Suggestions/14th-Nov-2005

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

14th November, 2005 - VOTING ENDED: 28th-Nov-2005

Experience For Barricading

Timestamp: 00:51, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Survivors, with Construction
Description: A minor change, a One or Two Experience gain for barricading a building. Survivors in some areas can spend days barricading buildings to help other survivors, with no direct benifit to them. You get XP for dumping bodies, so it is not like this kind of thing has not already been done. The only problem is some people overbarricading, just for easy Experience. I would suggest this change only work for barricading UP to Very Strongly, after that there would be no XP point.

Votes

  • Keep -this can make a whole new kind of gameing and a nother back bone like a healing, and it will give motives to get construction early in the game keeping n00bs alive more time --Random guy
  • Kill Barricading is it's own reward. --McArrowni 02:13, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re You could also say that dumping dead bodies outside is its own reward, and yet you get XP for it.
  • Kill Unneccesary. People are already taking barricading right after their class skills, nothing is wrong with it that needs fixing. --Zaruthustra 02:18, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Excellent idea that is worthy of making a suggestion. This would make sense since spending ap means losing xp to other actions this would make this skill more worth while especially for lower level players. --GodofGames 02:01, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - As has been said, barricading itself should be reason enough. --Lucero Capell 02:29, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Anyone who said kill for zombies getting exp for breaking them better say kill for this one too. --Shadowstar 02:33, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Barricading is its own reward. --G026r 02:59, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Change - I think the opposite would be more appropriate: how about instead of an XP gain for barricading up to VS, there's an XP LOSS for barricading over VS? This would be a great help to the UBP, and wouldn't hurt anyone; the only people who need EHB for legitimate tactical reasons are probably high enough that they wouldn't miss the XP. --Sknig 03:21, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re I would go against an XP loss for barricading. I'm not suggesting this skill to support the UBP, I only added the under VS to stop griefing from people that will end up saying that n00bs are overbarricading for XP. I don't want this change to cause more strife with barricades.
  • Keep - XPs should be rewarded for building defenses. --HamChoi 05:30, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I think it's fair that survivors get no XP for building barricades as with zombies getting none for breaking them down. Building and destroying barricades both have very big effects and like what someone else said, is a reward in itself. There's no need for XP gaining from this. --Volke 06:05, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This would only enhance overbarricading and make newbies' survival impossible. --Seagull Flock 13:22, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Like said before, barricades offer their own reward in themselves. As to the notion mentioned in the description of not getting a reward when you barricades someplace else, there actually is a big one. Either you help your fellow survivors, well, survive and thus strengthen the survivor side, or you give the zombies something to spend their AP on, in this case tearing down barricades with no humans behind. Madalex 17:06, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Barricading is not it's own reward. Barricading is a hinderance to obtaining access to targets of interest (zombies). I think that being the one to Barricade up to a particular level should award 1 XP per level obtained (Heavily Barricaded, Extremely Heavily Barricaded, etc.). In the same vein, Zombies should gain XP from breaking down barricades. --Squashua 17:16, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - What Squashua said.Lxndr
  • Kill - Not necessary, upsets the balance of the game. And also barricading *is* its own reward, and its purpose is to keep you safe, not to make you stronger. Why do people get construction now, even though there's no XP in it? --Biscuit 21:39, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, No. Mabey xp for zombies knocking it down, but absolutly not. your Reward is your wellbeing, not xp--Spellbinder 22:43, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Barricading a building is a reward within itself. Barricading is perfect as it is, people should stop suggesting additions to it. As for the dumping dead bodies comment...you only get 1 XP no matter how many bodies happen to be in the mall. If you dump 50 corpses, you only get 1 XP for it. --Kulatu 00:45, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - People will just go house-to-house, barricading repeatedly, if this happens.
  • Kill - Barricading protects people; that's all it needs to do. --Dickie Fux 01:14, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- I don't like zombies getting XP for taking down barricades and I don't think survivors should be rewarded for putting them up either. Also, this will encourage people to overbarricade which isn't such a good idea. --Nov 07:49, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Barricades are their own reward. --Jorm 21:17, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Ditto. --Patrucio 11:47, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Make Armouries Worthwhile

Timestamp: 00:43, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Building Change
Scope: Survivors
Description: Bring Armoury search odds up to at least Gun Store w/ Bargain Hunting. Armoury search odds are underpowered, both realistically (you're more likely to find guns and ammo in an armoury than a police department) and practically (there should be a reward for defending such hard to defend buildings). Because huge battles at forts make the game more fun for both human and zombie players, and because this would give humans more of an incentive to defend a fort than just for the challenge of it, I think this would be a good idea, as it would help create more situations like the battles at Forts Creedy and Perryn/Paradox, which, as I see it, are what this game should be about.EDIT: I have thought of a good way to prevent exploitation and encourage long-term stays; I'll re-suggest the new version after the two weeks.

