halfway between darkness and lights on - and could also be used as a one-time weapon by kicking the burning object at the target (I'm thinking 5HP damage with equal XP gain, and a 5% chance of hitting. It would also burn fuel-soaked enemies for 10 extra damage.).

Fires could be put out by using 1AP (a tactical useage: in order to hide that there are people inside); zombies would also be able to put out the fires. People outside such buildings would see that they have a fire inside due to the name of the building being in a orangey-brownish colour (halfway between the dark grey of ransacked buildings and the yellow of lit buildings). Should there be only one person in the building and they leave, although no extra AP would be used in their leaving, there would be an explanation saying that they stopped to put the fire out first. If the last remaining survivor dies, then there would be an explanation saying that they fell on the fire as they died (putting it out).

Outdoor fires would be able to be seen from other squares of the map(the adjacent 8 only, plus being able to be seen by people with binoculars), while indoor fires would just be text only seen in the square the fire's in, both from inside and outside, with different text for each like:

(outside)- You see the glow of a small fire through a window.

and

(inside)- There is a small fire being tended to in the room, illuminating the area slightly.

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 Vote. I Am Sabbo 05:42, 19 June 2008 (BST)
2. Keep - I like this.--Jamie Cantwel3 ^TalkAll glory to the Hypnotoad! 06:30, 19 June 2008 (BST)
3. Keep/Change - I like! Should take 5AP for a survivor to set up and 1AP for a survivor to put out (get a bucket of water). Should go out in about half the time of a generator. Cannot be put out by Zombies (how could they do it?) but will disapear when building is ransacked. Can not be made in a ransacked building due to lack of resourses. The 'kicking fire at people' idea is a bit silly. A very nice idea overall! - Zig13 - 19/06/2008 at 09:42(BST)

   Now why couldn't you be in the Suggestions' discussion page while I was figuring this out? =P ... I'll take these points strongly into consideration in reworking this should it be more killed than kept.I Am Sabbo 12:22, 19 June 2008 (BST)

4. Keep - I like this idea, it's quite logical that a survivor would try to get any light, not only sit & wait for a genny to be found and dragged to their safehouse thru half of the suburb. I don't see a reason why killing survivors would have effect on putting down the fire, as the fire could burn by itself until it runs out of supplies that fuel it.--James beckerson 10:06, 19 June 2008 (BST)

   Ah, I said the last survivor killed would fall on the fire because it means there will never be a fire left unattended by survivors, but your idea is at least equally as good as that aspect of my one too.I Am Sabbo 12:22, 19 June 2008 (BST)

5. keep---Minigun4523 16:27, 19 June 2008 (BST)

Kill Votes

1. Kill - In real life would be extraordinarily unwise in a factory or auto shop, especially with all those fuel cans around. --Pgunn 13:48, 19 June 2008 (BST)
2. Kill/Change - I like this idea. But you forgot a whole lot of shit. People have mentioned the ap costs. Also, could you put a fire in a building with a dead generator? What would happen to the fire if someone lit the building up? What would be the messages for kicking the fire and putting it out? Would there be any chance of a survivor who does not have the fire skill getting injured trying to put it out? In a ruined building, if someone lit a fire, o(or in any building really) you need to say why this fire does not kill everything in an inferno. You need to think of every provision. Everything. Then multiply it by I dunno what the number is. A thousand, or something. How could this be misused? And since people don't have lazer eyes, what items would be necessary to start a fire? Maybe a Flint from some store in the mall? I don't know, it's not my suggestion. Do a 2.0 version, totally updated, and I'll vote for this. But I can't in good faith Keep a suggestion that hasn't been fleshed out to fit the standards of a good Keep. --Vandurn 14:41, 19 June 2008 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - A campfire inside a building? Dangerous to generators? Stupid Idea. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 06:38, 19 June 2008 (BST)

   -Perhaps I should clarify - the "dangerous to generators" part was just a let's-make-this-at-least-a-bit-realistic thing. I Am Sabbo 09:09, 19 June 2008 (BST)

2. Spam - Right. All these idiots making campfires inside... The Great Fire of 2008... Burn Malton down, to a cinder, great idea! Well...then again... if it killed everyone making silly suggestions, okay, bring it on... --WanYao 06:53, 19 June 2008 (BST)

   -I actually accounted for every situation I could think of in order to remove the possibility of creating a building-damaging fire; the fire is "tended to" (in the flavour text) to prevent it either being able to go out of control or burning down to nothing. In both situations where the last survivor leaves, the fire is put out, so I don't see how it would be possible to burn down a single building, let alone all of Malton. I Am Sabbo 09:09, 19 June 2008 (BST)

3. Incomplete - How much AP does it cost to make the fire? --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 10:33, 19 June 2008 (BST)

   Ah... I didn't write that? So I didn't. The original intention was 2, but Zig13's Keep vote has indirectly explained why this would be too low. Half the AP cost of the installation of a generator sounds good.I Am Sabbo 12:22, 19 June 2008 (BST)

4. Campfires go outside, not inside...Unless you have plans to "Burn everything! Burn it to the ground!" --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 10:52, 19 June 2008 (BST)

   >_>... <_<... maybe... ...But seriously, I tried to avoid that. I should have realized that that would not go down well with the members' opinions. This is one of the things I would change if I rework this thing.I Am Sabbo 12:22, 19 June 2008 (BST)

5. Spam - It's like a generator just less powerful with no item cost? Not to mention fires inside is just ridiculous. --Riseabove 12:32, 19 June 2008 (BST)

   A) that sounds more like a kill vote than a spam vote (although the difference is likely moot in this case), and B) there would be an AP cost of half of that which it takes to set up a generator, or so the idea has developed.I Am Sabbo 12:40, 19 June 2008 (BST)

   If you'd entitled this suggestion "minigenerators" and suggested that "minigenerators" are so plentiful in Malton that you don't even need to find one to set one up I'd vote spam on it because it's ridiculous in concept for survivors to get even a partial benefit at will without having to find any items. While this is admittedly a somewhat better justification (although burning fires in buildings is still unbelievably stupid) it doesn't differ in terms of mechanics. It'd be a kill vote if it cost a can of fuel or something but right now just in terms of mechanics I'd give it a spam/strong kill. Just making that clear. --Riseabove 12:49, 19 June 2008 (BST)

6. Spam - Utterly retarded. As all the other spam voters. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:37, 19 June 2008 (BST)

---