Suggestions/13th-Feb-2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Closed Suggestions

  1. These suggestions are now closed. No more voting or editing is to be done to them.
  2. Suggestions with a rational Vote tally of 2/3 Keeps over total of Keeps, Kills, and Spams will be moved to the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page by a moderator, unless the original author has re-suggested the Suggestion.
  3. Suggestions under the 2/3 proportion but with more or equal Keeps to Kills ration will be moved to the Undecided Suggestions page.
  4. All other Suggestions will be moved to either the Peer Rejected Suggestions page or the Humorous Suggestions page.
  5. Some suggestions may not be moved in a timely manner; moving Suggestions to Peer Reviewed Suggestions page will take higest priority.
  6. Again, DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. It will be used as a historical record and will eventually be locked.
Suggestion Navigation
Suggestion Portal
Current Suggestions • Suggestions up for Voting • Clothes Suggestions
Cycling Suggestions • Peer Reviewed • Undecided • Peer Rejected • Humorous
Suggestion Advice • Topics to Avoid and Why • Help, Developing and Editing

VOTING ENDED: 27th-Feb-2006

Real Estate Pwnage

Timestamp: 02:55, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Metagaming addition
Scope: Players with XP to spare
Description: As the "Real Estate Swap" suggestion is nifty but flawed, and seems likely to be shot down, I'm offering an alternative version which I think addresses the problems in the other proposal.

The concept is simply that high-level players can bank their extra XP points to establish "ownership" of particular buildings in Malton. This ownership conveys no in-game benefit; it simply allows groups to mark out a "home territory" -- and compete for control of buildings with other groups.

Here's how it works: XP can only be "banked" if all players inside the building are of the same group affiliation. If any character inside the building is of a different affiliation -- even if of an unspecified group -- that character must be forced out before any XP can be banked.

Once the group has control of the building in this way, any player with 100 or more XP may hit "Make a payment on this building." The cost is 100 XP per click. The banked XP is credited to the group listed in the player's profile screen -- if the player banking the XP lists "Fryerbank Irregulars" in his profile, then the Fryerbank Irregulars will be credited with a 100 XP "payment" toward the purchase of the building. Even if that same player changes his affiliation later on, the 100 XP payment will always be credited to the group under which it was initially made.

Multiple members of the same group can bank XP on a building, but no more than 1000 XP can be banked on any building in a 24-hour period. This is to keep the casual players from getting completely shut out.

Every building in Malton will be assigned a certain "base price" in accordance with its value. A junkard might have a base price of 8000 XP; a stadium might reach above 200,000 XP. Buildings with phone masts would be more valuable than those without. Multi-block buildings are owned as a whole -- any XP banked inside any square of a multi-square building is credited toward the purchase of the whole.

Once a group's total down payment meets or exceeds the base price, that group is considered to attain "ownership" of the building. An owned building will simply add an extra line to its description which includes the group name. For example:

You are standing outside St Isidore's Church, a large white-stone building. Fryerbank Irregulars is cut neatly into the cornerstone.

Essentially, the ownership is displayed as a more permanent spraypaint message.

Where this gets interesting is that buildings can change hands. If another group manages to bank more XP on St Isidore's Church -- again, only banking the XP when the group has control of the building, and at no more than 1000 XP per day -- the ownership would be signed over to the group with the larger payment. Of course, the Fryerbank Irregulars can continue to bank payments on the church and try to maintain their claim. Because payments can only be banked following the eviction of non-group members, these real estate contests are sure to turn bloody.

Presumably the building owners will work to maintain their property through the regular inspection of barricades, the fueling of generators and the cleaning of offensive graffiti. Groups may find it useful to turn owned properties into full-service safehouses to keep a variety of survivors coming in and out -- thus making it harder for any single group to begin banking counter-payments.

Only survivors may bank XP payments, however zombie groups are not barred from building ownership. (You couldn't stop it anyway, as I'm sure groups are not marked as "human" or "zombie" in the game database.) Zombie groups will simply have to get creative in how they go about this. In most cases, a zombie group will want to clean a building out of survivors, then arrange to have one of its members revivfiied (or have such a member already on hand) who can enter and make payments. Special arrangements will need to be made for the brain rotters, who are often a horde's highest earners; however, since even rotters can now be revived under specific circumstances, I do not feel this is any undue hardship for the zombie players.