Votes

  • Keep as you could see at perryn it's impossible to hold a fort, there are no adjacent buildings so you can use free running to escape to other EHB buildings, this shuld balance the game a bit more, atleast in armouries -- random guy
  • Keep Pretty much all battles at armories between zombies and humans that occur at forts are won by the zombies, in fact i beleive all major attacks on forts occupied by humans, has been won by the zombies. Also there are only two of them (forts that is) I right now dont see anything special about them other than they are forts with a small gun supply in them that is unreliable Dignant Dignant 03:51, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill So what's the point of trying to hold them? Fame? Madalex 17:08, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You're drastically altering the game. Now people ranging from single newbies to raiding parties can just dash in a zombie-infested fort, hit Search 10 times, then run before anyone can start hitting them and repeat over a few days. Not good. EDIT: I mean...with this additional search rate, it might be easier to set up scattered and more sensible bases around the forts and do the periodic hit-and-run looting as I described. --Fixen 03:07, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - A valiant effort, but flawed as Fixen said. Continue to discuss and resubmit in two weeks though. --Zaruthustra 01:39, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Great idea that is one of the best suggestions made so far. this makes sense and follows all ogic of the game and what it would be like in real life. The above players only play as zombies so of course they vote kill. Real Players know this is a good idea and not one to be killed. --GodofGames 02:03, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - While an EXCELLENT idea in theory, it doesn't quite come out the way you want it. This won't create a huge incentive to defend the fort. As Fixen said, they will run in, search, then run away. Wash rinse and repeat. You're on a good track, but it needs more discussion and tweaking to balance it IMO. --Kulatu, 02:51, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep As Malls continue to prove, survivors like to set up and defend fortresses if there's enough incentive, no matter how rational it is to just "dash in, search, and leave". I'm for anything that makes Armories worthwhile.--Insomniac By Choice 07:39, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This might not necessarily be the way to make them worthwile, but it's a step in the right direction. How about allowing ranged weapon attacks from inside a Fort to hit targets outside the fort? --Squashua 17:13, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep See Insomniac. --Shadowstar 18:34, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I like the idea. If the fort is consistently kept at EHB, then that limits the number of safe houses raiders can camp in...and would limit said raiders to those with free running. I don't see a major flaw. X1M43 05:46, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep It makes logical sense that an armoury, whose sole purpose is to store weapons, would be significantly more likely to yeild results than a PD. --Argus Blood 05:51, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -I don't understand fixen's objection.--Milo 03:34, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Armories should have tons of weapons in them. With no buildings to free run into next to them, they'll always be a bad place to try to hold. --Dickie Fux 01:20, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - What more is there to say? --Nov 19:00, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Punk

Timestamp: 03:15, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Additional Class
Scope: Survivors
Description: The disaffected youth of urban dead make their premiere with the punk class. Punks start in the civilian class with a baseball bat, spray can, and tagging. Tagging provides early game XP while the bat adds some flavorful emergency defense (nothing that could unbalance it of course). Provides a good RP class for all the people who just want to raise a little hell in Malton without being completely worthless.

