Suggestion talk:20071113 Home Made Bombs

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

To Avoid Repeating Myself

To avoid the need to repeat myself I am posting the discussion i have had on the Talk:Suggestions here. Before voting please take note of the points included, i noticed that quite a few people decided to shoot down the idea without even reading it due to AOE dislikes but please, read the suggestion first. This was the discussion:

Hmmm, well, the multiply it by a billion rule will be a tricky one to negate.People also hate weopons that do damage to lots of people. You should probably remove the bit where you can shoot the fuelcan to make it explode (If you shot a fuelcan, even a full one you'd just have a leaky fuelcan. Oh, and bullets don't make sparks. I saw a cool little show that exposes the basic problems with movie physics a while back. Does it show?). I'm guessing that you could make a fuse out of a bullet (maybe the fuse would require a shotgun shell, they've got gunpowder in them). Your main problem is the fact that it can hit lots of people. Make it a 90% chance to hit the first person, 80% to hit the second and so on for 1-10 HP worth of damage. Remove the barricade destroying bit too. (lovely old multiply it by a billion). Also, have it so that the bomb has a 50% chance of failing when you use it. If I where you I would create a couple of skills tied in with this.

  • Anarchist. You have some knowlege of making bombs, and if you have a fuelcan, toolkit and shotgun shell in your inventory you can construct a homemade bomb
  • Explosives expert Your bombs now have only a 30% chance of failing

Something like that, anyway.--SeventythreeTalk 14:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

MYTHBUSTERS! w00t!!! BoboTalkClown 00:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion Seventythree, i like the idea and you've inspired me with a few ideas to add with it, I've added them to the description along with your suggestion. As for the "Multiply It By A Billion" Rule, i think i might have just solved it with my new additions into the suggestion, I've added downsides for the user of the IED which has it defeat the purpose of being a weapon used en masse. if you have any more ideas or spot any loopholes or problems please tell me. --I see dead peoples 15:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

People, especially Americans might not like the implications. This is too close in proximity to Iraq and the attacks on our men and women over there. People might think you're endorsing those attacks, number one, and number two, this is an Area Of Effect, Military Weapon, and Multiply It By A Billion still applies- imagine if the whole Gore Corps used this, one right after the other, on a single corner of a single mall.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  18:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Nali has a point about the name at least. I can't imagine anyone thinking UD would be endorsing them, but it might be a little close to the bone. Change the name might be a plan. Personaly, done right, I can see this realy adding something to the game. Remember, not all suggestions that bend or break the guidelines are neccisarily bad.--SeventythreeTalk 18:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I only now notice the name problem, It's been changed to "Home Made Bombs" because even though IEDs is the proper term people will link it to Iraq. I think it would add realism, if you were in a zombie apocalypse you'd make bombs if you could, anyone would! Do you not think that having the bombs also hurt the user would negate the "Multiply It By A Billion" rule? If it would do just as much damage to the attacking side as it would to the defenders that would discourage it, wouldn't it? What do you suggest to sort out this problem? Thanks in advance. --I see dead peoples 19:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Anything you can do to separate this from the following implications would be good:
1. Perceptions of it being a preset trap
2. Perceptions of it being military weaponry
3. Percieved/actual overpowering.
Suggestions on point three:
1.Remove the knocked off the feet part- people shall cry ninja.
2.Assure people generators and radios will not be damaged, so this will not be used for griefing on that front.
3.Change "all players" to "nearest fifty". That's still 250 damage, if you use the 5 HP figure.
Hope this all has helped.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  19:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips Nali. I'll heed your advice. But how would you call it military weaponry? It is described as home made in every way. --I see dead peoples 20:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Make the suggestion shorter and more concise. Most people just want to know what it DOES and don't care so much about the "background". Give a brief synopsis of the rest of it and simply get to the point that you are building a bomb using whatever items to do it. I like the idea of area affect weapons. But this is overpowered if you can hit 50 people. Take a look at Molotov Cocktails in Peer Review for a good example. Also, don't change the room descriptions otherwise the entire city will have that descriptor within a few weeks. Oh and this should not be an extensive Headshot. Zombie Hunter is ok, but since it doesn't relate to Headshot, it shouldn't be in that "tree". Not to mention the Headshot is a touchy skill and I shouldn't be forced to take it if I don't want to to get another skill.--Pesatyel 20:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point, 50 people is a bit of a big blast radius, plus if we lower it that will further negate the "Multiply It By A Billion" rule, would you call 15 a good number? And I like the desciptive change but you raise a good point, would it work if it was a temporary change? --I see dead peoples 20:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Booby trap AND area of effect weapon = big, bad no-no. Sorry. --WanYao 21:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Booby trap? A trap is set off remotely or is tripped and has no downside for the user, this is more of a redundancy. Anyway, whats wrong with area effect weapons? Its not area effect weapons that people dislike, its the fact that its hard to make area effect weapons work fairly and without helping one side more than the other, if you see some injustice in this idea then please bring it to my attention, if not then i would appreciate if you gave more reason for disliking my suggestion than "big, bad no-no". I'm not annoyed, just pointing out your lack of constructive criticism, thats just criticism! --I see dead peoples 22:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

