Suggestion:20090429 Overgrown Parks - Version 2

	Dupe
	This suggestion has been found to be a dupe of Suggestion:20090421_Overgrown_Parks. Dupes are easily found by searching for them in the main and suggestion namespaces.

20090429 Overgrown Parks - Version 2

A Big F'ing Dog 17:15, 29 April 2009 (BST)

Suggestion type
Improvements

Suggestion scope
Parks

Suggestion description
This is a second version of my Overgrown Parks suggestion, designed to be more realistic in how long it takes for plants to grow. That was a major reason for some kill votes before. Changes are in bold.

Humanity may be dying but the parks are still alive. I suggest that as time goes on parks becomes more and more overgrown with weeds and wild bushes. The practical effect of this is that when a park is heavily overgrown, it would be impossible to see if anyone is in the park from outside (nor for people in the park to see those in adjacent squares).

A park would have three possible levels of growth, marked by location descriptions commenting on the amount of growth, and the color of the square as seen on the 3x3 map. The colors in order of increasing weeds would be light green, normal green, and dark green. The effect:

Light green: Has no effect. Allows people to see in and out of the park.

Normal green: Blocks views in and out, but still allows binoculars to view into the park from tall buildings.

Dark green: Blocks views in and out, and also blocks binoculars.

Every 30 days the growth would increase by one level. Survivors would be able to clear the overgrowth if they have a fire axe or a knife. It would cost 1AP to clear per day growth. A click would take it to the next lower level, rather than clearing the whole thing at once like with buildings. So if a park has been dark green for 8 days, for 8AP you could reduce it to normal green. Another click would cost you 30AP and reduce it to light green. A third click would cost 29AP and bring it to the minimum level of light green. Obviously, it would be impossible for a single person to fully clear a park in one day.

If there are standing zombies in a park the AP cost to trim is increased by 10AP (dodging penalty). So that 8AP clearing cost above would be 18AP if there are any standing zombies.

Overgrown parks would have uses for both survivors and zombies and shouldn't overwhelmingly help or hurt one side. Zombies could use them to hide, but so could stranded survivors. And while maintaining parks would serve as a small AP drain on survivors, that's balanced by the fact they can control them to allow binocular scouting. In the end, everyone is helped, everyone is hurt, and parks become more interesting. They become alive. Even if one side benefits slightly more than the other, the net effect is tiny enough to be inconsequential compared to the benefit of adding flavor to the game.

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 - Yay for useful parks. --LaosOman 19:31, 29 April 2009 (BST)
2. Author vote While there may be some tactical uses to this, I think the result will be really minimal. But I think this would be great for game immersion. What's just a green square on a map now would have a more dynamic presence, and make people feel like there's really something growing there. --A Big F'ing Dog 19:39, 30 April 2009 (BST)
3. Keep - Sounds good to me --OMGitspattyrick 02:11, 1 March 2009 (central)
4. Strong Keep - Excellent place fore newbie zombies to hide from trenchies. Mail2345 01:42, 4 May 2009 (BST)

Kill Votes

1. Kill Again, I don't dislike the idea, but it just gives survivors more places to hide and does nothing for zombies. I'd go for it if zombies could actually demolish buildings so that survivors couldn't hide in them, balancing this out, but not as is. And honestly, I don't see the motivation for survivors to trim a park anyway. They get nothing out of it. It's kind of silly.--Necrofeelinya 19:17, 29 April 2009 (BST)

Kill - As before, and still not Shartak~ --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:55, 29 April 2009 (BST)

1. kill still grows too quick to be believed but I accept that if it's too slow it would be pointless. If you alter it so that it reached light green in 30 days, light green +1 in another 30 and then dark green after another 30 (an extra +1 being added every 30 days) and reduce the clearance costs to 5 per level of overgrowth (ie 5 or 10 for light and 15+ for dark) then I might go for a keep just for the novelty value.... I still think the army would nuke it from orbit if they thought zeds were gathering there though! --Honestmistake 00:08, 30 April 2009 (BST)
2. As Wanny, but less spammy. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} (status:‎Mudkip!) 00:45, 1 May 2009 (BST)
3. Kill - Sorry, as before. Just don't like the idea on UD. --Janus ^talk 00:46, 1 May 2009 (BST)
4. Kill - You've improved it, so no spam, but I just don't like the idea. --Pestolence^(talk) 21:13, 3 May 2009 (BST)
5. Kill - While it is still an interesting notion, it is way too similar to simply hiding out in a building with no doors --YoEleven 10:34, 6 May 2009 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - Out of genre and not particularly interesting or game-experience-improving. Also, I think we can safely assume that parks are already overgrown. --WanYao 20:23, 30 April 2009 (BST)
2. Dupe - The mechanics of having plants grow for stealth are the same. Individual numbers do not apply otherwise we couldn't dupe the 12 damage shotguns with the 13 damage previous suggestion. Learn to withdraw your suggestions next time instead of leaving them to clog up the system. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:32, 9 May 2009 (BST)
3. Dupe – link provided. Also, Urban Dead is not Shartak. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:38, 9 May 2009 (BST)
4. Dupe - As before, as above. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 07:46, 9 May 2009 (BST)