Votes

  • Keep Gee I sure HOPE this becomes part of the game its one hot idea. pplus i beleive punks would be the people that first realize how dumb it is to be killed by a slow moving moron Id love to see what the introductory text would be tho Dignant Dignant 03:43, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'm usually not much for new classes, but this...hey, why not? I'll go with it. Doesn't seem overbalanced to me. EDIT: What McArrowni said. --Kulatu 03:22, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, This page can be full of good surprises. This is one of them. I was sure this would be crap when I read the name, but the description turned me around 180� --McArrowni 03:24, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like things that I propose.... --Zaruthustra 03:25, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill We don't need a class for every skill. --LouisB3 03:36, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
RE: Alot of people seem to think having one class per skill cheapens the game, and I would agree. But thats only if each class is an unjustified vehicle for its skill with no actual character appeal. I argue that its a good sentiment but that you should't vote a class down simply because it uses a skill. This has RP potential, which UD is big on. --Zaruthustra 03:41, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, characterful. --LibrarianBrent 06:04, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep What makes this class good is that it gives good reason behind them having the said skill and items. Knowing of plenty of punks around my own town, it only makes sense that Malton would have some of its own! However, as Fixen said, thy'd have some trouble levelling up since tagging doesn't get you the kind of XP that healing or fighting gives. Giving them another skill is out of the question, so perhaps this would be a nice class for players that are looking for a challenge to use? --Volke 06:13, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - ROTFL! For sure it's not the highest priority among suggestions, but I like the idea. :) --Seagull Flock 13:24, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nice. Only the grognards are going to try to kill this. Nothing wrong with harmless flavor. --Squashua 15:05, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep AWESOME! GodofGames 15:47, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep 'Nuff said. Madalex 17:10, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Hahaha! I'd like to play one of these! --Shadowstar 18:33, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep. Probably the most entertaining one of these I've seen yet. Intro text oughta have something to do with a bunch of guys storming into your band's show and starting to eat the audience... HooperX 21:01, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep amuseing, usefull, and simple. --Spellbinder 22:53, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - For some reason, my reply was deleted. I'll just reiterate the fact that the Punk would need a better way to gain XP than just tagging, like the hand-to-hand combat skill for that baseball bat. --Fixen 03:05, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • RE - I don't think the slow XP gain will make the Punk worse off than the Scout. -Otona 08:46, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good suggestion. I like the RP potential. -Otona 08:46, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Man, if this had been around, I would have picked it right off the bat. Besides, I like the RP potential. OI! --John Taggart 15:14, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This is a silly class, UD is not a silly game. --Sknig 01:28, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • (I know only the original author is supposed to Re:, but . . . ) You know what's really silly? The fact that Privates start out in this game with only a pistol and two ammo clips, and Scouts only get a flare gun. If it were realistic, the Privates would have assault rifles and five spare clips, and the Scouts would have silenced submachine guns and two spare clips in addition to the Flare Gun. But hey, it's a game (not real life), games can be silly (and are sometimes designed to be silly - like Kingdom of Loathing) . . . and besides, who's better suited to survival on the zombie-infested streets of Malton than a streetwise Punk? --John Taggart 14:23, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • RE: I fail to see whats so silly about street gang members. Malton is a city (being looted none the less). Cities have delinquents. Without the 5-0 keeping complete order it only makes sense that the social order would break down and you would see lots of these. --Zaruthustra 15:26, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Makes sense to me ... --Khaizard 16:36, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --Brasswatchman 03:54, 19 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Not for the "realism" or whatever. Just because it's goddamn fun. --Snikers 05:32, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep This would get me to start another human alt. --Stroth 05:05, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - No harm done here, and all aspects of the class fit togehter. --Dickie Fux 01:23, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- I think there are too many survivor classes already, but this one is funny. --Nov 07:52, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Good for RPG purpuses,but little future prospects.
  • Keep I like new classes. --Jorm 21:18, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I would personally never pick it, but hey, its really not bad. --Vellin 00:58, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Colored Flares

Timestamp: 4:03 november 14 GMT
Type: item type
Scope: surviors
Description: simply colored flares, different colors for large combats, med needed, etc. drawback as zeds can also distinguish colors and will be attracted accoridngly

Votes

  • Kill - Feels like an unnecessary addition to me. --Kulatu 04:50, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Is it just me or does this look similar to Yell? --Fixen 05:11, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - That's an interesting idea. --HamChoi 05:33, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill You realise that this is a suggestion to add a new item, not a new skill? I'll admit it's a nice idea, but unnecessarily complicates the game. Madalex 08:28, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Yeah...I don't feel like cluttering my item storage with "Red Flare Guns," "White Flare Guns," "Green Flare Guns," and more. That's just confusing. --Fixen 12:58, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Nice idea, but how about just altering the existing item so that you can select a color when a flare is fired (changing Flare to a drop-down color selector and a submit button). I'd vote Keep for that, but right now your implementation is lacking. --Squashua 15:09, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Too complicated, and what use are different colors if not everybody agrees what different colors meen?--Spellbinder 22:55, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'd like to kill flares altogether, because they do nothing but clutter up the screen when I log on. --Dickie Fux 01:25, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Urm... why do we need this? --Nov 07:57, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Useful idea but too complicated and mobile phones can be used for this.--The General 18:42, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like this idea in theory but it seems an unescessary overcomplication.--Jorm 21:19, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Allow people to see all combat that occured

Timestamp: 04:38, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Suvivors, Zombies
Description: Change it so people can see all combat that occured since they last logged in, not just attacks that occured to them. This makes sense and would allow people to witness PKs among other things.

Votes

  • Kill - Talk about massive amounts of unncessary spam. --Kulatu 04:46, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Too much map page clutter. I woudn't say no if it would mention only killing blows. --McArrowni 04:53, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Showing who got killed and when wouldn't help much either. If you've ever seen the list of all the attacks piled on you before you die, you can imagine what sort of clutter you'd see when some zombie horde breaks into a police station with 30 people inside. --Fixen 05:04, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Not necessarily a bad idea, but with great potential to clutter the page. Also, this would probably increase the server load by a significant amount as more data needs to be processed and transmitted. Madalex 08:32, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - see comments above. I can't even think about what would happen during a mall siege. --Seagull Flock 13:26, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Way too much spam, but notes about who killed who would be helpful. Kevan should change the messages so that they are relevant to the status of the player at the time the message was posted, not the time the player logged in (hence some Survivor names become "zombie"). --Squashua 16:51, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - If you just get the last attack on and from one player OR you just get death-messages, I'm on. --Steve 18:43, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, Way way to much spam. and really... i meen whats the use of learning that you were swung at 10 times before you were hit?--Spellbinder 22:57, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - My log in screen is cluttered enough already. --Dickie Fux 01:27, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep but I only want to see deaths. freakin' PKs, CAN I GET A WITNESS? SchmuckyTheCat 03:11, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- However if it was just killing blows, it would have gotten a keep from me. --Nov 07:58, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Adds clutter but it's quite useful.--The General 18:44, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yeah, it adds spam, but the value is pretty high. Helps track down griefers and pkers if nothing else.--Jorm 21:20, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Awareness