'booby trap', that's point two. People hate those types of suggestions, and to them, they'll be CNR, so you have to make it clear, put a disclaimer on there this is a player activated explosive, and 15 people sounds good to me.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  23:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, now theres a disclaimer, no excuse for calling it a trap anymore. Now, back to the matter at hand, is there any way i can further fine tune this idea to make it more believable, enjoyable and all round sensible? Personally i think this idea might actually go ahead. I would welcome any constructive criticism. --I see dead peoples 00:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a little thing. Replace "gun" with "pistol". Shotgun+Percussion cap=doesn't make sense. Remove the flavor reference to being knocked down. And finally, specify the time period the description will apply. Say, for one day?  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  00:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I still see some problems. Mainly death cultists and **** off zombies who got combat revived. These people won't give a crap about the chance to get hurt and could kill several people along side themselves, especialy just before a well coordinated attack. Maybe im missing an important piece of the puzzle here.--Zach016 02:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You're missing that that's not a problem. You're missing that that's a perfectly valid style of play. You're missing that that's already been accounted for if you read the rest of the discussion, that most of the balancing is to prevent this from overpowering them.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  02:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Personaly I think that having to have a toolbox, fuelcan and pistol clip in your invntory to make one means that it's gonna be a bugger to use in anything less than a co-ordinated attack with quite a few people taking part. In which case, of course, you could just use shotguns! Basicly we're trying to create a different form of attack, not a better one, right? Nali's right about the 15 people only thing. Maybe add my bit about the 2 skills needed to maximise it? If you can only make a bomb if you have the first skill... Hey, maybe because the bombs are so unstable, no mattter what your current inventory, you can only ever carry one at any one time! --SeventythreeTalk 11:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now got two people who completely understand what i mean. The whole reason Urban Dead is so much fun is the huge amount of choice and constant fear that someone will come up with a new and ingenuitive way to use something. Lets face it, we've seen about all the ways people will ever use the current weapons so we need something new to freshen it up. Anyway, is it better now? What do you think of the skills tree? Suggestions on how to improve any part of this would really help, something tells me that people are still gonna be small minded and say "that'll never work, it goes against the dos and donts.", which is how a lot of people think. The do's and don'ts are guidelines, people! Just because something is hard to make work doesn't mean it can't be done! --I see dead peoples 13:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Slightly too powerfull. In my opinion, the bomb should have a reasonable chance of not working, (maybe 50% untrained 30% trained) There should also be a chance to hit, like with a conventional attack. Here is what I think may work better, and be more likely to be accepted. Bombs can only be made with training. They require a fuelcan, toolkit and shotgun shell. They take up 12% encumbrance and only one can be carried per person Bomb stats: When used, you get the option to throw bomb. The bomb then "attacks" the first 15 people in the room at 35% accuracy, dealing a random number of damage from 5-10. Flack jackets absorb 1 point of that damage. At the start there is a 50% chance of the bomb being a dud. People are still aware if a dud is thrown at them. XXX threw a bomb at you! Luckily it was a dud

  • Bombmaking: Allows user to make bomb.
  • explosives expert: User's bombs have only a 25% chance of being a dud.

