Suggestion talk:20080730 Reduce FAK effectiveness in dark buildings
Discussion from Talk:Suggestions
Reduced effectiveness for FAKs in dark buildings
| Timestamp: | WanYao 11:35, 28 July 2008 (BST) |
| Type: | FAK use change, dark buildings |
| Scope: | affects Survivors, but benefits zombies. |
| Description: | Dark buildings are HELL for zombies. With their already quite low attack %s relative to survivors, even highly coordinated and deadly hordes like the Militant Order of Barhah have a lot of trouble clearing dark buildings. And survivors know this, and (intelligently) congregate inside them. Ok... fair enough... However...
It's already been established that combat is 50% harder in the dark, and even revives are harder, apparently with only a 50% chance of success. A similar penalty should apply to using First Aid Kits as well. First Aid is harder than poking a zombie with a needle, at least as hard as aiming gun, probably harder. I propose one of two possible mechanics:
This would give zambahz a bit of a break in dark buildings, making them less the Dark Fortresses they currently are. Remember, FAKs are pretty easy to come by, so all said and done this won't hurt survivors THAT much AP-wise. But it negates the massive AP advantage survivors currently have if they simply apply a couple of FAKs to the meatshields in a besieged Dark Fortress. An additional effect that could be added involves a reduced chance of curing Infections. The rationale for this is the same as above. |
Discussion (Reduced effectiveness for FAKs in dark buildings)
option 2 with rounding up, id say. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 11:44, 28 July 2008 (BST)
- I'm inclined to agree. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 12:08, 28 July 2008 (BST)
- Everything else rounds down. Claw a zombie as a zombie. 1 exp. I say both. Make them half as effective and half as useful. You dont like those odds? Free run into the building nextdoor and do yourself up there you lazy sods. --The Grimch U! E! 12:29, 28 July 2008 (BST)
I'm inclined to agree with Grim about rounding down. Everything else rounds down, why not this? Let me put all of this into some context for you, some hard numbers and math... It takes an average of 64 AP for a zombie with Vigor Mortis, Death Grip and Rend Flesh to get a 60 HP survivor to 12 HP -- at which point, they can Feeding Drag them outside and get normal hit #s, meaning another 1 AP (for the Drag) + 8 AP to kill. And this doesn't include trying to Infect the target, which adds more to the equation. So, a minuimum average of 73 AP to kill one survivor! Seventy-fucking-three AP to kill one survivor!!!
Or, it takes a fully skilled zombie 13-1/3 AP to inflict 10 HP with hand attacks...
Meanwhile, a survivor can hit a mall and get a FAK in 2 AP worth of searching, easily! Plus 1 AP for the application of the FAK. And suddenly 3 survivor APs have negated over a dozen zombie APs! That's the most atrocious imbalance in the entire game -- and even if you factor in Tangling Grasp, survivor "travel time", etc. (but then factor in 'cade bashing for the zombies!) you're still looking a massive AP imbalance. Half a dozen or so survivor AP can negate an entire day's worth of zombie AP!
Therefore, rounding down -- AND making it so you can't cure Infections in a Dark Fortress -- is not particularly unfair. Seriously, you have realise what a gigantic zombie nerf Dark Fortresses are... This suggestion doesn't even really come close to addressing that in full, but it's a start... And a logical addition, given the other effects of Dark. --WanYao 13:36, 28 July 2008 (BST)
Just a thought, actions that are effected by dark buildings seem to be actions that require interacting with a target. Shouldn't this then function likewise? As in FAKing self would be normal, FAKing another person would have lowered effectiveness? Just a thought.. - User:Whitehouse 14:36, 28 July 2008 (BST)
I'd go with a variant of this: People with First Aid get rounded down to 5 HP healing with a small chance for failure, around 10-15%. People without First Aid would heal the normal amount, but for a 50-60% penalty to connect with target. That's my opinion. Also, I think that FAKs should always be able to hit the person who's using them, but the reduction to 5 HP should remain.-- Techercizer (Food) (TSoE) 19:07, 28 July 2008 (BST)
The thing is with first aid, is that i feel your target will 99% of the time want to be healed, and as such its only your inability to perform more complex first aid in the dark that stops the full use of faks. Im still behind the whole first aid is nullified idea, doesnt screw with the newbs, still makes faks less useful.--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:24, 28 July 2008 (BST)
Every time I post I get edited conflicted! Sheeeesh... This is what I wrote:
I have to disagree. Where you're going with this is too complicated and "unstreamlined" and "inelegant". The effect of Darkness on the use of FAKs has to be consistent with its effects on everything else. And those effects are a 50% reduction -- in something -- whether it's HPs or a 50% failure rate. Also, fuck the newbies only getting 2 HP/XP, sorry... There are so many other ways to gain XP, and the rewards for healing in a siege should be enough in themselves... However, I might be willing to round up... though inconsistent, it's reasonable... 3 HP for newbies, and 5 HP with First Aid+.