Timestamp: 05:21, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors/Zombies (Survivor Ability)
Description: As time goes on players begin to notice various things in the mayhem. What this skill does is allow the player to see a message saying "x killed y" when they are in the same block as someone who has been killed. This can help identify player killers.

Votes

  • Keep - Good idea and make the game more realistic. --HamChoi 05:26, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Makes the game more realistic, but I'd rather that it was just an automatic message, not one requiring a skill. --Kulatu 05:33, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good enough. It would be better if it was limited to people inside when you're inside, and people outside when you're outside, in addition to the same block limit --McArrowni 05:42, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - If we want U.D. to be more than rote clicking we need information about the conflict around us to plan strategies. --Jon Pyre 05:49, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Edit: I'm liked the idea, but I'm changing it to Kill as Seagull Flock mentions a severe flaw in it, the issue with the lack of historical data on the status of characters. Madalex 08:38, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I like it. --Shadowstar 11:13, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like it too, but it's still too generic. 1- UD doesn't keep historical data. Since the killed would become a zombie, almost everytime you'd read "<PK_name> killed a zombie". Viceversa, if somebody killed a zombie that gets revived before you log on, you'd see "<false_PK_name> killed <revived_zombie_name>" and you'd mistakingly take him for a PK. 2- what does same block mean? Same building? Would the skill allow you to see kills outside? Make it a bit more precise and I will switch my vote to keep. ;) --Seagull Flock 13:35, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill A fun idea. Though this wouldnt help identify player killers. afterall if a zombie kills a player and then is revived it will show up as a PK when it isnt.GodofGames 15:49, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Change "Block" to "Location" as someone inside a barricaded building would not witness something outside a building and vice-versa. There should be a limit to the amount of log-in spam, but witnessing one character kill another has merit. --Squashua 16:49, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Too much bookkeeping on the server. --Dickie Fux 01:30, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It shouldn't be too hard for Kevan to avoid the problem Seagull Flock speaks of: just get it to record a message like when someone speaks. "X" killed "Y" or "A zombie" (unclickable) killed "Y" recorded at the point it occured and no such errors should happen. --Man in Blue 11:49, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- see my comment above. --Nov 08:00, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Isn't this very similar to the suggestion above?
  • Keep - It's almost identical to the suggestion above.--Jorm 21:21, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Fort Fortifications

Timestamp: 08:44, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: improvement
Scope: The two military forts in Malton.
Description: I have heard a lot of complaints about how hard it is for a group of survivors to keep hold of one of the Forts. It seems unrealistic to me that a Fort Perryn or Fort Creedy could fall to a group of zombies on foot; you can't just stroll onto a modern Army base under lockdown. I think the simplest way to solve the problem is to make every square of a Fort capable of being barricaded, much like a Mall or a set of Buildings can be. It seems realistic that an Army base might be easily fortified against attack. I think my suggestion has merit, since it takes advantage of existing game mechanics, and, while making the Forts more difficult to take, does not completely eliminate a zombie horde's chances of doing so (the battles would be more in line with what we've seen over the malls). Thoughts and opinions?

