Suggestion talk:20081227 Walkie Talkie
Current Discussion
From Developing Suggestions
Walkie Talkie
Timestamp: | A Big F'ing Dog 23:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC) |
Type: | Item |
Scope: | Firestations, survivors |
Description: | This idea of walkies isn't new I'm sure, but I hope the specifics will be different enough to avoid being a dupe.
Radios are great as a game-wide chat room between people in safe suburbs. They're really bad for people trying to coordinate with others in a small area, those in small groups or by themselves, far from malls, perhaps hiding in ruined buildings or scattered by the fall of their safehouse. Walkie talkies would be found commonly in fire stations, and rarely in police stations and mall tech stores (they've just been looted more by now). They let you broadcast, like a radio transmitter, but with a range of two blocks, a 5x5 area in total. There would only be one channel and mostly importantly a generator, or even being indoors, is not needed. People in your location would hear what you say, walkie talkie or no, and everyone within range with a *powered* walkie talkie would hear you. Now let me explain how power would work. Your walkie talkies can be powered or unpowered. Each time you broadcast a message there's a chance one of your powered walkies will become unpowered, much like a spray can getting used up. If you have no powered walkies you can't send or receive transmissions. Unlike spray cans, powerless walkie talkies stay in your inventory and can be recharged. Another item, commonly available in firestations and rarely in PDs/tech stores, would be a walkie charger: http://acsspirit.com/motorolabusinesstwoway/chargers.htm Chargers could be set up just like transmitters. When inside a building with a working generator and a walkie charger you'd be able to click unpowered walkies to charge them again. Since it takes a while to charge this would cost 10AP. Walkies would be very useful, but sharply limited. You'd have to be sparing in their use, powering walkies in advance and saving them for when you really need them. They would have different uses than radios. To sum up their respective pros and cons: Radios: Unlimited range and usage (AP permitting) makes it good for recruiting and announcements, also causes spam and unimportant messages. Multiple channels allow for privacy or dedicated topics, also prevent everyone from getting your message. Need for a powered transmitter makes it a lot easier to broadcast from secure safehouses. Walkies: Limited range makes it bad for announcements/recruiting, good for local communication. Limited usage prevents spam, but also stops back and forth communication or follow-up messages. Allows you to broadcast from unpowered buildings, but requires a significant AP investment ahead of time, as well as increased encumbrance if you carry spare walkies. Lone channel makes it great for reaching everyone in your 5x5 area, but quite bad for sharing anything secret - remember, nothing prevents a zombie from carrying a powered walkie... |
Discussion (Walkie Talkies)
People don't generally use ap on one to one communication in the game. They're better off using an IM or something. --Diablor 23:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Dupe. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- And the link. - User:Whitehouse 23:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Walkie talkies are peer reviewed. So I guess the focus of this suggestion isn't the broad idea but the power recharge aspect. Perhaps Kevan hasn't introduced them because they are too powerful in that suggestion. This could be one way of doing it that ties them to generators - in the suggestion I believe there is no limit on broadcasts or need for generators at all. --A Big F'ing Dog 02:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's no secret that Kevan doesn't like coding. That could also be why. Linkthewindow Talk 02:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Can't blame him. But he does make updates if he likes an idea enough. I'd like to make walkie talkies as appealing as possible. No point getting it into peer reviewed if we don't keep improving it (when possible) until it's worth his time. --A Big F'ing Dog 04:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's no secret that Kevan doesn't like coding. That could also be why. Linkthewindow Talk 02:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Walkie talkies are peer reviewed. So I guess the focus of this suggestion isn't the broad idea but the power recharge aspect. Perhaps Kevan hasn't introduced them because they are too powerful in that suggestion. This could be one way of doing it that ties them to generators - in the suggestion I believe there is no limit on broadcasts or need for generators at all. --A Big F'ing Dog 02:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
What would happen if someone killed you before the WT was recharged, or indeed the genny was killed part way through the recharging? Is there a metre for the WT to show the charge? Is it able to work on part charge? These questions are only the tip of the iceberg so I think its a overly complicated item to maintain which makes it of limited use to people. --mo ヽ(´ー`)ノ MCM MOB DB 23:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Recharging is a one click action, like manufacturing a syringe or fixing a ruin. So a generator couldn't be interrupted mid-charge. And there would not be a partial charge, either it would have power or it wouldn't. --A Big F'ing Dog 02:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
What Diablor said. It would be rather redundant as most groups use IRC to communicate. I could, however see a small use in communication by groupless groups of survivors, but it's a dupe anyway. Linkthewindow Talk 02:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I address whether it's a dupe above. This obviously is unneeded for a metagaming group, but it would be useful to talk to groupless survivors or those in different groups. It'd also help stragglers meet up with each other. In ghostown suburbs a survivor looking for company could broadcast "Anyone out there?" and wait for a reply. Or they could warn people about nearby breaches, and trust that survivors will come to their aid before a zombie with a walkie talkie hears it and attacks. --A Big F'ing Dog 02:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
TL;DNR ... However, radios are very powerful tools: use 'em. Or, hit IRC or IM if you really need to coordinate. --WanYao 03:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
As the author of the above linked PR suggestion, I obviously see the merit in adding WTs to the game. WTs would do a lot of good things that IRC does not; saying you could just use IRC instead is like saying IRC makes "feeding groan" pointless. The whole point is that its AREA SPECIFIC communication, not group specific. Even the "powerful" radio is largely group specific (lots of frequencies, only way to know which to use is via metagame) and not area specific (city wide range means its not).
