Suggestions/28th-Jan-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: 11th-Feb-2006

Communications Improvement

Spaminated 3 spam, 1 kill --Jack-Swithun 18:29, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)

SLA, I'm still sorry -Eddo36

Spaminated, even though it only had 1 spam vote by Zaruthustra. Not a violation of the rules because the rules say suggestions must have 3 spam votes and no non-author keeps to delete and this was not a suggestion but a link to a forum discussion about whether Malton was in England or America. here it is if you want it: http://urbandead.proboards52.com/index.cgi?board=areaoftheliving&action=display&thread=1138248144 --Jon Pyre 01:37, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)

  • Sorry for posting even though I'm not a moderator, but shouldn't he be banned for advertising? --Shadow213 01:41, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Eddo is now banned from the Suggestions page. Feel free to revert any of his edits here. --LibrarianBrent 06:04, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Wirecutters First: Generator improvement

Timestamp: 02:01, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Survivors
Description: It's too easy for survivors to destroy generators. Zombies have it hard enough, having to break through barricades first but any survivor can swat the generator for a few AP and destroy something that took 30+ AP to set up. Here's the suggestion: If a generator is powered a survivor must first cut the cable connecting it to the building with their wirecutters (with insulated handles). That has the effect of turning off the generator without destroying it and any fuel in the generator is lost as the generator consumes it purposelessly. You'd want to disconnect the generator before firing a shotgun at it, otherwise a cable might whip through the air and give you a shock, or your axe could hit the cable inside the generator and you'd get a nasty shock (remember, a fire axe wouldn't have a wooden handle), and it might be difficult to unplug the cable if it goes into another room or if you'd have to sort out a large number of wires to find which one was it. To cut the cable all you'd have to do is click on your wirecutters when the powers on. It'd be as hard to destroy as a barricade with these kind of messages for failure and success: "You grip your wirecutters tightly and but only manage to cut through the insulation." "You snip through the cable. The lights immediately go out." Then you could attack the generator as normal. The generator is assumed to be as strong as one level of barricades. When powered it would in essence be as strong as two levels of barricading, one level of power to be cut first and one level the generator itself. This would make destroying a generator be slightly closer in AP cost to the price of finding and fueling one, though it wouldn't make it harder to turn off power. This would not affect zombies at all. They would be able to attack a generator as normal, powered or no. They don't need to worry about electric shocks, they're already dead.