Votes

  • Keep - I'm all for this! Forts are too hard to keep and this would really make it easier to defend...though you would want larger armies than a mall, due to a 200% increase in the number of borders. --Kulatu 09:15, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm all for increasing the strength of forts-- Yay Creedy! But... it seems like a lot of work for two squares on the map. Even if you count each as 9 squares, it's still... just not worth it, I think. --Shadowstar 11:15, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: I don't really understand what you mean. If you think the strategy isn't worth the effort, then the survivors don't necessarily have to play it that way. I think that it's a simple fix, it doesn't effect game balance, it makes the game more fun, and it's more realistic. --Brasswatchman 21:44, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep This makes sense sicne the areas around the fort are not wasteland. Making these areas barricadable would enhance the gaming experience and make it more fun to play. Even the hordes like a good long and fun fight we all do and just like at the malls this will give those skirmishes a longer shelf life than being over in a couple hours like at creedy. GodofGames 15:51, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Makes sense, even if it might not be worth it. Beyond the name, what is the advantage of a Fort over other territory? --Squashua 16:43, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill The start of your reasoning doesn't convince me. I don't think the forts were under a lockdown when the trouble started. Probably the armed forced also brought some specimens into their bases as well. Next thing is, we still don't have power in Malton, so many of the things a lockdown is based on nowadays stopped working. Madalex 17:17, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: Have you ever seen a military installation? I'll admit it depends on the function, but generally they don't just rely on electric fencing and barbed wire. *Especially* if they're in the middle of a city. I'd expect concrete barriers, solid walls, architecture constructed with civil defense in mind - and sure, the zombies could have rolled right over it. But those kind of fortifications don't just go away; they should be possible to repair, especially by a large group of survivors, working together. --Brasswatchman 21:40, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep A step in the right direction. And what GoG said. --McArrowni 18:25, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep It makes sense, and it might make the big fort vs. zombie battles more interesting. --Jack Harvey 19:52, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I'm kind of undecided, so lets just try it and see what happens. --Fixen 03:09, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Yeah, fort blocks should have some defenses. In fact, they should just plain have something to separate them from wasteland. X1M43 05:52, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Forts are less defensible than most other buildings, which makes no sense. --Argus Blood 05:54, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep a good idea --Matthew-Stewart 04:05, 19 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yeah, forts should be fortified. --Dickie Fux 01:37, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Forts need to be fortified.--Ringseed2 05:52, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Erm... vague suggestion - I would vote keep for a more concrete suggestion. --Nov 08:03, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: Sorry. I don't understand what you mean. --Brasswatchman 07:11, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - yet another "super-barricaded building" idea. --Jorm 21:23, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Reduce Chances for Escape

Timestamp: 15:00, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Alteration to Movement Mechanic (AP Penalty)
Scope: Players Moving out of Enemy-Occupied Squares
Description: In many combat-oriented boardgames, it is tough for one character to move out of enemy-occupied territory. This is traditionally symbolized in these boardgames by stopping all movement when entering a combatant's square. I realize that this would not work in Urban Dead as each square is a city block, so I propose the following:

Increase the AP cost to move based on the number of enemies in the immediate location (where a location is either "inside a building", or "outside on a city block". I suggest that the AP cost be increased by 1 AP for every 3 enemies (Survivor == Zombie Enemy, Zombie == Survivor Enemy), to a maximum movement cost of 10 APs.

Characters with Free Running Skill are given a bonus: if you have Free Running Skill, the AP cost is increased by 1 for every 4 enemies in the same space.

This will discourage strikes into areas occupied by a large amount of enemies, and will make characters avoid entering squares of mobs.

Edit: An enemy is generally the opposing force; this is not proof against PK'ers, and no rule should be required to take them into account. My original vision for this was a survivor entering a nest of zombies and not being able to retreat easily. Based on votes below, I could revise this to only penalize Survivors attempting to leave a location containing multiple zombies, or even further limited to affect Survivors attempting to leave just a building containing many zombies.

Keep in mind that the impact will likely not be felt unless someone enters an area of MANY enemies (like a Zombie entering a Mall with 30 Survivors), and I did set a maximum penalty.