As for Rosslessness' comments... Nullify First Aid?? Again, it sort of doesn't fit with the 50% thing... might be reasonable, though... but... I dunno what I think yet. --WanYao 19:29, 28 July 2008 (BST)
A 50% failure rate for FAK healing would make a 50% failure rate for infection curing more streamlined. Alternatively (to split the difference) on using a FAK, there's a 50% chance to heal 2 HP and cure the infection, and a 50% chance to heal 3 HP and not cure the infection. Either way, I'm in favor of affecting infection as per your addendum. --Galaxy125 20:33, 28 July 2008 (BST)
- That wasn't terribly clear, and it didn't account for First Aid. This table might be more readable:
| Without First Aid: | 50% heal 5HP, curing the infection |
| 50% heal 0HP without curing the infection | |
| With First Aid: | 50% heal 10HP, curing the infection |
| 50% heal 0HP without curing the infection |
- If helpful, WanYao, feel free to edit above with your preferred percentages, HP quantities, and infection toggle. --Galaxy125 23:07, 28 July 2008 (BST)
I agree that something on this should change. But i'm not sure that halving everything will work, even if anything else is unstreamlined. I'm leaning towards the negation of the first aid skill in dark buildings, to some degree. Without the first aid skill and only 5 hp being healed, it implies not stitching or surgery, but just bandages, stopping blood loss, pain killers, things of that sort. I'm not in agreement that that would change in the dark.Tylerisfat 05:55, 29 July 2008 (BST)
- Which goes back to my suggestion of simply removing the effects of first aid, or if someone doesn't have it, give the chance that they'll tie a bandage loose or in the wrong place, or drop the pills, or something like that.-- Techercizer (Food) (TSoE) 05:58, 29 July 2008 (BST)
Wan your dark building comparison didn't take into account the huge problems involved with repairing a dark building after zombies have spent tonnes of ap killing the sruvivors inside and ruining it. The ap costs associated with gennies and fuel as well as the halved hit rates involved with clearing out the zombies inside (or risk losing the precious genny to them). So while i disagree that this is needed as a game mechanic to even dark buildings up for both states, i think it's a good one to add for 'realism' as all other important actions are affected. KIS IMHO, either of Wan's options - not some complicated fusion of the two. My personal pref was the half chance of successful hit, as that's the mechanic that applies to all other actions in dark buildings.--xoxo 10:06, 29 July 2008 (BST)
- I didn't forget about those things, J3D. But they are not relevant to the idea, in so far as this is about what happens when an un-ruined dark building is occupied by both survivors and zombies. And remember, though gennies are a bit of a pain, it takes only one genny to light the building and allow the zombies to be attacked at full attack %ages. With some coordination, one person drops a genny, a couple more shoot/CR zombies and 'cad, very simple solution, very powerful effect.
- Survivors have the option of installing a genny and overcoming the effects of darkness -- zombies do not have this option. And that is part of the problem....
- That being said... Yeah... while I appreciate that everyone is offering their help and trying to work on this... I agree with J3D that this is getting weird and overcomplicated with these combination effects and tables and stuff... It needs to be simple, or not be at all. --WanYao 13:47, 29 July 2008 (BST)
Reducing FAK efficiency in a dark building is a fair and logical suggestion. Even with a flashlight or any home made source of light, it's still harder to apply correct health care. I'm ready to give a "keep" vote but I still don't 100% agree with the fact that Zombies have more trouble to attack a dark building than survivors to defend it. It's harder to hit zeds too and corpses cannot be dumped. Following suggestion could be more balanced.
- There's 50% of chance to heal correctly.
- There's 50% of chance to heal with less effects : only 50% of HP are healed. Infection isn't cured. - Bug MacLock 10:59, 31 July 2008 (BST)
Sorry for completely nutting up the page...
Whoops, didn't know I was editting an out of date revision, I should pay more attention <3 --TouchingVirus 22:43, 31 July 2008 (BST)
Just wanted to point out that at time of this edit, all other things being equal, if you re-proposed this as a 50% fail rate rather than as a 50% cut in health healed, it would be favored as 22/10. It's currently 15/17. If you tied the infection-curing to the fail rate, it might even go up further. --Galaxy125 22:48, 31 July 2008 (BST)
Also, the suggestion template doesn't cover rules for striking REs, only rules for striking votes. I'm sorry if I just stepped out of place with striking your second RE, WanYao. -- Galaxy125 00:01, 4 August 2008 (BST)
