Suggestions/16th-Mar-2007

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

Heavy Infection

Timestamp: Seventythree 01:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zomies
Description: Ok, Lots of human survivors seem to use the headshot ability, and for delaying a zombie, and giving them something to realy think about if they mess with you again, it's great. However, when fighting as a survivor, I know that if I die, thanks to set up reviving points, lots of people being able to revive me ect. I can be up and out fighting again as a survivor within a day, if i'm lucky. So, here's my suggestion. A zombie skill that inflicts the same kind of delaying penalty on humans as headshot does on zombies. Obviously it would have to have the same level restrictions as headshot, possibly more. Essentialy the skill would be called something like Extreme/total infection and would mean that once killed, although the player could get up and walk around as a zombie, ,for a set period of time, possibly anything up to 20 AP or higher, it would be impossible to revive them, due to the high levels of infection in their bloodstream. Maybe if this was tied in with diagnosis so that players with diagnosis could tell those who are heavily infected and cannot be revived. The way i see it, this gives a bit of a bonus to the zombies and might make human players think twice before going out on stupid reckless killing sprees. Gives survivors a bit more to fear and might even result in better teamwork on the part of human players.

Keep Votes
For Votes here
Kill Votes
Against Votes here

  1. Ummm... you might want to consider working on your presentation. Right now, it's not in the condition that it could really be voted on. --Storyteller 01:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • ReApologies. I don't exactly know how to do that realy. Can't seem to get it set out the way it should be, with Scope and Type set out properly. I could delete it if it's just going to annoy everyone.
    • Re You'll get used to it (and don't forget to sign posts. You can do it using the second button from the right above this edit box). I set it right for the moment, but might want to work on your grammer. You don't have a vast knowledge for English, do you? We should definitely have international boards... --Storyteller 01:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Change - I am wholly for the idea, but just make it a zombie version of Headshot, so that you don't have to walk around, then be revived. --Nimble Zombie 02:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill: Do zombies actually need an extra advantage? Also consider that even though in some suburbs a revive is easy to get that is not true in many, perhaps even a majority now. Consider also that the main reason why survivors have Headshot as a delaying skill is that zombies are essentially invulnerable in that as soon as they stand up they receive another full stock of hit points. I have two survivors and two zombies, so I'm not biased one way or the other, but to me an idea that further significantly debilitates survivors and their already tenuous grasp on the game is a bad idea. --The Hierophant 04:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - The cost of getting killed as a survivor is shared with the Necro reviving him, I'd estimate a survivor death costs around 50AP to 60AP total and needs to be organized. A zombie's death costs 1 or 6 AP. not entirely comparable as both have different roles but it's still clear that zombies have the upperhand when it comes to delaying standing up as the side you want to play. People who're now reckless enough to go on killing sprees will still be when the have to walk off an extra 20 AP.--Vista 09:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. As Funt down in Spam. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 12:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill Dying as a human cost you at least 20 AP (2 x 10 for standing up), and that is if you die at a revive point, otherwise add the cost to move there. Then add 10 AP for the revification, plus AP for the revivor to move to you, and the AP-cost to find the syringe. Now, when you stand up, you also need to be healed, which again costs AP on both healing and searching for FAKS. Compare this to a 5 AP penalty for headshot, and you've got a kill-vote. - BzAli 15:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill — Please read Frequently Suggested/Dead in the Water. Don't force my character to play as a zed. Also, AP is not a measurement of time. Urban Dead works in real time. --Anotherpongo 17:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill - Survivors already get hit pretty hard from dying and then getting revived. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 18:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Kill - Overly nasty and overpowered. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 00:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Kill - A ninja-zombie headshot move. Just what zombies need when survivors are almost 35% below them on the stats page. --Kamden 00:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Kill Overpowered. --Jon Pyre 04:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Kill - that's overpowering zeds too much. --Duke Garland 10:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Kill - Un-necessary and overpowered. The game balance is already tipping in favour of zombies (58% zeds vs 42% humans) as it is right now. --c138 RR - PKer 10:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Change - You really need to format/word your suggestions better (the words "something like" really don't help, since suggestions are supposed to be as specific as possible). However, that's not why I'm voting this way. I like your idea, since it can often take days to get a revive (and therefore the only real effect of this is to prevent survivors in a siege from dying, being revived, and re-joining the battle within 5 minutes). However, I think 20 AP is a little too steep. Resubmit and make it 10 AP and I'd vote keep. --Reaper with no name TJ! 19:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. spam - way overpowered. You don't understand the game mechanics if you think this is balancing things out. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 11:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Spam - No. It's actually a dupe, somewhere out there. And actually, death by headshot playing as a zombie is nothing. At all. They probably need more of a penalty for death, in my opinion. -Mark D. Stroyer 19:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. What are you smoking? -Zombies do dot need a buff nor do survivors need a nerf. at all. whatsoever. --AlexanderRM 9:22 PM, 16 March 2007 (EST)

Allow Survivors To Destroy Art

Timestamp: --Priz 02:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Type: Minor Change
Scope: Art Critics
Description: This is my first ever suggestion, so correct me please if I screw something up.