Votes

  • Keep - Essentially this makes it tougher for a single survivor to escape a square occupied by 10 zombies, and vice versa. It encourages groups. --Squashua 15:01, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Stupid who is an enemy? if their pkers and there are 10 of them is that an enemy? what if a zombie goes in a building then their attacks must be reduced by the same amount since following your logic people wouldnt just stand around watching one zed infect people like the scum they are. GodofGames 15:53, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Your compliments and attention to grammar astound me. An enemy is generally the opposing force; this is not proof against PK'ers, and no rule should be required to take them into account. My original vision for this was a survivor entering a nest of zombies and not being able to retreat easily. Possibly this could be revised to only penalize Survivors attempting to leave a location containing zombies, or even further limited to affect Survivors attempting to leave a building containing zombies. I'll wait for additional, intelligent, votes. --Squashua 16:46, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The concept is great and I like it, but unfortunately with a small 3x3 grid map and no other visible clue, only metagamers who know where the zombie hordes are could survive. And lone zombies couldn't enter any building, let alone malls, because they would get stuck. Moreover, the current hit'n'run guerrilla - which is the only valid survivor tactic at the moment - would be heavily impacted. Overall not a bad idea, but I'm afraid it can't work as it is now. Honestly I prefer the alternative "stucking" skills like Paralytic Bite, Sever or the survivor equivalent whose name I can't remind right now. --Seagull Flock 17:11, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Keep in mind that the impact will likely not be felt unless someone enters an area of MANY enemies (like a Zombie entering a Mall with 30 Survivors), and I did set a maximum penalty, so there will always be a way to escape. Hit-n-Run guerrillas will be fine attacking small groups; they just shouldn't go up alone against a huge mob (and they'll still be able to escape). --Squashua 17:21, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I think a city block is a pretty vast area to be effectly hindered movement. Madalex 17:24, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re Note the edited portion mentioning altering this so it only affects leaving buildings. --Squashua 17:30, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Killl I'm sorry, but there are no change votes, and alternate proposals are IMO not the same as leaving parts of the suggestion undefined. Basically I think you are being too drastic. It shoudn't cost more than 5-6 AP to leave an area. Smart warriors will find ways to shoot from a distance, melee attack zombies who are a bit farther from the pack, etc. And yes the pack can cause problems to them leaving, but not to the extent of costing 10AP or more to leave. --McArrowni 18:10, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - So your solution to a submittal with 5 differnet potential combination implementations would be to submit it 5 times sequentially, one submission for each potential alteration? That's not conducive. --Squashua 18:21, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This can really puzzle the newbies that don't read the documentation in here. --Fixen 18:13, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You shouldn't HAVE to be in a group if you want to play the game. --Shadowstar 18:27, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Never says you HAVE to be in a group; it just HELPS, and only against larger forces. --Squashua 19:16, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Why do you want to discourage strikes against groups of enemies? Is peace suddenly going to reign in Malton? Are zombies and humans just going to divide the city and stay on their respective sides of the line? No thanks. Bentley Foss 21:11, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill What are you kidding me? Do you realize how hard it is to fight a Zombie Horde already? This will make it absolutely impossible to thin the numbers of a horde in any way shape or form. --Kulatu 00:38, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It makes little sense for survivors to stroll through an area infested with zombies completely unhindered, but it makes equally little sense to hinder survivors from leaving buildings full of zombies when they have no means of seeing into a building before entering. --Raelin 03:11, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Should apply to anything standing in your way, not just "enemies." --Dickie Fux 21:46, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Just going along with the flow... --Nov 08:06, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Nice for reality purposes but it could end up costing huge amounts of AP when moving around a highly populated area. Plus, you don't mess with AP.--The General 18:52, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like this idea but it overcomplicates things in a vague and difficult to understand way. --Jorm 21:25, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Sniping

Timestamp: 18:47, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill,Weapon, Whole Concept
Scope: Survivors
Description: The whole idea is this, a way of shooting out of buildings; now i know that lots of people don't like the idea of getting killed when just strolling along, someone didn't risk going over to fight them.. but i'll do my best to make it as hard for the shooter as the person receiving the shot. First things first; you'll need a sniper (item) which can only be found in armories... and bullets, which are RARE (and also found in armories) So, to use this item, first go into a building which isn't TOO barricaded (lightly will do fine) and select sniper. You will lose 5 AP to set it up on a stand, ect... Then AIM (another button; another 5 AP) and then you fire. Now, the bullet will hit any zombie outside of the building (no choice) with 12 damage and 95% chance (it is after all a sniper); then you must remove the sniper from its stand (ANOTHER 5 AP) or else you'll lose it when you move (cioe` leave it there)... And there you go... wasted 15 AP just for the safety of not leaving a building....

Votes

  • Kill - I'm not sure what bothers me more: the unbelievably high AP cost and complexity, or the fact that you're proposing a way of attacking zombies (and survivors—PKers will love this skill) from relative safety. --G026r 19:10, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Not only is it not a good idea, You forgot that the type of sniper rifle you describe is bolt action, meaning each round needs to be individually loaded and you need to cock the bolt after each shot. Both taking AP. --Vellin 20:32, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Attacking without putting yourself in danger isn't something that should happen. Besides, as mentioned before, any game mechanics that require more than one request/reponse cycle are, from a technical standpoint, bad ideas. Bentley Foss 21:15, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam, spam because you were compleatly aware that this idea was going to be shot down before you even started posting. Yet, here we are. --Spellbinder 23:00, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - 7 sins of bad suggestions: "Rare", "Isn't too barricaded", "2 New Modes", "5 AP", "hit zombie outside of building", "95% chance", "Lose an object involuntarily" --Fixen 03:13, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill 'Nuff said. Madalex 15:51, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Too complex a rules set for just being about to aim a ranged weapon outside of a building opening to hit a target that is in the same block as the building. --Squashua 17:35, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • KILL - FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WHY WON'T YOU PEOPLE LISTEN TO ME? Becoming a sniper isn't like finding a sniper rifle and mysteriously being able to get headshots all the time. Becoming a sniper means that u have to learn the marksmanship art behind it, sort of like, for example, the art of stealth learned by ninjas in medieval japan. Its an art composed of 1 part talent, 1 part luck, and 2 parts mathematical calculation, because the path of a bullet can be affected by many things, like the wind, gravity and recoil. A sniper has to take these things into account before he can even pull the trigger, and finally, these skills take years to learn and even more years to practice and refine them. I also agree with the 7 sins above me, and would like to add another sin: ASKING TO OVERHAUL THE GAME FOR YOUR OWN SUGGESTION. --AllStarZ 21:57, 19 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Sniping will always be a crappy idea. --Dickie Fux 21:50, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Haven't we done this already? --Nov 08:07, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - I didn't bother reading any further than when you started to talking about using multiple actions.
  • Spam - This has been soundly thumped multiple times. --Jorm 21:25, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • SPAM Ug... Whats that horrible taste in my mouth? Oh, its SPAM. --Vellin 01:00, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Flavor Weapons