Votes

  1. Kill - Another griefning use for wirecutters. No. --hagnat 02:05, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • ReThis is an exception though. This isn't so much a tool for griefing as a prerequisite for griefing. It makes it harder to grief because you need wirecutters and it costs twice as much AP as currently. While wirecutters would be used by griefers it would make griefing harder. This isn't "Wirecutters can be used to cause more grief" but "If you still want to grief as you are now you'll need wirecutters" It would reduce overall griefing, or at least balance the cost of griefing. --Jon Pyre 02:11, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill "To make something complicated is most simple, but to make something simple is most complicated." Georgy Shpagin, inventor of the PPSh SMG of WWII fame. Why do you need to invent a complicated method of shutting off generators?. AllStarZ 02:12, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re I think it's pretty simple. Just click on wirecutters to turn off the power and then attack the generator. --Jon Pyre 02:13, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • This a needless addition. Besides, if you just fire at the electric motor, it would probably stop with no shorting out. AllStarZ 02:18, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Or it would explode as your bullet hits the fuel. As I said, you wouldn't want to risk a live wire whipping around the room. Making sure the current to the building is severed is a pretty good idea. And though this suggestion is realistic I'm not trying to argue realism here but that it's a good change to a game mechanic. Just because you could probably shoot a generator from fifty feet away doesn't mean we should rely on realism, we don't let people shoot zombies through windows from another block because realism isn't always good. --Jon Pyre 02:20, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
        • You ARE trying to argue realism. AllStarZ 03:10, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
        • I'm really not, I'm just trying to pacify people who do care about realism by having a good explanation. But it's the gameplay mechanic I care about, not the realism. I want the cost of destroying a generator to be somewhat comparable to traveling to a mall, finding it, traveling to a hardware store, finding fuel, traveling to the building you want to power, setting it up, and fueling it. This would still make destroying a generator cost less than getting one but it'd be more balanced and lessen the effectiveness of griefing. --Jon Pyre 03:24, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
          • People could simply cut the power repeatedly, and that would still perform the same effect, considering that the fuel would be completely used up and people have to refuel it. AllStarZ 03:33, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
          • Re Finding fuel is easier than finding fuel and a generator. That said, any further discussion really does have to take place on the discussion page. --Jon Pyre 03:34, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
            • Last post. I just realized this. Even if you snap the wire, the generator is still running and is still generating electricity. It would then still be dangerous. AllStarZ 01:03, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)
            • Comment: Shouldn't this discussion be on the talk page? --Scorpious 04:26, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Jon, really...enough with the various suggestions to make it difficult to destroy generators. It is not personal, but I mean, this is about the tenth suggestion like this from you alone in the last week. I (and a lot of other people, apparently) think generators are fine the way they are. Everybody got along just fine in the game for a long time before they were ever around. Consider them a bonus, and move on. Bentley Foss 04:47, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Because I think it's unfair that a few people can easily destroy the efforts of 70 others to keep a building powered. The building I was living in couldn't keep a generator going for even an hour. It seems unfair it costs a days AP to find a generator and only a little bit of AP for another survivor to destroy it. I might as well not have took Necronet. People playing in a way the game has no way to counteract have essentially taken away the generator improvement for these buildins. --Jon Pyre 19:03, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - Maybe you could move to another building, hmm? Bentley Foss 03:50, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Re All the Necrotech buildings in the suburb have the same problem. This isn't a rare problem. It's widespread in any area with high levels of both survivors and zombies. --Jon Pyre 04:44, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill -- Again why would ANYONE want to destroy a generator in the first place? THis can only be used by Zombie Spies. --Kirk Howell 13:54, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Yes, but it wouldn't make griefing easier. It would make it harder. You'd have to carry wirecutters, forcing you to first find them and to have less inventory space, and then it'd cost TWICE as much AP to destroy a powered generator than an unpowered one. This would reduce griefing, not increase it. --Jon Pyre 19:12, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Re I understand this suggestion better now, but it does not do ENOUGH to prevent destrution of generators. could ,once the wire been cut if the Spy/Griefer is caught and excecuted, the wire be re conected with no damage to the generator itself ? Maybe the sucsesful cutting of a wire would not be certain, perhaps the Griefer could cut the wire improperly and electricute himself to death? perhaps the wirecutter would get worn by excesive cutting, or randomly break. I think a stronger suggestion would more likely pass Peer review. Might i point out that your suggestion(for me) was confusing, at first i thought it was makign it easier to destroy a genearator. Re-work the suggestion to make it harder, and provide some numbers to show how( in terms of AP useage or penalties) this will deter or make harder the destruction of a generator --Kirk Howell 21:15, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Wouldnt it be easier to destroy a generator with say a shotgun, or the back side of a fire axe than a dinky little pair of wirecutters?--Uncle Willy 14:16, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re You aren't attacking the generator, you're cutting the power. You don't want to risk touching a flowing current. Then you can attack it without the worry of getting shocked. --Jon Pyre 19:17, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - replying to some here: At the moment i sit in a NT which has lost 5 Generators in 3 days due to survivors/zpies, so there are SOME who want to destroy it. It may be easier to destroy it with weapons, but everyone would notice that - which we don't (yes, i do argue "realism", but even in Z-movies some realism is there, like cows don't jump over the moon). So, this suggestion would (a) give wirecutters some meaning and (b) reduce -although only minimal- the chance to be griefed by zpies.--Falk 15:46, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re 5 Generators in 3 days? Heck, I'd be fine with that. My building literally can't keep one going for an hour. --Jon Pyre 18:59, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill ? At the moment I sit outside Ackland Mall, which has been under siege for two weeks, so there are SOME who keep barricading it. It might be easier to attack with weapons, but only the living can do that?which we aren't. So I propose breakaway barricades which would A) give survivors a little more fear in their bellies and a little more meat in mine, and B) reduce the?although only minimal?chance to be frustrated by an even playing field. ? Bartle 18:27, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - And why does the guy above me seem to be voting on a barricade suggestion? --TheTeeHeeMonster 18:36, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep I think it's an attempt at satire maybe. I think he didn't read the part where I said this only applies to suvivors and imagines I'm trying to make destroying generators harder for zombies, which I'm not. TO EVERYONE: THIS DOES NOT ENCOURAGE GRIEFING. IT WOULD MAKE IT HARDER TO GRIEF NOT EASIER. And it would still be easier to destroy generators than to set them up. Just this way there'd be something of a balance between the AP cost of finding and destroying for survivors. That's the real problem here. That survivors can destroy generators far easier than they can find them, and so one person can stop many from getting power with no way to counteract them. --Jon Pyre 19:06, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • It was parody. Not so much about your suggestion but about the vote that preceded mine. I read and understood your suggestion, but I do not agree with it. Bartle 21:04, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - a survivor must first cut the cable connecting it to the building with their wirecutters (with insulated handles). That has the effect of turning off the generator without destroying it and any fuel in the generator is lost as the generator consumes it purposelessly. You are saying that it makes it harder to DESTROY, which looks like it's true, but is all you have to do is cut the wires and power would be already out? Well hell, since I only have to do it 1-5 times, might as well go buliding to building and cut the power... NO! Ps (just wanted to point out the main reason so I wouldn't just be killing for "realistic purposes") If you are stupid enough to sleep sleep in front of a zombie (I know a couple people that did it with my guy), then you're going to be stupid enough to just shoot the damn thing instead of cutting it.
    • Re You could turn off power without destroying the generator for the current difficulty of destroying a generator. So it wouldn't be easier to turn off power. It'd be just as difficult and it'd be extra difficult if you wanted to destroy the generator too. I think that is a good way of compensating someone for the extra AP they spent finding fuel. And as for your second point, just because someone might be stupid enough to do something doesn't mean the game lets them. You can find fuel but we don't let people spread it around the floor and burn buildings down. This isn't a realism issue, this is to balance the extra cost of finding fuel. --Jon Pyre 20:35, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - Jon, anything that makes living folks have a harder time destroy a generator will always get my vote! Keep it up! -- Nicks 22:58, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - This makes it even easier to turn out the lights! Just cut the cable, and all the fuel goes away. Instead of using several AP's to disable a genny, now you just need a couple, and you just keep going *snip* whle everyone else spends all that time looking for fuel! Rock On! - Serpico 03:13, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - Sounds like a good idea. a bit confused at what some people have interpreted this suggestion as. To the person above, it takes as long to snip the cable as it would to destroy it. --Coagmano 03:17, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - So, how would you reatach the cable, oce it has been cut, and wouldn't the genorator still be running so you would still risk electric shock? --Mr NoName 18:31, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 6 Keep, 8 Kill, 0 Spam - 18:37, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Vaccine Syringe