It's pretty simple. Right now the only way for art pieces to be destroyed is for a zombie to ransack the building they're in. It only makes sense that survivors should be able to target them, as they are able to target gennies, cades, and radios. Also, I've heard that having too many art pieces makes it impossible to put down other more important things, like the aformentioned radios and generators, and allowing art to be attacked would fix that.

Edit: I edited this because my computer glitched and accidentally posted an unrealated link right in the center of the suggestion. Hope it doesnt matter.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep/Change - Sometimes pieces of art are inapropriate, like for example skeletons in the besieged buildings. ransack as the only way to remove them isn't good. however i would be much more glad if it would be a possibility to replace the piece of art or even to take it from the room in your inventory than just destroying --Duke Garland 10:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - Until I see some proof that loading down a safehouse with the complete works of Picasso keeps you from setting up a generator, I'm voting kill. --User:Eatatjoes 12:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill - I like the way that art works at the minute: the amount of art gives an indication of how long it's been since a building was last ransacked. If other voters can confirm that art prevents new gennies being set down, I'd be willing to vote keep, but at the minute it sounds like it was most likely just a rumour. Oh, and the editing you did was fine cause no-one else had voted on the suggestion, and you were tidying it up, not changing the details. --Toejam 12:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - I think the rumor you heard had to do with picking up equipment while carrying too much (encumbrance), not for setting it up once you have it... Wow, encumbrance for buildings. That would suck. --Matt Scott 9 12:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. As Eatatjoes. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 12:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill - Toejam has an excellent point.--Vista 13:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill - it's nice to be able to set something up that griefers can't immediately smash. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 15:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill - Missing some essential details (hit %, damage that can be taken, etc.). --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 18:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill - Why destroy my lovely makeover of the local pub?? --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 00:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Kill - No. I don't want a griefer to destroy all the art. --Kamden 00:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Kill/change -If survivors shouldn't be able to destroy art, think about this... what's the difference, gameplay-wise, (appart from where you found it and search odds) bettween art and christmas decorations? NOTHING! --AlexanderRM 9:26 PM, 16 March 2007 (EST)
  11. Incomplete - As ZombieSlay3r pointed out. --Reaper with no name TJ! 19:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

Revise Ransack

Timestamp: Billy Bubba 15:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Type: Balance Change
Scope: Zombie Skill
Description: Recently, the "Salt the Earth" campaign has had me thinking. It seems every time a Necrotech center gets cleared out, twice as many zombies are there the next day. I came to realize that Ransack, as written, encourages Zombie Zerging of Necrotech Centers. Having a zombie stand up and enter a building doesn't take much in the way of actions and a single zombie player can have zombies standing in numerous Nectro Tech centers for the sole purpose of preventing revives.

This is a system ripe for abuse.

My suggestion is that Ransack make it more difficult, but not impossible, to search a building. Just as having a generator makes it easier to search a building, ransacking could do the reverse. Making searches 20-50% less likely to succeed. Survivors still have a reason to clear out a building and repair building damage, but a horde of Zerged zombies can't destroy an entire function of the game simply by standing in one place.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep It isn't until one watches zombie numbers continue to double in one spot that a person might give this a lot of thought. But I seriously believe that the Ransack skill encourages Zerging to prevent survivors from being able to repair the damage.--Billy Bubba 16:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep -I don't like punishing fair players to hurt zergers, but hey, NOBODY likes a game with 100% zombies. --AlexanderRM 9:31 PM, 16 March 2007 (EST)
  3. Keep - Theoretically, zombies could "win" the game by taking every NT building. In that (extremely unlikely) scenario, even creating new characters would not give survivors a way to come back (as they would never be able to revive anyone). This prevents that. Heck, I'm a zombie sympathizer and I even see the need for this. Ransack is pretty freaking powerful right now. It's not like letting survivors search in them (at severely decreased rates) is going to have any significant impact on the game, since 90% of the time said survivors would just go to the next NT. --Reaper with no name TJ! 20:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - Your argument about zombie zergers could equally be applied to survivors. A zerger fills a building with survivor alts. Zombies can not ransack until all survivors have been killed. --SporeSore 16:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Re Actually, I'm not talking about people putting a bunch of alts in one building. I'm pointing out that groups of folks can each have ten alts in ten buildings. BUT, to use your example, a zerger with multiple zombie alts in one building doesn't have a penalty on Ransacking (that I'm aware of) while a survivor Zerger at least has search penalties. --Billy Bubba 16:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill - The game has measures to deal with abuse. Also SporeSore has a very good point. --Preasure 16:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Re Yes, the game has measures to avoid abuse, and they get updated, which means that they aren't perfect right? --Billy Bubba 16:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Re - Nothing in the game is perfect, or ever really can be. Expanding on your comment to SporeSore, if people aren't breaking game rules they shouldn't be penalised for it. If players want to use ransack alts to hold buildings, as long as they don't zerg it's perfectly legal and shouldn't be penalised. --Preasure 20:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. kill He has a point about the abusability of ransack but punishing fair players probably isn't the way forwards. In anycase I think Sporesore is closer to the truth as i have seen 3 groups of almost certain zergers in the last week alone! Trouble is I don't think the Alt abuse flags pick up such tactics as they are not technically interacting? --Honestmistake 16:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Listen, Zerging is easy to do. Regardless. All one has to do is switch IPs reguraly. I know that. Most people know that. But it is also easy for Suriviors as well, and they do such a thing to protect Malls, and NTs from being ransacked. But I also think you are crying over a tactic to deny Suriviors the right to revive...which I feel is a great tactic that should not be nerfed. Barricade bots harm zombies...but that doesn't mean one should nerf barricades SOLEY For that reason. I'll need to think of something...--ShadowScope 18:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Mold, you're wrong. In the past, you could search, but now, you get a message saying: You try to search, but the building is ransacked."
  5. Kill - Ransack should make buildings unsearchable due to the massive amount of damage and debris. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 18:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill - I don't think this is very acceptable with the current game mechanics. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 00:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

