Suggestion talk:20070606 Veteran AP Reward/Incentive

Ok, essentially the problem that I, and other players have with this is the learning curve aspect. I am sure you are aware that a learning curve exists in all games, a period of time that it takes for a new player to pick up the knowledge and skills (not the skills that you buy the way, the skills and techniques that you have to develop to play the game properly.) In urban dead this can be seen aas the player realises, slowly that 'trenchcoating' (just randomly running around shooting stuff and wasting Ap boasting about it) is not a good method, to barricade safehouses, not to rest in police stations and hospitals and so forth (forgive me if I'm going over stuff you already know, I don't know how familiar you, or others are with the game) The learning curve for Urban dead, for someone who has never played the game before or others of it's types is punishingly steep. A lot of new players give up after a little while in disgust. So, here are the problems with giving veterans more AP.

• Everyone in UD has enemies, other survivors, zombies if playing as a survivor, or trenchcoating humans if a zombie. Giving these veteran players more time to kill others, including new players. How will they feel if every time they spend their precious AP finding a safehouse and some ammo/medkits etc some guy with much more AP kills them as an afterthought? How fair will it seem to them when people already much more powerfull and savvy than them get more time to do things in? As the balance causes more of the new players to have greater AP than others, this will proportionately make it much harder for new players to survive, gain AP and get to the same level as the veterans.

--- Lets break that down and I'll try to predict how I think things would realistically happen. Generally veteran players have veteran enemies. Sure there are some asshat new players that seem especially adept at making enemies. Those asshats, well... sorry, I can't help them, they're going to get griefed just like the do now, but sometimes by a player who is a little more effective. However with veteran vs veteran then they know what they are getting into when they pick a fight. If I know alduck just spent 9000XP on more ap I might just not pick a fight with him that day. Now are there aholes out there with a crapload of spare XP to spend on AP? Sure. Will they pick on newbies? Of course there will be some, but in 99% of the cases this will not be a problem. --DonTickles 16:23, 7 June 2007 (BST)

• Veteran players often choose to play PK'ers. If htey have more AP than others this could create all kinds of chaos. Someone with 100AP could move into a mall, break down the barricaddes, kill all the generators and finish off a couple of survivors as an afterthought.

--- And? The point is to make all veterans a little more effective. Thats their reward. Some facts: Lets look at some PKers. Macho Nachos has 11,000 XP, thats 11 extra AP. Karloth Vois has 4000 XP, thats only 4 AP, Kyle the Feared has 12,000 XP, thats 12 AP. Pathetic Bill has 6000 XP, that 6 AP. So you're telling me that these staples of the PKer community with an average of just 8.25 extra AP are suddenly going to bring the game to its knees? This in a game where a headshot costs a new zombie 15 AP? That headshot will make new players leave a lot quicker than a veteran PKer killing off a few members of the Ackland Mall Security, who have revivers standing by to pick them back up and brush them off. --DonTickles 16:23, 7 June 2007 (BST)

These are my issues with your suggestion. Apart from that, the layout and the way the suggestion was put up was first class. --Seventythree 22:21, 6 June 2007 (BST)

---

As above. I've always wanted to customize my safehouse past just decoratives and more in my profile. I don't know what will work here. Maybe if Kevan could implement everything possible into the game, we'd complain about the crappy things and the rest will stay! Perfect! --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:01, 6 June 2007 (BST) Edit: At the very least, 5 extra max AP wouldn't be too bad if you really had to have an AP boost.

Yes, to keep a game like this interesting updates need to be made regularly, including additions to our profiles and other flavor like that. I'm just trying to suggest one I think would help keep older players playing. --DonTickles 16:23, 7 June 2007 (BST)

Maybe a title in front of your name? It could work by monitoring how many attacks you make, how much scanning and reviving you do and how much healing you do. then you would get the title Doctor, Scientist or Sargent? I dunno. Best I can come up with at the mo. Gimme a day or so.--Seventythree 23:05, 6 June 2007 (BST)

Sounds good. An option to be able to turn it off from seeing other peoples "titles" maybe? I'm sure some people wouldn't like the extra words lengthening a survivor list in a safehouse. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:13, 6 June 2007 (BST)

The titles stuff was suggested to me when I put up my level up suggestion thing...but I didn't bother to put it in the original version...Who wants to make that suggestion? I'm loaded with keeps for that one! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:18, 6 June 2007 (BST)

Not me, I'll probably blow up the wiki if I attempt to make a suggestion. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:28, 6 June 2007 (BST)

Okay I think I will throw my ideas in here too. I like the idea though the thought of 50 extra AP a day seems horrid. Thing is though it would probably never happen and its the much more likely 20 extra that worries me! I think splitting this into 2 or 3 elite skills might work better. One to raise the AP total by 1 a second to regenerate an extra AP at some point during the 24hour cycle while a third could give an extra HP! Now before anyone says that is even worse I would suggest you work out how long it would take to generate so many thousand xp! Also I would cap each of these tree's at 10 levels and have 1 cost 1000 per level, the next 1500 and the last 2000. That would give you a hard choice as to what you valued most, a way to keep improving and something to strive for! Still think its harsh on the Noobs? then lets add a 50xp bonus to killing elites if you are below half their level! --Honestmistake 14:58, 7 June 2007 (BST)

I like the idea of getting different kill XP depending on the level difference. I think if a level 20+ character kills a level 1 character they should get 0 XP, just my opinion. --DonTickles 16:23, 7 June 2007 (BST)

---

Matthewfarenheit said the following:

Kill - Rare doesn't mean balanced, costly doesn't mean balanced. And what happens to a scientist that has a lot more of time playing that a combat oriented guy, but yet he hasn't so many thousands XP because his style of playing? Shame on all those that voted keep only thinking on personal gain. You hear me? Shame on you!!