There are several things I like about this proposal:

  1. Gives experienced players a good reason to keep acquiring lots of XP.
  2. Makes for the possibility of "king of the hill" struggles between player groups.
  3. Gives survivors reasons to maintain quality safehouses (keep a variety of groups visiting in order to discourage hostile takeover).
  4. As groups compete for the most desired buildings, their prices will inflate to match their value. Expect to see junkyards and warehouses maintaining a fairly steady inflation rate, while better-known locales like Caiger Mall quickly escalate into very expensive pieces of property.
  5. Suggests the development of a new "settler culture" in Malton. After months and months of enduring a zombie outbreak, how would folks begin to build some sort of normalcy back into their lives? I submit it might look very much like what is being suggested here. Squatters squabbling over abandoned structures, more organized associations coming together to provide essential services, etc.
  6. But mostly it'd just be fun.

See what you think.

(I have a feeling someone is going to say, "It's f@#%ing zombie monopoly"; and, yeah, it kind of is. But this in no way eclipses the survivor-zombie combat taking place in Malton; it may even enhance it for the groups large enough to care about this kind of thing. And players who don't care won't be bothered by it. Nothing changes for them except that extra description line on buildings.)

Votes

  1. Kill - make it so zombies can outright own a building and I will change to keep. I dislike messieness. - --ramby Talk 03:17, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - You mean, without getting revived first? I guess I felt folks would complain making payments wasn't a very "zombie" thing to do. I can tell you that zombies will "go human" for lots of reasons: to tag buildings, find flak jackets, etc. I expect many would be happy to do so for this too. --John Ember 03:23, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re I dislike the messyness thoughm, i like things like this to be universal, besides, zombies should ahve the chance to be kind of the hill too. - --ramby Talk 03:28, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Totally agree, and they would have the chance. It's just a bit more roundabout for them. Personally I think I'd enjoy the bit of extra challenge that needing to arrange a revive would provide. --John Ember 04:05, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - As has been said, everyone, zombies included, should be allowed to claim buildings equally. I will kill any suggestion otherwise. --Catwhowalksbyhimself 04:08, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Call me crazy, but I think real estate ownership would be the last thing on someone's mind during a zombie apocalypse.--Mookiemookie 04:14, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - It's not a half bad idea (except for the zombie part), but it's not a good idea for this game. It's out of genre. --CPQD 06:44, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Encouraging PKing is bad! --Pinpoint 06:52, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - They've mentioned most of my reasons against this. Bentley Foss 08:50, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - No buying property in half-dead city. No buying property for _expirience_. How the hell you can buy something just becuse you killed "n" zeds? --EnForcer32 09:38, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill You've solved alot of the problems I listed with the last suggestion, however a few remain. First, It's a little out of genre for people to be 'purchasing' property in a zombie apocalypse. Sure, there would be groups that would claim buildings.. but it'd functin, ina real zombie apocalyspe, as it does now. This 'officialness' wouldn't exist. Second, this encourages PKing. I will automatically Kill anyonthign that does so because I do not feel PKing should be encouraged in this game. --Jak Rhee 12:56, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - If you want to buy property so badly, go play Monopoly. (Or take a loan and buy it in real life.) - KingRaptor 13:02, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - What Raptor said. Buildings are claimed and reclaimed, defaced and graffitid over -- nobody "owns" Malton. Shambling Pete 13:43, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill -This just seems to mimick what is happening in the game already. there are big sieges on who owns certain buildings. The malls are more hotly contested then warehouses. All this seems to add is a XP sink and more Pk-ing wars. not additions I would like in the game--Vista 19:43, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT) And players who don't care won't be bothered by it. Nothing changes for them except that extra description line on buildings except of course some arses might need to pk them to get that name on the building. every chance in the game will effect how the game is played, and thus effect everybody. Even if you make suggestions for a small part of the players and don't forget that the rest won't have residual fall-out at the very least.
  12. Kill - Thank you for expanding and revising my original "Real Estate Swap" idea, this is closer to what I intended. However, I agree with the other voters who think that to make it more difficult for Zed groups to bank and own buildings is unfair. If you make it equal opportunity for ownership, then that is fine for me. Keep up the good work. --Flopsie 00:28, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - While I like the idea, this would just promote PKing.--Pesatyel 05:16, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  14. keepits a good thing to do with all your extra XP, and it sorto makes sense you own the building by earning enough respect that others know its ures! shame WCDZ spammed it! xbehave 15:50 17 feb 06
    • Tally 1 Keep, 13 Kill, 0 Spam - 19:17, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Drunkeness

