Suggestion talk:20100404 No Binocular Use In Ruins
Binocular/Ruin nerf
| Timestamp: -- 12:46, 31 March 2010 (BST) |
| Type: Balance? |
| Scope: Survivors |
| Description: Binoculars are always a helpful thing (for me anyway, I've always been a bit of a fail loner in UD).
Of course, something this simple must have been suggested before, but I'm thinking that towers/buildings/hotels/motels that have been ruined should be unusable as binocular surveillance posts during the period in which they are ruined. At the point where they are repaired, they can be usable again with binoculars. Trying to use binoculars in said ruined building type would just display a message explaining that the tool doesn't work in ruined buildings. A couple of issues- Flavour? I don't care much for flavour, so perhaps in your critique of the suggestion you could help think some up, else I won't listen to you cries of flavour illegitimacy- I've always cared more about gameplay ramifications than that of the overzealous logic nazi. Should using binoculars in ruined building cost 1AP? Personally, no, but if users (in the masses) deem that it should, like other similar "fail" actions, then why not. Should this be for HB+ buildings too? I'd like it- I luuurve small survivor nerfs, but tevs. Let's keep it small. Probably a dupe. I searched "binoculars" through the Suggestions Namespace, but even so, could have been done before. If so, say so please. |
Discussion (Binocular/Ruin nerf)
It's a reasonable idea, mechanic-wise, but who really uses binoculars in ruins? Saying that, if you can't freerun up a ruin, I don't see why you should be able to climb up to use binoculars, and I like the idea of not being able to use them in HB+, if only because I'm biased and look at overcading as borderline n00b griefing. Doesn't really make the game any more fun, otherwise. --OnlyKillingZombiesIsRacist 14:01, 31 March 2010 (BST)
- When looking for an observation point, whether the building is ruined or not is a null consideration since both harbour the same binocular mechanics. An example. You might need to look from a building closer to, say, the Blackmore Building to be able to have a look at its status (without wasting the +6ap getting there and back via walking), but the only buildings in range of binocular vision are ruined. Currently, you can just run in, look at the Blackmore Building from the ruined tower, and then run back, in terms of scouting it saves AP to do it this way, under my mechanic they wouldn't be able to use those ruined buildings. It adds a very small tactical advantage to ruins for Zombies. Not enough for them to target a building over something else, but you know. -- 03:13, 1 April 2010 (BST)
<Cyrus>I can dig it.</Cyrus> 
14:18, 31 March 2010 (BST)
wtf not? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:11, 31 March 2010 (BST)
Logical.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:13, 31 March 2010 (BST)
Perhaps not an all out NO! make it 50% chance to fall and take damage and i would like it a whole lot more. --Honestmistake 23:14, 31 March 2010 (BST)
You may not care fo flavor, but it IS still a factor. What is it about a ruin that is stopping you from using binoculars? Ruin affects your ability to free run into a building (instability), barricade (lack of useable barricade pieces), change clothes (clothes too damaged I presume) and search (too much debris). So your presuming that there is what, too much debris to stand or kneel without moving to hold the binoculars steady? Perhaps. But similar to what Honestmistake said, make a chance of failure ("you can't find stable enough footing for viewing") or a chance of falling.--Pesatyel 05:06, 1 April 2010 (BST)
- Suggestions with a chance to punish you are rarely well received, especially so if the initial action is supposed to be a failure in the first place. When freerunning into a ruined building, the payoff to the pain is the fact you didn't have to spend 2 ap to reach the same location (ie. leave your building THEN move to desired square). In fact, it's a chance I take 90% of the time. However, with this mechanic, it isn't fair or feasible to add a chance for damage onto the suggestion in its current state. Having "You can't use binoculars in Ruined Buildings" changed to "You can't use binoculars in ruined buildings. By, the way, you just took 5HP damage too! Ha Ha!" is a real fuck-you to the player, I don't want to do that. Besides, adding a chance-self-damage mechanism requires me to work out balancing mathematics, or at leased give them thought, and I don't like doing that. I'm just intent on keeping it small for now. -- 09:13, 1 April 2010 (BST)
- Consider the fact that it presents a new method of suicide for zombies, thats a bonus... sort of :) --Honestmistake 16:31, 1 April 2010 (BST)
- Wow. All civility aside, I don't think you realise how fucking stupid that comment was. As far as I'm aware Zombies can't even look through binoculars, so why would them trying yield a chance of failure/pain? Besides, using the precedent of Free-Running pain, you can't even die by free-running into a ruined building, the lowest HP you can get for doing it is 1HP, or so it was last time I tested it in 08. I sincerely hope you weren't being serious Honest. -- 14:12, 2 April 2010 (BST)
- Well, if the zombie is in a state that requires suicide then he is also able to try using the binoculars... you're right about the not dying bit tho, I had forgotten about that :(
- However I was being a little facetious.... --Honestmistake 18:29, 2 April 2010 (BST)