Timestamp: 3:51, 28 Jan 2006 (EST)
Type: Item
Scope: Survivors
Description: I suggest that a Vaccine Syringe can be made that prevents a survivor from getting an infection from a zombie with the Infectious Bite skill. To create a syringe:


1. First, you need a scientist, or doctor skill (for instance "Vaccination".
2. Second you need to DNA scan a zombie with the Infectious Bite skill, or a survivor with an infection.
3. Third, you need to bring the DNA sample to a Necrotech Building running NecroNet, or a Hospital running a portable generator. Use 10 AP to create a syringe (similar to creating a revivification syringe).
4. Once created, any survivor it is used on can't get an infection from a zombie with the Infectious Bite skill. This effect wears off after a certain amount of AP is used, and the survivor needs to get re-vaccinated.
Note: This does NOT cure an Infection. The Vaccine Syringe does not work on a survivor with an infection. It simply prevents infection.

Votes

  1. Kill - Multi-step skills are bad. See: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Keep_It_Simple.21.21 - Serpico 21:23, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - the mechanics are perfectly fine, just so long as the "certain amount of AP" is low enough. However, this will be killed for its server problems. I'm personally of the opinion that no suggestion should be judged on anything other than its effects on the game itself, and Kevan should decide server issues, thus the Keep.--'STER-Talk-Mod 21:44, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Too many hospitals with power and infected people in them, this would be too easy to get. Once it got widespread it would horribly nerf zombies with the infectious bite skill --CPQD 22:14, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Raise the AP and I'll reconsider. --TheTeeHeeMonster 22:34, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Multi-step... too hard on the servers. Also I dont particularly care for the idea.--Uncle Willy 00:52, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Don't negate my zombie's skills.--Mookiemookie 01:40, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill if you changed it to only preventing a single infection (thus the first infectuous bite you took would not be infected, but when that zed bit you again.. youd be infected) then i'd vote keep -- P0p0 02:59, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - It's a bad idea (and next time can you put your idea on the bottom of the page as it's a nightmare for the people cycling the pages to have to keep moving the suggestions around).--The General 08:47, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - I'm sure this is a dupe also. Velkrin 09:12, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - Make it do 1 damage and give no xp. Last time I checked, being stabed with fifty needles without medical atention is fatal, especialy in a harsh enviroment like Malton. --Mr NoName 18:26, 30 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 2 Keep, 8 Kill, 0 Spam - 18:37, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Flak Jacket functionality change

Duped Here and here --Jak Rhee 18:15, 28 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/28th-Jan-2006&oldid=260406"