Timestamp: 02:36, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Dunno
Scope: Survivors with alcohol
Description: Drinking more than 5 bottles of wine or beer causes the drinker to get Drunk. In this state, any words spoken by yourself or any other survivor will come out jumbled up, in a similar manner to Death Rattle speech. Also, while drunk, if a person views your profile, it will tell them that "This person is currently wasted". The state of being wasted lasts about 2 hours before passing. Any other alcoholic beverages other than the two required to enter this state do not extend it.

For example, if my character says "Cheeseballs are great" while drunk, it will come out as "weezhebaws aw gwat". Not much, but soemthing to go on.

Votes

  1. Keep - But please add some examples of the jumbled speech. I think it will help the voting. --John Ember 03:09, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Are you fucking kidding? MaulMachine 03:32, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Dead serious. AllStarZ 18:58, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - flavour --RAF Lt.G Deathnut 03:55, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - I have a feeling this would get very annoying after a while. In a crowded room of survivors I can see this creating a vast amount of spam. --CPQD 06:37, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Why? Just why?--Mookiemookie 07:27, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill -One day I will invent a device that will allow me to deliver an electric shock over the internet. I will make billions. - CthulhuFhtagn 07:53, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Nothing terribly wrong with this, but if people want to be drunk, let them RP being drunk. That method has the benefit of requiring no additional work on Kevan's part. Bentley Foss 08:52, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill Cthulhu, can I be one of your investors? Also, what Bentley said. --Jak Rhee 12:57, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Why? Why do we need a way to create more Spam, particularily when it hurts the server.--The General 13:15, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - Not because I think it will hurt the server like The General, which isn't a valid reason to argue against something according to the voting guidelines, and not because I like to rip off quotes from Bash.org like CthulhuFhtagn, but because it's completely not necessary. The Zombie's death rattle is a fine form of communication for a zombie, whereas this doesn't have any point beyond dubious flavour. Shambling Pete 13:41, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - I'm not voting Kill just because of server issues but because it's unnessecary and as a double whamy, it hurts the server.--The General 14:57, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - I voted kill because it was stupid. I didn't even remember that the quote came from bash.org. I thought I had gotten it from somewhere else. - CthulhuFhtagn 20:51, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - Sigh... This was probably born of my feedback on the previous version of drunk. Which wasn't even that in the first place. There is hope that it isn't so, however (then again, even with my modification of the old suggestion, it would probably have been killed, though maybe less so). --McArrowni 14:23, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Correctamundo man. AllStarZ 19:57, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - This suggestion cracked me up! But what Bentley said, RP being drunk - would work just as well with no effort required from Kevan. --Blahblahblah 16:09, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill -as said before, simply not needed. It can be role played.--Vista 19:34, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - Man I was trying to do the same thing, except trying to make a double whammy semi-usefulness is that it increases melee attack. Unsigned.--The General 11:27, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Oh yes, and the only difference is that I'm not trying to make an item with minimal usefulness even more useless. AllStarZ 09:40, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tallly 2 Keep, 11 Kill, 0 spam/Dupe, 13 Total.--The General 16:14, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)

The Traders

Spaminated with 8 Spams, 1 Kill, and 1 author Keep.--The General 13:40, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Removed commentary. As someone already said: Be Polite and make no additional comments. Go here if you want to express your opinion about this particular suggester and/or his suggestions. --Brizth W! 14:37, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
It wasn't my comment.--The General 15:38, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
As the rules stand at present, my comment was not technically illegal, as i wasnt the one to removed the suggestion. --Grim s 17:26, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Feeding Frenzy, version N

Author-retracted. Thanks. --John Ember 18:51, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Weather Effects