- Wow. All civility aside, I don't think you realise how fucking stupid that comment was. As far as I'm aware Zombies can't even look through binoculars, so why would them trying yield a chance of failure/pain? Besides, using the precedent of Free-Running pain, you can't even die by free-running into a ruined building, the lowest HP you can get for doing it is 1HP, or so it was last time I tested it in 08. I sincerely hope you weren't being serious Honest. -- 14:12, 2 April 2010 (BST)
- I wasn't inclined towards damage either. Simply a chance of failure. "You can't find stable enough footing for viewing".--Pesatyel 02:20, 2 April 2010 (BST)
- Oh, fair enough. Honestly, I think giving it a "chance" to fail doesn't make the suggestion significant enough to actually warrant putting it up, and yes, I know what you're thinking: I entered this suggestion on DS without much intention of modifying it at all. Whilst true to an extent, the more important input I was hoping for was dupe possiblities as well as just general opinions of the balance change. Sorry if it feels like I'm blocking your opinions out, I don't mean it personally. -- 14:12, 2 April 2010 (BST)
- Consider the fact that it presents a new method of suicide for zombies, thats a bonus... sort of :) --Honestmistake 16:31, 1 April 2010 (BST)
Just say no binoculars in ruined buildings. I can dig it. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 15:17, 2 April 2010 (BST)
- I agree. Lets get survivors repairing more buildings! --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:07, 2 April 2010 (BST)
Ehh...I'm not particularly keen on the idea of eliminating binoculars from use in ruins. I think it's a bit extreme for those groups that do actually employ scouts and the like, since it severely limits their capability, and binoculars already see little enough use as it is. That said, I could get behind the idea of limiting the range a bit, such as only being able to see up to two blocks away, instead of three.
To provide some quick examples, if a character is at 10,10 and looks SE, they would currently see the 3x3 square from 11,11 to 13,13. Instead, maybe they would only see a 2x2 square from 11,11 to 12,12 (i.e. they'd get 5 less blocks of scouting information). Looking in one of the four cardinal directions (north, south, east, and west) would result in seeing a 2x3 grid (using the previous example and looking south, they'd see the rectangle from 9,11 to 11,12). The logic behind it could be that they can't reach as high a point in the building due to ruins, but could still get up part way. I also like it because it's consistent in its application (unlike suggestions about possible damage and whatnot), and it doesn't totally nerf a mechanic that probably needs to see more use from people anyway. —Aichon— 05:26, 3 April 2010 (BST)
- In a holistic point of view survivors need several sorts of small nerfs given to them (this is obviously my opinion, though I think we can all agree on the fact survivors have been too far ahead for almost a year or two now). This doesn't forbid survivors from playing/acting in a certain way, rather than shaping their methods of achieving the same goal. Either way, any semi co-ordinated survivor group won't give half a damn about this anyway (because in a minor scenario it will only amount to a few extra AP spent for one account on the whole group/striketeams behalf), but it works on a personal level with survivors and just gives them a bit more limitation to what they can achieve/view without actually having to go outside.
- Essentially, I guess I'll just be frank, I'm not really trying to change your opinion as much as I am simply explaining where I am coming from when I reject all the suggestions some users have given me... After reading the feedback and other ideas, I'm still confident that the original state of this suggestion would be the easiest for Kevan to grasp and liken to, and that's even if he bothers reading this namespace anymore (which I've always publicly doubted... but w/e). So, yeah. Obviously, don't hesitate to vote against this if you want to, I wouldn't be surprised the way I've turned my back on you, Honests and Pesatyel's contributions, but I'm gonna be headstrong with this! I'll probably submit it sometime tomorow. -- 17:28, 3 April 2010 (BST)
from main page
- Kill - I'm not generally in favor of pointless nerfs that reduce functionality of existing items where the flavor doesn't make any sense. Seriously, a tower gets so ruined that you can't look out a freaking window or stand on the roof? What kind of "physical metamorphosis" are we talking about here? Does the building transform like that gozer building in ghost busters? I hate it. Binoculars are the cool low-tech alternative to NT scans, don't mess them up please.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 19:00, 4 April 2010 (BST)
- You're going to have to define "pointless nerf" to me, because at the moment I don't think any nerf to survivors is "pointless" since they've had quite a strangehold on the game for over a year. No, this doesn't solve that problem. But in the greater scheme of things it's probably more appealing to ease into many small nerfs than few massive ones. As for flavour, ugh. If you take a look at something like [1] and think of the amount of those which have flavour so flimsily explained that if it were suggested through this system it would inherently be rejected: ones like "Hungry for convenience food, zombies have begun to distinguish feeding groans made inside secured buildings from those echoing through open doors." Zombies eat convenience food instead of harmans? Awha? Furthermore; What does this mean? It means Kevan cares less about flavour than the actual UDWiki community do, and we "filter" the suggestions for him. And when we are actively rejecting suggestions on grounds that Kevan doesn't care about, then we have a problem. I'm not particularly targeting you about this, but I also think suggestions shouldn't be shot down because the flavour doesn't fit the voter's idea of realistic explanation. In a zombie apocalypse. This is a game, not a movie. -- 01:47, 5 April 2010 (BST)