--SeventythreeTalk 13:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC) Oh, and personaly I beleive that any Idea can be made to work. I even had a way of including laser-shooting Ninja centaurs that would probalby have a chance of succeeding! True story.....--SeventythreeTalk 13:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Area of effect weapons are not well accepted in UD. I do not need to justify that comment: it has been justified by hundreds of people before me. Enough that it has been put on the Do Not List. The onus is on YOU to prove that your idea is anything but spam. Not on me to prove that it is.
But here are a couple of points, since you got all persnickety...
Area effect weapons are bad because they are quite simply horde thinning tools and/or PKer superweapons. That is part of why they are considered spam.
Also, the extra skills needed to use this don't balance it at all. Lots of players have 1000s of XPs banked, so getting the skill will be child's play.
Next... You do not even go into how many AP this would cost, nothing... But let me do some math for you...15 * 5 * 50% hit chance = 37.5 HP damage, all meted out INSTANTLY (?!?!?) and you're trying to tell me that is not overpowered? Let's see... To do the same amount of damage, with maxed out skills, it would take an average of 7 AP with shotguns, 13 AP with pistols, 52 AP with a Fire Axe. And you want to be able to set it off for one AP???
And beyond that it is still effectively a booby trap, just one you press a button for. And guess what? It could be sooooooooo abused by bots... Bad bad bad.
This suggestion is spam. Again, the onus is on you to prove it is not, to make it a workable and genuinely balanced suggestion... and so far you haven't even come close.
--WanYao 13:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, here is another thing... What is to stop me from setting up a bomb, triggering it, then setting off another one right away? Multiply by 9000, then by a billion if I am zerging... WanYao 14:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Your logic is too simple. Consider this, your math takes too little into account, the actual math for a best case possible must include several factors, these are:

  1. All of the probabilities
    1. The probability of taking damage
    2. The probability of finding the items required
    3. The probability of it being a dud
  2. The AP to find the items required
  3. The AP required for assembly

Also, you have been CNR again! I just added a feature to stop you from setting up a bomb, triggering it, then setting off another one right away! If you actually read the suggestion you'd find that you could only carry one! This all taken into account makes a sum more like :

Damage=X AP (thrown)=Y1 AP(placed =Y2 X=17x8x60%=81.6x50%=40.8 1 shotgun shell takes on average 10AP to find (best case scenario), 1 fuel can takes on average 21 AP to find (best case scenario), assembly takes 1AP, use (thrown) takes 1AP, use (placed) takes 2AP, already has toolbox (best case scenario) Y1=10+21+1+1=34 Y2=10+21+1+2=35 X=40.8 Y1=34 Y2=35 40.8/34=1.2 40.8/35=1.1657142

This shows that, all things considered, even in the best case scenario these weapons are rather underpowered, doing on average 1.2HP of damage per AP when thrown and 1.17 damage per AP when placed to be set off. Don't try to beat me with math, I always win that way.--I see dead peoplesT|USAI! 16:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Whats to stop Red Rum from turning up and causing havoc with these? With 1 bomb and stuff to make 2 or 3 more they could easily cause 3000+ damage and then disapear! The fact that they will have spent weeks looking for the stuff doesn't matter, they will have caused enough damage to kill 50 people in less than 10 clicks each! They would use it in just this manner... hell i would join em cos it would be a hoot (at least for us) Never mind multiply it by a million 10 is bad enough. --Honestmistake 14:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Whats to stop them doing the same thing with shotguns? It would be the same, almost half their bombs would be duds. The only difference is that one takes weeks of preperation, the other takes a day! To be honest your forgetting about how when they're busy looking for items they're not killing! It all balances out in the end. Like I said before, per AP standard weapons are far more efficient and therefore groups like red rum will spend less time killing if they choose this method. You forget that they are dividing 1.2HP per AP among 15 people! far less effective! --I see dead peoplesT|USAI! 20:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I like this suggestion and I agree with that it's pretty well balanced. Except for one thing: You can only carry one of these bombs, right? But what's to say you don't carry the parts for more than one bomb besides the bomb itself? So as soon as you explode the bomb, you build a new one and explode that. I know, this isn't constructive. But it's something to consider. --  Karth  FoD 22:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