But depending on the class a player chooses for a new character, it changes the amount of XP needed to complete the XP tree in the first place. And since you say that playing 'as a scientist' means that its slow to earn XP, shouldn't you be thinking that it's unfair that scientists have the most XP to earn, and earn it the slowest?

I think your Kill argument isn't a valid one. If a player wants to earn XP they can play a certain way, if they want to help their fellow players/meta-game they can play another. You are essentially saying this will not be as useful for players that haven't been playing in a way that will have maximised their XP collection. armareum 15:22, 10 June 2007 (BST)

Yep, that's basically my argument. My characters are approximately a year and a half old, and even when they are maxed out their puny XP gain rate that comes by my playing style (mostly support) gives them only a surplus of 3000-4000 XP. In half that time, a trenchcoater that contributes little to anything by staying at a mall, shooting zombies that are in the open and then going back to the mall has around 150% of that surplus, and in the same time they have tens of thousands XP. I'm more of a "veteran" on the game myself than this hypothetical trenchcoater, yet he gets a greater incentive than someone that is actively contributing to a side. Then the suggestion is encouraging a selfish game playing style, and punishing a more support related style of playing by making it "weaker" than the other guys and potentially jeopardizing their help effectiveness AP wise. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 16:20, 10 June 2007 (BST)

Same trenchcoater levels up faster too, so the game already rewards them. --karek 16:36, 10 June 2007 (BST)

I still don't like it, and this encourages trenchcoating even further (wich is bad, IMHO). Can I have my own opinion, please? --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 16:54, 10 June 2007 (BST)

Karek made the point I was going to make. There is already a massive incentive to trenchcoat due the quicker XP gather, and less needed to earn. Once a player is Maxed-out they will play in way they see fit - trenchcoat, scientist/reviver, zombie. Super-trenchcoaters will be matched by super-zeds. There will still be a place for support.

I concede your point that it will be harder for scientists/revivers to earn the XP needed to by the extra APs - but is that necessarily a unfair disadvantage to the survivor side? If the survivors have have super-trenchcoaters AND super-revivers to fight super-zeds, I suspect you might see even MORE advantage go to survivors (over the zeds). Before you state that this would be unfair for players who support, rather than trenchcoat, this already happens - it's already an advantage to be a trenchcoater rather than support (from a selfish XP point of view). So I think it's more important to consider the meta-game implications. armareum 17:24, 10 June 2007 (BST)

PKing already happens, but encouraging it is something that is looked down on the suggestions page. The same happens with griefing. The same happens with trenchcoating.

That point made, I wasn't talking about "survivor/zombie imbalance", but something along the lines of "contributive/not contributive survivor style of gameplay". In the lines of survivor/zombie, I see you pointing to an obvious flaw: a boost like this is probably going to overpower survivors more than zombies. Why? because a zombie doesn't have so easy access to a fast XP gain rate. A survivor would only have to step outside in order to make ~60 XP with an axe per day, but a zombie has to break trough barricades and this is something that is not always possible. It's always easier to gather thousands of XP as a survivor. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 17:27, 10 June 2007 (BST)

First of all, having done a bit of research, I can't find any evidence that suggestions that 'encouraging trenchcoating' in any way are shot down, so I guess I'll have to take your word for that. If this change encourages trenchcoating at all, then that is because being a trenchcoater itself is overbalanced compared to other valid survivor strategies, XP-gather wise. If that's a problem for you, perhaps you should make a suggestion that would balance out the strategies.

Zombies working on their own have always found it hard to gather XP. It's when zombies work together that they are successful (which matches the lore of the genre) and the game mechanics encourage this. A trenchcoater acting inefficiently will also have problems gaining XP.

Your arguement hinges on the fact it is easiest for a trenchcoater to gain XP. Well, that doesn't impede anyone else's gameplay at all. You just have a personal dislike for trenchcoating, and don't wish to reward them for playing so. This suggestion fits into Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Gameplay_and_Flavor, and rewards players who have stayed here for a long time. Both good things. armareum 18:55, 10 June 2007 (BST)

This will be my last reply here, mostly because I can't figure out how I got embroiled in this conversation just for a measly Kill vote, not even a Spam one. It's true and not a secret that I don't like trenchcoating, and it's true and not a secret that I don't want to encourage it. It's obvious that I voted kill because of something on this suggestion that I dislike, and that is that it benefits a trenchcoater more than it does with hard working teamplayers. The suggestion itself has other flaws too as I pointed out, and most of them come that it messes with AP and imbalances zombies against survivors. Now, you want me to vote ignoring my personal likes and dislikes? I'm not supposed to take that on account that when voting over a suggestion? In the same logic I should vote keep on a really good suggestion with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles on it because it's workable, even when I wouldn't personally like these things on the game. And I'm still not saying this suggestion is workable (IMHO, any suggestion that messes with AP and gives veterans an exaggerated advantage over newbies is crap). Let me vote as I want! It's just a kill vote!! *runs away* --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 19:11, 10 June 2007 (BST)

I'm not telling you to ignore your personal tastes - everyone who has voted anywhere has personal tastes that they align to. You have said both "can I have my own opinion, please" and "let me vote as I want". News for you - you are having your own opinion and vote. I didn't see anyone change your opinion or vote. I am debating the reasons you gave for the vote you had, and discussing with you the reasons. I don't know where you got the idea that someone disagreeing with you somehow automatically changed your vote or opinion. armareum 21:28, 10 June 2007 (BST)

forgot to vote

I kinda like this suggestion, but would rather see it without AP refrsh rates affected. If the skill just increased your maximum APs, it would be nearly as useful, but less of a balance issue.  Swiers 21:56, 8 July 2008 (BST)