Suggestion talk:20070918 Stray Bullets
General Discussion
well, I guess I'll be the first to post here: I voted for this idea, although for the sake of brevity I left some stuff off of my vote that I'd like to be included for the record, and hear some feedback about. The idea of a "critical failure" has been raised and to this I would say: I would think that would be a concern in a building full of people shooting guns. Also, boo-hoo because it's just a few hit points. The chance of killing someone with a stray bullet seems extremely small unless you go shooting in a hospital full of people waiting to get healed and...wait a minute...that sounds an awful lot like reality! Also it occurred to me that a skill like "expert marksman" might remove the chance of stray bullets, but everyone would buy this skill and I for one would really like to see some of this sort of thing happen in game. In short, I think it could be pretty sweet, so I voted Keep. Liam Degen 19:01, 18 September 2007 (BST)
Firstly, this is not a bad suggestion, nethier is it unrealistic. The main reason a lot of people voted againgst this is the lack of an opposing "good luck" skill. Afer all, if there's a possibility you could cock up a shot, and hit your mate there should also be an opposing chance that you get in a great shot and do more damge to your target. This is possibly the only suggestion I have ever seen which should be a "linked suggestion" that is, tow suggestions suggested at once.--Seventythree 01:36, 19 September 2007 (BST)
- It already has a kind of critical success in it. I just depends on where you do your shooting. If it also had an increased damage once in a while, shooting into a zombie horde would have practically two critical hit chances. Same with a PKer shooting into a survivor crowd. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 16:27, 19 September 2007 (BST)
This would make it very very hard to deal with feral zombies. Sure, if a horde gets into the mall your all stuffed, but, in a safehouse of 60 survivors there will most likely be a lot of low level trenchies with lots of ammo. If i get in on my last few AP and yell "BARHAR! ram harman bananahz!!!!" and just stay there it means getting me out is going to involve any amount of stray bullets hitting your mates! --Honestmistake 17:12, 21 September 2007 (BST)
- I can think of ways to make this work but they are way to complicated to put into a short paragraph which means they would be way too complicated to be included in the game! --Honestmistake 17:21, 21 September 2007 (BST)
- I concur with Honestmistake here. Considering that low levels in a resource crowded with non-FRs will be more likely to hit their peers if they start letting bullets fly during a break-in, this just encourages that obnoxious trenchie mentality of "h3AdSh0Tt1nG t3H z0mB13s!" on the street. Additionally, every bit of damage that a zombie doesn't have to deal in order to get a kill or at least a feeding drag, kind of goes against the "no free lunch" policy IMHO. On top of that, it would also boost PKers, pretty much for the same reason. I doubt they care terribly if damage beyond their normal rate is spilling over on someone else, they just want the killcount; anything more would be icing on the cake. Whether it vs undead or PKers, that damage, if healed, can be anywhere from 6 to 14 (may vary) human ap wasted on finding another FAK, instead of attacking offenders or 'cading. In short, I hate this idea. --Slightly Lions 15:45, 23 September 2007 (BST)
Sgt Bop Vote Res
- Spam - Far too little of an effect, and raising it only hurts survivors more. Don't hurt survivors trying to defend their building, even a little goes a long way. -- SgtBop 17:04, 18 September 2007 (BST)
- First, in a suggestion like this, it's better for the effect to be a little too small than too big and it can easily be tweaked into an optimal value later on. Second, yes, this hurts survivors trying to hold buildings, but as we all know, it's not the smart way to do things. This also boosts survivors when they take back buildings, so in my opinion, it balances out. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 17:35, 18 September 2007 (BST)
- Oh, yes. Three hundred survivors in the same spot all with a chance to hit each other balances out one survivor attacking ten. Yes, that makes perfect sense. Nalikill TALK E! W! M! USAI 20:35, 18 September 2007 (BST)`
- Once zombies get in, they usually clean the place pretty fast as has been demonstrated by LUE, so the disadvantage doesn't last for long. And survivors clear out zombie-infested buildings a lot, so it actually does balance out. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 21:10, 18 September 2007 (BST)
- Realism does not always = more fun ... in this case your realism makes the game very UNFUN because you take control away from me and add a very unfun element of chaos to my existence in-game. Chaos is great -- when other players create it, or when it's kinda predictable like hit percentages... This is just spammy, unfun randomness... I hate it. --WanYao 08:45, 19 September 2007 (BST)
- So shooting inside a crowded mall isn't a player creating chaos? I could understand your argument if the bullets were be generated without anyone actually firing a gun, but this entirely predictable; when you're in a building under siege with hundreds of other survivors, it's somewhat likely that you will accidentally get shot. As for the fun-part, the combat in UD is very boring. You shot the dude for 5 damage ...and again ...and again and so on until they die. I would classify almost any change to that as increasing the fun-factor. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:06, 19 September 2007 (BST)
- I say that it isn't anti-survivor. It's anti whoever is more populous in the specific block. BoboTalkClown 01:18, 21 September 2007 (BST)
- So shooting inside a crowded mall isn't a player creating chaos? I could understand your argument if the bullets were be generated without anyone actually firing a gun, but this entirely predictable; when you're in a building under siege with hundreds of other survivors, it's somewhat likely that you will accidentally get shot. As for the fun-part, the combat in UD is very boring. You shot the dude for 5 damage ...and again ...and again and so on until they die. I would classify almost any change to that as increasing the fun-factor. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:06, 19 September 2007 (BST)
- Realism does not always = more fun ... in this case your realism makes the game very UNFUN because you take control away from me and add a very unfun element of chaos to my existence in-game. Chaos is great -- when other players create it, or when it's kinda predictable like hit percentages... This is just spammy, unfun randomness... I hate it. --WanYao 08:45, 19 September 2007 (BST)
- Once zombies get in, they usually clean the place pretty fast as has been demonstrated by LUE, so the disadvantage doesn't last for long. And survivors clear out zombie-infested buildings a lot, so it actually does balance out. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 21:10, 18 September 2007 (BST)
- Oh, yes. Three hundred survivors in the same spot all with a chance to hit each other balances out one survivor attacking ten. Yes, that makes perfect sense. Nalikill TALK E! W! M! USAI 20:35, 18 September 2007 (BST)`
- First, in a suggestion like this, it's better for the effect to be a little too small than too big and it can easily be tweaked into an optimal value later on. Second, yes, this hurts survivors trying to hold buildings, but as we all know, it's not the smart way to do things. This also boosts survivors when they take back buildings, so in my opinion, it balances out. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 17:35, 18 September 2007 (BST)