- n. Pointless Nerf 1. A nerf that makes the game less fun under the guise of "adding balance", while in practice only removes functionality or causes annoyance. Balance should be achieved by making the game more fun for the "losing" side, not less fun for the "winning" side.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 13:52, 11 April 2010 (BST)
- So, more or less, a product of your opinion? Of course, that isn't bad, a majority of votes on the suggestions system are decided on the users pre-disposition towards the idea of the suggestion in the first place, but I still want to clear some things up. UD is, in the majority speaking, a two-sided game. That means, in a vast majority of cases, nerfs to one are buffs to the other, and visa versa. Now, similarly, because it's an AP based game, any buff to a group (which will similarly be labelled a nerf to the other side) will always be considered something which makes the game "less fun", to one side, to an extent. Secondly, this doesn't make it pointless. If your definition of Pointless Nerf is exactly as you say above, then you have no right to claim pointless on this since this isn't acting under any guise of adding balance. It is making something harder for the other side. That means zombies will to a small extent, supposedly benefit. So it is adding balance, thought not much. Of course, that's personal opinion.
- However, since you think of the "fun" aspect of the game so much (and we all do) then I'll just finish with this. If you honestly, and I mean honestly, have so much fun whilst looking through ruined buildings with binoculars, that this would physically ruin a decent amount of fun you have playing Urban Dead, then I'll stop pestering you about your vote and won't pursue this any further. -- 14:08, 11 April 2010 (BST)
- I really do feel that binoculars add to the fun of the game. And a game change that removes some of the functionality of those binoculars would, in a small way, remove some of the fun of the game for me. This is my feeling with any kind of update that takes something away from the game, be it removing items, or potential actions, or AP or XP or what have you. And btw it's fine for you to argue this point, I don't feel that you're pestering me at all. I like the debate.
- My basic philosophy on nerfs is that they're a bad idea unless they are used to nerf something which is inherently overpowered (the mach 1 revive syringe, for example). Binoculars certainly aren't overpowered, and so little nerfs like this aren't helping or adding to the game, it's just making an item less useful and making the game a little bit more annoying for survivors.
- I can definitely see how the game needs more zombie/survivor balance right now, and I appreciate that you're trying to achieve that, but I have a different approach on going about it.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 15:49, 11 April 2010 (BST)
- n. Pointless Nerf 1. A nerf that makes the game less fun under the guise of "adding balance", while in practice only removes functionality or causes annoyance. Balance should be achieved by making the game more fun for the "losing" side, not less fun for the "winning" side.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 13:52, 11 April 2010 (BST)
- No, ruins should transform more like the buildings in Silent Hill. Air raid sirens! walls turn black --Dr Heward 19:56, 15 April 2010 (BST)}}
- You're going to have to define "pointless nerf" to me, because at the moment I don't think any nerf to survivors is "pointless" since they've had quite a strangehold on the game for over a year. No, this doesn't solve that problem. But in the greater scheme of things it's probably more appealing to ease into many small nerfs than few massive ones. As for flavour, ugh. If you take a look at something like [1] and think of the amount of those which have flavour so flimsily explained that if it were suggested through this system it would inherently be rejected: ones like "Hungry for convenience food, zombies have begun to distinguish feeding groans made inside secured buildings from those echoing through open doors." Zombies eat convenience food instead of harmans? Awha? Furthermore; What does this mean? It means Kevan cares less about flavour than the actual UDWiki community do, and we "filter" the suggestions for him. And when we are actively rejecting suggestions on grounds that Kevan doesn't care about, then we have a problem. I'm not particularly targeting you about this, but I also think suggestions shouldn't be shot down because the flavour doesn't fit the voter's idea of realistic explanation. In a zombie apocalypse. This is a game, not a movie. -- 01:47, 5 April 2010 (BST)
- Kill - if a building's too ruined to look out of, then it's probably too ruined to enter in the first place. Seeing as we can all enter a ruined building, this doesn't seem logical to me at all. Chief Seagull squawk don't mess with the Seagull! 09:47, 15 April 2010 (BST)