The above suggestion is probably a bit better than mine (simpler to code due to fixed range, nice touch with limited power / recharging) although I do think having a 10 channels ads minimal complexity and would be worthwhile. Swiers 05:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, sweirs, the radio freqs in my experience that tend to get the most use are area-specific already. Some of them are mall freqs or burb freqs, and some of them are "run" by the larger groups -- but in fact used by everyone in the area... These freqs are all over wiki and easy to find in-game. So I don't see the point of WT's. --WanYao 07:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, radios would be better for dedicated groups or coordinated survivors. Walkie talkies are an ideal way of survivors becoming coordinated. You can use WTs to find other people, and working together maintain a generator and transmitter. Today talkies, tomorrow radios and metagaming! -- There would still be some uses to mobility obviously even for large groups (for example, maintaining a transmitter at an HQ and having scouts report back with walkies), but a walkie talkie is especially useful for someone who doesn't have a forum of people already working with them.--A Big F'ing Dog 22:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wan- yes, a small bit of metagaming organization does allow people to use radios in an area specific fashion, but they are not INHERENTLY area specific. More importantly, the current "area" usage sucks sweaty dog balls. There's a HUGE difference between listening to radio noise from a 5 suburb "cluster" (500 blocks, most often not centered on your location) and listening to a WT that only picks up conversations from a 25 block area centered on your location. Hell, you can easily be on the border of 4 of the current "radio zones" - should you then listen to / broadcast to all 4? That's 20 suburbs worth of noise.
And no, a finer grid of frequency allocations is NOT the answer. Having to look up what freq to use and change your radio each time you move 5 blocks would suck even bigger, sweatier balls... pig balls, maybe. The fact is, there's really no truely good way to make radios area specific because, by design, they are NOT area specific. Swiers 03:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wan- yes, a small bit of metagaming organization does allow people to use radios in an area specific fashion, but they are not INHERENTLY area specific. More importantly, the current "area" usage sucks sweaty dog balls. There's a HUGE difference between listening to radio noise from a 5 suburb "cluster" (500 blocks, most often not centered on your location) and listening to a WT that only picks up conversations from a 25 block area centered on your location. Hell, you can easily be on the border of 4 of the current "radio zones" - should you then listen to / broadcast to all 4? That's 20 suburbs worth of noise.
- I agree, radios would be better for dedicated groups or coordinated survivors. Walkie talkies are an ideal way of survivors becoming coordinated. You can use WTs to find other people, and working together maintain a generator and transmitter. Today talkies, tomorrow radios and metagaming! -- There would still be some uses to mobility obviously even for large groups (for example, maintaining a transmitter at an HQ and having scouts report back with walkies), but a walkie talkie is especially useful for someone who doesn't have a forum of people already working with them.--A Big F'ing Dog 22:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Just use a mobile phone. That's my contribution and what my vote would be if it came up, if there's nothing here that doesn't make that a legitimate rebuttal then the suggestion either needs work or death.--Karekmaps?! 00:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Mobile phones require mutual contacts. They're only good for contacting people you already know, and only one person at a time. They're also designed for use just in secure neighborhoods with powered masts, not good for somebody on the go, battling in new and exciting places.--A Big F'ing Dog 01:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Congratulations! You have described a Radio Transmitter as your optimal. It is already in game, you win nozzing!--Karekmaps?! 04:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Huh? What do you mean? --A Big F'ing Dog 14:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Transmitters require people to have already gotten together to decide on a frequency. The whole point of this suggestion, as A Big F'ing Dog has repeated, is allowing people in deserted suburbs to find each other in the first place so that they can work together. --Idly Hummingbird 21:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Congratulations! You have described a Radio Transmitter as your optimal. It is already in game, you win nozzing!--Karekmaps?! 04:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I like it...a survivor equivalent of feeding groan, if you will. Area-specific communication IS something that's not there, for survivors. --Jen 17:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, that would be the flare gun, which they had first.--Karekmaps?! 08:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC
- Flare guns though are devoid of meaning. Feeding groans have a meaning programmed in. --A Big F'ing Dog 03:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Flare guns have as much meaning as you want to give them. Doesn't hurt that they're rarely used either.--Karekmaps?! 05:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- True. But you need to agree with whoever you're signaling what the flare guns means. Which brings us back to it only being useful for organized players. --A Big F'ing Dog 15:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Flare guns mean "SHIT! HELP ME PLEASE!" what else do you need in an apocalypse? "PLEASE BRING MORE SANDWICHES!"?? -tylerisfat 09:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not necessary. I think they more often mean noobs wondering, "what does this do? *press button*". I've never witnessed a single instance where a flare was used or interpreted as a call for help. They don't signal who's firing the flare or what for, which makes it useless for survivors, and probably more useful for zombies because the one thing it does signal is the presence of at least one survivor in the area. The only real use of flares that I consider even remotely worth the time is going for the 30-HP damage from blowing up fuel-soaked zombies. --Idly Hummingbird 20:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Flare guns mean "SHIT! HELP ME PLEASE!" what else do you need in an apocalypse? "PLEASE BRING MORE SANDWICHES!"?? -tylerisfat 09:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- True. But you need to agree with whoever you're signaling what the flare guns means. Which brings us back to it only being useful for organized players. --A Big F'ing Dog 15:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Flare guns have as much meaning as you want to give them. Doesn't hurt that they're rarely used either.--Karekmaps?! 05:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Flare guns though are devoid of meaning. Feeding groans have a meaning programmed in. --A Big F'ing Dog 03:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)