  1. Dupe - of existing game mechanics. Ransack already makes it difficult (but not impossible) to successfully search buildings. Try it yourself, spend 20-30 AP searching a sacked building like I did awhile back looking for a flak jacket. You'll probably find a few things (I got a radio) but not much. --Mold 18:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC) EDIT: ShadowScope, you're saying there was a big change to ransack today? Because that searching the ransacked building I did happened yesterday. You do get a message blaming ransack when you fail, but, you don't always fail. Try it sometime rather than telling me I'm wrong because I point out the uselessness of this suggestion. --Mold 01:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Dupe - In-game mechanics. You're kinda slow, aren't you? -Mark D. Stroyer 19:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Plus, what you suggested does nothing to prevent zombie zerging. It actually encourages it even more. -Mark D. Stroyer 19:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Heavy Lifting

Timestamp: Canuhearmenow Hunt! 19:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Type: New Skill.
Scope: Able to carry more items.
Description: During the course of the Quarantine, Maltons survivor population has been getting stronger, carrying multiple gennys and shotguns does that to a person.This would add a new 100XP skill under Bodybuilding called "Heavy Lifting." This skill reduces by 1/2 the weight of all the "heavy" items (Aka all the items that cost more then 4 or more encumbrance points) This skill also works for zombies. Before you say that this would nerf the Encumbrance tweak, remember this: First off, this would take about 2 weeks before it gets cataloged, and even then, will Kevan just look at this and implement it? This is mean't as a suggestion that is kept on the back burner until it is needed.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - Author Vote, been gone a while, but now I am back.--Canuhearmenow Hunt! 19:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep - such a good idea for gamers who carrie alot of items.--Idiot fas 22:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep - It's a plan. MAkes a lot of sense, what with people being stronger than others in the real world. Also makes self sufficient survivors like myself better to play as. .--Seventythree

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - Incomplete, almost all items Encuberance is 4 points. That limit would be better at 6 or 7 points. --Mosqu GCM GRR! 20:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. KILL - It's "encumbrance" not "weight". It's not possible to have that many items on you person. --Graaj 21:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - True enough, it's not the weight. You might be able to carry more weight, but not more items once you get to a point. Even if this was implemented, should probably limit to items with very, very high encumberance, like the portable generator. --Storyteller 00:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - Half?? Er, I might have voted keep if it was 1/4, or increased carrying capacity by 20%, but not half of all heavy items - that's what brings you down in the first place. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 00:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill - Dux has an excellent point. --Kamden 00:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill/change -yeah, make it like 3/4. By the way Graaj... who said anything about "people"? --ALexanderRM 9:35 PM, 16 Narch 2007 (EST)
  7. Kill - I like the current system. It makes the optimum (IMO) strategy (totally fill up your inventory before heading out into the field) more fun because it requires fewer days of searching. --Toejam 01:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill - 1/2 is a little too much, 1/4 seems better as suggested by Dux. Many items take up more than 4% encumbrance, so maybe it should be for items that take up more than 6%. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 15:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Kill - Leave encumberance alone. The current system is fine. --Anotherpongo 08:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Huh? So the weight of heavy items gets changed, but the weight of the lighter stuff doesn't? I don't have a problem with encumbrance tweaking, but isn't this magic? I mean, you're clearly talking about (whether you realize it or not) certain characters having the ability to modify the mass of (and/or the Earth's gravitational pull on) certain objects. Otherwise, the encumbrance level of all items would be affected. If you wanna tweak encumbrance, don't do it halfway. --Reaper with no name TJ! 20:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/16th-Mar-2007&oldid=1879272"