Suggestion talk:20080303 Wasteland Change

Discussion (Wasteland Change)

Just a random idea I had...--Zach016 03:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Before any objections to ninga zombies, I mean the walls would be high enough to obsure the view of the zombie/survivor, (which is the reason there vision is obsured as well). Ambushes could be taken into account although I don't believe myself they would have a very large effect, considering anyone can enter and see them at any time. Possible nerf to infection although thats debatable as they're still on the street and harder to find by FAk toteing survivors. Possibly destroies part of the negative effects of HB suburbs as the survivors would still have a place always open, but then again it raises the chances of a free lunch... Thoughts?--Zach016 03:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC) In the small chance this comes up, even though the walls are high enough to obsure the view, it is not barricadable because there would be several entry points, no barricading material would be readily aviable and taking large enough pieces of equipment would slow you down too much (not to mention you can't carry a chair with you to barricade anyway, and the pipe woulden't cover enough as there are two many EP's)--Zach016 03:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Pretty cool idea. Instead of having it work as fog, you could just make them actual buildings that have no doors, can not be barricaded, which negate free running (can't be used as entry points), and which allow you to hear feeding groans. Once inside the "building", you would only be visible to others who were inside, and could not see people who are outside the building. Then again, with all those caveats, the fog effect might just be simpler, but I don't really see why you'd not know what buildings were in surrounding blocks. ‌‌‌ Swiers 03:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

sounds good.--Themonkeyman11 04:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. Make it so they have to enter the ruins of the building to not be visible though. --PdeqTalk* 04:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I'm a little worried about how easy it would be for large groups of zombies to move across the city virtually undetected. It would be funny though if there was a mall siege with no zombies outside of the mall (because they were all hiding in the wasteland next door). --Uncle Bill 04:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought about this, but because anyone can enter it woulden't be the same as just any sneaking around (Anyone can find you if they look in the right place) and it gives a purpose to them. It would give survivors a limited place to look but it opens up new tactics (maybe that green burb isen't green afterall). Zombies sometimes look inside ruins for survivors, now survivors might have to do a litle looking themselves some of the time.--Zach016 12:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Uncle Bill, that already happens. MOB members almost always sleep in the ruins they create. That's 50-100 organized zombies that potentially fly in "under the radar". ‌‌‌ Swiers 19:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC) I say yes! - Pardus 09:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this has some potential. I would vote Keep if you took it to voting. --Zombie in Pajamas 19:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Weak Keep, cuz it's a good idea. BoboTalkClown 21:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of making these enterable as if they were still buildings. If that were the case I would suggest making all movement between them use the freerunning mechanism (I don't know how many wastelands there are let alone how many are next to each other so it may be a bit pointless) feeding groans should also still be heard! The whole idea opens the way to real a post apocalypse world with gutted ruins everywhere ;)--Honestmistake 12:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point of making adjacent wastelands into a large building / free run network. It just confuses things. It would raise expectations that wastelands could be free-run out of into normal buildings, which would be a very bad thing to allow, IMO, as it would (further) reduce the need for VSB entry points, greatly hurting noobies who lack free running. ‌‌‌ Swiers 21:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC) I like it as it is, just a bunch of ruins that could hide you and stuff. Don't turn it into a building. --Aeon17x 12:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So, to summarise, it's like being in a building for visibility (both seeing and being seen) but is otherwise exactly like being outside? If so, you have a keep from me --Gene Splicer 19:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was hoping for, yeah. Seems pretty neat. Parks might also work well this way, given that they have gazebos, picnic shelters, groves of trees, etc. Carparks could also work this way, having burnt out cars to hide in and among, or being open air parking ramps. Probably best to stick with just one of the three, however. ‌‌‌ Swiers 21:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC) As in, the "Outside" has "Inside" visibility mechanics, but there'd be no actual "Inside". So not actually buildings, just a standard empty block with funky visibility mechanics. I'd leave the parks be though, for now anyway. Maybe if this gets implimented come back and say "Hey, how about parks too?". The less sweeping the change, the more likely to be implemented --Gene Splicer 22:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC) It sounds a kinda like my carpark idea where survivors could search for cars to "hide" in.--Pesatyel 03:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

hmm, never saw it. This doesn't require a search though, Im not sure what else is different off of that basic description...--Zach016 01:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This suggestion