Timestamp: 20:59, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Equipment
Scope: Survivors, adds flavor
Description: Basically, adding a handful of new melee weapons to the game. No real changes to the game mechanic or play, just some extra widgets your survivor could use in lieu of the fire axe, knife, or bat. The Samurai Sword, found in Museums and Mansions, would do similar damage to the Fire Axe (and besides, people have been wanting a samurai sword pretty much from the get-go). The other one I'd like to see would be a Golf Club, found at Mansions and Sporting Goods Stores, again with stats similar to the Fire Axe (if nothing else, gives Mansions and, to a lesser extent, Museums something to do). Neither one drastically alters anything, but there's something strangely appealing about bludgeoning a z to death with a golf club, and it's not like any of the other melee weapons are currently worth a damn anyway...

EDIT: What, none of you have seen Versus? (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0275773/) I guess zombie movies only count if they're made by white people.

Votes

  • Kill If people have been waiting to play samurais they're in the wrong game. To the best of our knowledge, malton is not even in japan, or remotely near it. So why would Malton have hundreds of swords in its museums? --Zaruthustra 23:46, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What Zaruthustra said. Though, if you placed a Cricket Bat on the list, I'd be all for it. Cricket Bats = Awesome Anti-Zombie Weapons. --Kulatu 00:35, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It might be fun to know and list the 57 ways to smack a zombie upside its chin, but that's just an extraneous addition for now. Maybe later. Oh, and please compile a more detailed list. Katanas don't cut it (pun not intended) in a zombie game. --Fixen 03:15, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill But I'll change my vote to "keep" if you replace the sword with a cricket bat. First, it's a nice reference to another zombie movie; second, the general consensus seems to be that Malton is in England, yet there are hundreds of baseball bats and not one cricket bat... X1M43 05:57, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • RE: Malton is a weird town. A city that size, with that many schools, and there's not a single university? Not even a community college? Huh? (seriously!) HooperX 14:09, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Have you even seen a zombie-movie? have you ever seen a swoed in a zombie-movie??? Come ON!! --Steve 08:30, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • kill - Versus should make us want a sword? See how the crazed runner suggestion got shot down, and that's straight out of two zombie movies. Also, how many useable katanas can there be in Malton? And i don't mean those that are just for show--McArrowni 14:14, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It actually makes sense. People will use whatever weapons they can get their hands on, and they'll turn the most unlikely things into weapons if the situation is desperate enough. And RE: McArrowni/Zaruthustra - You would expect serious weapons collectors (such as the kind of person who would live in a mansion) not to have a combat-worthy bladed weapon (such as a broadsword/katana/battle axe/scimitar) in his collection? Give me a break . . . and frankly, if Malton is in England, shouldn't there be a greater prevalence of Cricket Bats and/or Golf Clubs to Baseball Bats? --John Taggart 15:00, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re:: Actually, if Malton is in England, there shouldn't be NEARLY as many handguns, either. Handguns are BANNED for civilian ownership in the UK, and it requires a fair amount of legal paperwork to get your hands on a rifle or shotgun. British cops have to get specific certifications to be allowed to even carry a pistol on the job. And yet, there are more guns in Malton than in L.A. (enough that every single human player, could have at least two with more in the gun stores and such). So let's just skip the lecture about the "realism" of the game's weapons availability. HooperX 15:09, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Best case, this would only decrease the chances to find a particular kind of weapon, worst case absolutely clutter your inventory. Also, generally speaking, your "suggestion" is pretty vague. Madalex 15:56, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - this unbalances nothing; and they use a sword in The Walking Dead comic book. Not crazy about the "it's all the same as a Fire Axe" concept, but I'm sure that the numbers can be crunched later. --Squashua 17:37, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Yes. --Donggrip 21:52, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Come up with a more extensive list, with combat stats, chance and location to find, etc. --Dickie Fux 21:54, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep cosmetics, groovy. SchmuckyTheCat 03:14, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Erm... I'd prefer specific items suggestion rather than this blanket one. --Nov 08:09, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Wastes room on servers; and the list of extra weapons needs a reality check.--The General 19:04, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Nice idea but overcomplicates. And yeah: I've seen "Versus" and it was "meh" and they didn't use katanas there, either.
  • Kill Say it with me "I am NOT a ninja." --Vellin 01:03, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Thief Class

Timestamp: 22:28, 14 Nov 2005
Type: Class
Scope: Survivors
Description: This is a new character class. The thief is a looter and a hit-and-run type of person. The thief starts with a knife and wirecutters. (S)He has three possible skills (note: I don't mean you can pick, I mean there are three that make sense and could be used): free running, shopping, or hand to hand combat.