seems like a decent idea to me, but im kinda confused. how would a fuel can, a tool bos and a shotgun make a bomb? the only thing i could think of was if the slug/pellet made a spark from hitting the ground and the spark lands on/in the fuel can. a better way (in my mind) to work it would require 2 fuelcans. 1, you jab a couple holes in it using the toolbox. 2, you pour a decent amount of the fuel around and on the 1st fuel can. then shoot the shell/slug at the ground and hope for the spark. other than having a hard time figuring out how the bomb would work, i really like this. and i see dead peoples is right. the time spent to make this would counter-act an mass attacks with these.--Themonkeyman11 22:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Themonkeyman. Anyway, I thought of exactly what you thought of and figured it out (those god damned stereotypes about us Irish and bombs was true!), what you were suggesting would not make an explosion, that would make a fire. Let me ask you this: how does the gunpowder in the shell get set off? The answer is that there is a cap oon the back called a percussion cap that explodes when impacted. I had incorporated this in a completely unrealistic waay, so it was removed. What you would now do is leave a cap on the fuel can, add the gunpowder to the fuel to help ignition, poke a hole in the side of the can and insert the percussion cap into the hole. When the time comes to blow the bomb you would then hit the percussion cap with a hammer, causing a tiny explosion which in turn ignites the gas, the pressure builds, eventually the can can no longer take the pressure and ruptures sending shrapnel everywhere, the shrapnel does most of the damage. In short use the part of the shell that makes the gunpowder go boom to make the gas go boom. Simple, no? --I see dead peoplesT|USAI! 22:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Your math is off ethier way, your not winning with that. Best case senerio it takes what? five AP. In order to do a mass shotgun assault you already need the ammo , so thats out of the picture. Most survivors already have a tool box due to ruin, so thats out of the picture, I carry about 3 fuel cans because they're useful, so thats out of the picture. Wait that leaves... 3 AP to do a large amount of damage. Might take 5hp worth of damage - if your setting the thing off your sure as hell not worryed about this, and i bet many woulden't care, just for the experience. Final comment- You have to factor in it uses all useful items many search for anyway's, which makes the fact they need to be searched for irrevant--Zach016 02:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

well i guess that makes sense. personally i'll stick to fertiliser+boose+match, dont know why but it goes boom. as for the fact that it takes time to search for the items requiered, and that people already do, actually helps this suggestion. it just adds another option of what to do with the stuff. also, i have never had a toolbox and dont want one. i never carry fuel cans, and dont know many people that carry more than 1. one thing that might make this better though, the person setting off the bomb should take alot of damage. their standing right infront of the blast, stands to reason that they'll take the most damage from it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Themonkeyman11 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Ahem. That's what the gun is for- remote detonation, essentially.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  05:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes; remote detonation... hit the percusion cap from about 30' away when you might struggle to hit the zombie 5' away.... that makes sense! How exactly do you hit the percusion cap while it is wedged into a small hole? It would fall in rather than explode, even if it did work it just would not ignite the way you want as the hole acts like a vent releasing the pressure! This makes no sense and I am almost certain it would not work unless you could remote detonate the cap inside the sealed can! Molotov coctails might be a do-able suggestion but this isn't --Honestmistake 09:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You SERIOUSLY uderestimate the explosive capacity of gas, take a look at this video, [1]. Apparently that was done with a can of gas and a piece of string, and the cap was off! Do you really think a pinprick will make much of a difference? Like i said before, hit the percussion cap with a hammer or something and run like hell! The gas would take a few seconds to catch, when it did, BOOM! If that video isn't proof enough then nothing is. Gas+flame+can=boom. common sense, right?--I see dead peoplesT|USAI! 22:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

see, its the contained space that causes the explosion. i think it would be better if you made it require a tool kit and 2 fuel cans. on fuelcan as the bomb itself, and the other you make a fuse with. put the fuel can in one spot, and then make a trail of gas leading away from it. that way the percussion cap idea would make more sense. use the percussion cap on the end of the trail right?

The problem is that theres no free lunch here, what i mean is that for believability if you were going to do that would you not move to a distance that makes it safe for you? This would kill what is currently our main detterent for use in large numbers. Yes, it is a good point, but it would kind of make this suggestion a lot harder to get passed, wouldn't you agree? (P.S. a sig please? I'd like to know who im talking to :D)--I see dead peoplesT|USAI! 22:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

yeah, sorry that was me. i forget occasionally. anyway, i guess that that makes sense.--Themonkeyman11 04:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone really wants explosions in the game the way forward is through simple chemistry... you would not believe how easy it is to make very very effective bombs from common chemicals. most people have the right mix of stuff at home to blow up a car. Go to a high school science department and you could easily make that enough to level a house! Of course explosives are extremely dangerous to the user as well and in any event very unfair on the victims. Lets not forget that the target of these things will be players and overkill is only ever fun for one side of the deal! --Honestmistake 12:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

true. as for the overkill, i disagree. i've been on the recieving end of overkill and its funny. such a waste of ammo. --Themonkeyman11 15:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Overkill is part of life in Malton, i.e you learn to live with it, find humour in it or just plain stop playing UD. Of course, those of you who like overkill will love this, the only thing better than a pile of 100 dead bodies is a pile of 100 burning bodies (if your a pyro. Personally, i have no problem admitting to being a bit of one.) --I see dead peoplesT|USAI! 23:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding spamination's a valid vote, asshole

See the new misconduct case.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  04:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I like how that turned out. --Karekmaps?! 22:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestion_talk:20071113_Home_Made_Bombs&oldid=1890897"