Is essentially a dupe of Woodlands in Monroeville, and I'm sure it could probably be caught under the terrain suggestion that led to though(although I don't have a link for it). --Karek^maps?! 03:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, but Monroville is so far temporary, (and to tell the truth I didn't know how the woodlands in Monroeville acted until I brought this here). This is for Malton, and I think I know how to address the fact in a v.2.0 if I bother.--Zach016 18:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To the "ninja" concerns

How is this any different than anyone just being in an unbarricaded building? It isn't. --Pdeq^Talk* 22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You have to enter an unbarricaded building. My understanding here, though it's not really clear, is that you get the hiding benefit simply by stepping onto the space, so there is a 1AP difference, 2 for newb zeds. - Headshot Hal 18:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

True. Both sides save 1 ap in that sense. It still doesn't enable them to "sneak up" or "ninja" any more than an uncaded building would. --Pdeq^Talk* 02:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Uncaded buildings can be found just by any normal survivor movement, and there will always be zed's ready to ruin, this is permenant, and gives no indication. This is what I believe brought the concerns, but they can still be found just as easily as walking over, and survivors can use it too if they get trapped outside.--Zach016 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - ninja horde wasteland not my cup of tea. --Funt Solo ^QT 18:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

   Re: Would picking certain wastelands about and changing them to be more fitting work better instead of every wasteland? It would still have the effect only more limited. Oh and standing behind a wall doesn't make you a ninga, funny thing that is, as if this is ninga then add the throwing stars because every survivor and zombie is a ninga with normal buildings and ruins, this just adds one thats enterable by both sides with even more of a drawback (I.E. you can't see the adjacent blocks, and its, ah always enterable)--Zach016 21:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

   I don't even like the flavour. You say wasteland is somehow full of things to hide behind that a street, or a park hasn't got - and yet my view of a wasteland is of a flat, empty area, where it'd be really easy to spot someone. What you're describing is junkyards, and we already have those. So, Dupe of ingame. --Funt Solo ^QT 21:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

   Sorry for the double re, but what im describing is a nearly-fully burned down building, and as according to the first point would be changed to be as such. Junkyards are barricadeable with only a hole in fencing, streets don't have four walls (or whats left of them) to stand (not nessicsarly hide) and whats in a park is highly debatable. To say its a dupe of ingame is quite the stretch.--Zach016 22:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

   See, what happens when you double Re, is that then I double Re, and then it's a discussion, and not a vote. What you're describing is a new building type, or a ruin - and not a fucking wasteland. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat what you already wrote in the suggestion text - I'm not going to change my mind because I understand what you wrote and I disagree with it. A wasteland, to me, is an area of flat ground where it isn't easy to hide. What you're describing is a ruin, and we have those, so Dupe of in-game, again, except differently. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats why I suggested:

• only change a few, with a different name (In this disscussion), which would thereby leave some about
• Yes it is a ruin (A burned building), but it doesn't act exactly anything else in Malton, thereby a dupe of ingame, makes no fucking sense, its like saying its the same but different.--Zach016 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

New Version Heres what I meant in our disscussion:

• This is for Malton only, not Monroeville
• Two randomly selected Wastelands from each suburb, would be changed to be called a "Ruined(or destroyed) Building"
• These Buildings would have a descrition as: "A Building that nearly burned to the ground during the initial riots at the beginning of the outbreak. The remains of the walls are enough to keep you out of sight"
• Whenever a survivor or zombie resides in one of these buildings, they will not show up on any other users view, unless that user is in that same building
• Any user in one of these buildings cannot see the other buildings/players that reside behond that destroyed building
• These buildings are not barricadable, ruinable, searchable, and you enter them just by moving onto its block.

What are your current thoughts about this Funt?--Zach016 18:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)