Votes

  • Kill Well theres not exactly a class category for a thief, and all the skills you have suggested have been used or do not exactly fit your character best. Good try, but you need to think this over again. AllStarZ 22:38, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I agree, the original submitter should pull this down, edit it, and resubmit it--Spellbinder 23:06, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill not well written, not well thought out, and this is not AD&D--Matthew-Stewart 23:40, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Too similar to other classes, no distinct flavor, no defined purpose. --Zaruthustra 23:44, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill As is, I'm not getting what the point of this class is. --G026r 23:50, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Really, this character (though flavourful) isn't quite up to snuff. A good try, but it wouldn't work out. The skills and equipment suggested are far too similar to other classes and really wouldn't work out. --Kulatu 00:37, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This ain't Final Fantasy. Your description would fit better to the Punk suggestion above. --Fixen 03:17, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - A thief class would only be really interesting if it included the ability to steal from other players, and then its greifing potential would reach critical mass. All thief characters would be shot on sight. -Otona 09:04, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No real interest. If you can't choose a skill for your class and defend both it's mechanics and flavour, it probably shoudn't be a class. --McArrowni 14:19, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill 'Nuff said. Madalex 16:00, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Please re-submit a more specific iteration of this theme. Maybe rename it to Looter as well. --Squashua 17:40, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Uh, this is basically a consumer, except with wirecutters (useless item) instead of mobile (ambiguously useless item). Also what Matthew-Stewart said. -- Biscuit 02:30, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • 'Kill -- We have enough survivor classes already. --Nov 08:10, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Please enlighten me as to what this adds to the game.--The General 19:06, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Isn't EVERYONE in the game a thief? --Vellin 01:04, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Electrical systems

Timestamp: 23:56, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Game Featuer/ Skill
Scope: Inside buildings
Description: If/when the power comes on, the best thing to do would make it HURT - that is make it work like barricades, only harder. Here it goes... The way the wiring would go would be the power surged and fried most of the wires. They can only be brought up to workability in a very complex way. First you need a pair of wire cutters, second you need a skill, and finally you need insulated gloves or a skill or something. You can work on the wiring for 10 AP, but you run a risk of electrical shock. Additionally you need wiring to operate electrical devices, after a point, and between that and another you run the risk of degrading the wiring. Zombies can also tear it out of the walls. And lastly you shouldn't be able to see the wiring because "Duh!" it's in the walls. This keeps it from being overpowering. Example: "You open the wall to find burn marks and copper drippings." or "You open the wall to find masterfully installed wiring throughout the building." Even "When you plug in the lap top, there is a sizzle and whisp of smoke from the plug-in you get disgruntled looks from the people leaning on the wall. You unplug the computer."

Votes

  • Kill - 7 sins of a bad suggestion: "Non-furniture barricades", "Item+Skill+Something", "10 AP", "Risk of damage", "Not able to see barricading", "Location requirements", "The very idea of electricity in something bigger than a battery" --Fixen 03:22, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - As of the moment there is no need for electrical systems, resubmit when there is a potential use for them in the game currently. (PS - I altered your formatting so it was in the correct format) Jedaz 00:15, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I beg you, cleen that crap up and put it into something that looks presentable--Spellbinder 00:17, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I edited your spelling so you don't get shot down on that basis alone. But, really, this is far too complex and doesn't provide any particular benefits. Electricity could be a workable idea, but this needs a re-write (with spell-check, please!). --Ethan Frome 00:19, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Maybe it is just me, but I currently do not see any need for this inclusion. It is too complicated and does not give any real benefits we can use. Perhaps when we have a reason to benefit from Electricity, resubmit this. --Kulatu 00:34, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I find it profoundly disturbing that I'm reading the good version of this suggestion. There is absolutely no point to any of this rambling concept. --Zaruthustra 01:07, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Ditto. --Lucero Capell 02:29, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Yeah, try to stick with KISS. Madalex 16:04, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Be more specific; need a skill? Name the skill here. Need an item? Name the item here. Etc. I like having to keep a building fixed up in order to have power, but it might end up as too much maintenance; tho nothing wrong with a little complexity. --Squashua 17:43, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't understand what you're talking about. With generator in play, probably a moot suggestion, anyway. --Dickie Fux 21:57, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Erm... say what? sounds way complicated to me. --Nov 08:12, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Too complex and too fragile to bother with.--The General 19:10, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Too complicated.--Jorm 21:29, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/14th-Nov-2005&oldid=1064598"