Timestamp: 19:02, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Variety
Scope: Everyone
Description: On certain random days, perhaps once a month or so, the weather in Malton turns ugly. Rain in spring and fall, snow in winter -- using England's seasonal cycle as the frame of reference. On "rainy" days, randomly-selected swaths of the Malton map turn light blue and require double AP to move through. On "snowy" days, the entire map turns light gray and requires double AP to move around in; at the same time, "snowbanks" build up around randomly-selected buildings. Snowbanks function similarly to barricades: too high, and survivors will be unable to use the doors. However, the option to "Clear away snow" will be available to both humans and zombies. The number of times snow must be cleared will depend on the height of the snowbank.
  • "A low snowbank surrounds the building." -- 1-3 AP to clear; survivors can enter and leave the building at will.
  • "A snowbank of moderate height surrounds the building." -- 4-6 AP to clear, survivors can enter the building at the cost of 2AP.
  • "A high snowbank surrounds the building." -- 7-9 AP to clear, survivors can leave "through the windows" but can't enter the door without clearing some snow first.

I think the occasional "bad weather day" would make things really interesting.

Votes

  1. Kill - Different from previous weather suggestions, but still crap. It just makes it harder for zombies to get in to buildings. --TheTeeHeeMonster 19:05, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - It's comming dangerously close to grief.--The General 19:11, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - 4 AP for newb zombies steps and free barricades for all!! --McArrowni 19:12, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - While varying weather would bring some flavor to UD, free barricades and ridiculously high movement cost are a big No --Brizth W! 19:17, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Spam - Extra barricades and doubled AP penalties for new zombies = very unbalanced very bad idea --CPQD 19:18, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Weather would be nice as just flavor (note: thats already been suggested). Maybe it could have an effect, but certainly nothing like this. --Jak Rhee 19:22, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - free barricades and double movement cost aren't exactly what I call balanced or fun. different types of weather is already in peer reviewed I believe.--Vista 19:32, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - I don't think weather should help or hurt people in this game. --Jon Pyre 19:33, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - Author vote. Look, it's just one day before the snow melts or the flooding dries up. I'd be intrigued to see what folks do on those days. Do they stay indoors? Work on clearing snow so other survivors can continue to use the safehouse? As for zombies, it's not as if every building would acquire a high snowbank. Some would have no banks at all; others only low banks. It would simply change which targets zombies favored -- and only for one day. --John Ember 19:41, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - I like it...I would think that there should be a bigger hit on the survivors AP in a finalized version, but it's a good idea. -- Nicks 20:20, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - Hurts zombies badly, and humans not at all. Will reconsider if humans lose 5hp per ap outside when it snows, to signify freezing to death, as trenchcoats (Which are all survivors wear these days) are insifficient protection from freezing temperatures capable of creating snowdrifts large enough to bury buildings doorways in snow so deep it costs a fair few ap to get it moved and inside. --Grim s 20:29, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - LOL, that's a wonderful segue into my next feature suggestion - Thermal Trenchcoats! And Thermal Five o'Clock Shadow! And Thermal Well-Toned Physique! --John Ember 20:49, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - Weather as flavor is definitely good. Weather that effects gameplay mechanics can be good, if balanced and done right. Unfortunately, this really screws over the Zeds. Work on making this balanced and resubmit taking into account the comments on this one. --Reverend Loki 20:40, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    Tally - 9 Kill, 2 Keep, 1 Spam --Reverend Loki 20:43, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - I'm also pretty sure many versions of this have already been suggested. Velkrin 22:19, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT) Edit: Fixed the re formatting that was throwing off the numbers.
  14. Kill - I actually like the idea of weather in the game. I just don't like the idea of it affecting gameplay. At any rate, if it does affect gameplay, it has to affect everyone equally (but note that I said "equally" and not "in exactly the same manner"). Bentley Foss 06:56, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - Would be really interesting, especially watching zombies run completely out of AP using 2 AP to attack barricades. Not to mention Free Running survivors would be barely affected. No thanks! --Kraxxis 17:24, 15 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 11 Kill, 2 Keep, 1 Spam, and 14 Total.--The General 16:21, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Emotes

author withdraw- its a dupe -- 05:05, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)~

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/13th-Feb-2006&oldid=193685"