Suggestions/30th-Dec-2006

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.

Repaired Flak Jackets

Timestamp:	Reaper with no name TJ! 18:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Type:	Item Change
Scope:	Survivors with Flak Jackets
Description:	The Flak Jackets in Malton aren't very high quality due to the huge amounts of punishment they have taken over the long months and years since the initial outbreaks. Fed up with the terrible quality, survivors have begun learned how to repair them and restore some of the quality they possessed before the outbreaks occured. Ok, what the heck are you talking about? Basically, that's the roleplay explanation. What the suggestion actually means is this: flak jackets (when worn by survivors) absorb 20% more of the damage done by firearms attacks. Because of this, shotgun blasts will now do 6 damage, pistol shots will do 3 damage, and flare guns will do 9 damage. This bonus will not affect zombies, because their flak jackets are still just as ratty and damaged due to the zombies not being able to repair them. This nerfs PKing! No, it just makes it slightly more difficult. It takes an average of at least 103 AP per zombie to kill one survivor in an even battle (which means an equal number of survivors to zombies and equal amounts of metagaming). For a PKer, it takes only 62 (assuming they search in an unpowered PD). And this is a best case scenario for the zombie. I'm assuming that the survivor being attacked doesn't do any barricading whatsoever after each day. If we were to take that into account, it would be impossible for the zombie to kill the survivor (if all other things were equal) unless they got lucky. The point is that PKers completely and totally nerf zombies. This is meant to help address that.

Keep Votes
For Votes here

1. Author Keep -It's about time that there was actually a reason to play as a zombie. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 18:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Keep -I like this idea. Makes it a wee bit harder for PKers and Bounty Hunters, without making it impossible.--Guardian of Nekops 20:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Keep - Pretty good idea, but changing it to an extra 10% instead of 20(making a pistol do 4 damage half the time, and 3 damage the other half) might be a good idea. --Peterblue 20:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Keep Ahhh.. I see. While you're in human form you get to maintain your flak jacket, but while in zombie form.. it's just a bullet ridden rag that helps protect you but not as well. Um, keep but if you have to re-submit maybe make this a millitary skill called Equipment Maintenance that allows you to "gain" this additional benefit. That would be cool, good for millitary and the po-lice. I support this in the sense that human beings can also take cover as well (hence the millitary skill I suggested.) MrAushvitz 22:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Keep Do you hear that jingling? It's Santa and he's bring us all game balance! --Jon Pyre 23:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Keep - Great idea, the logic makes sense, and it helps survivors. (Don't bring up radios... I swear to god, if one person even says the word "Radio"...)--Labine50 ^MH|^ME|^P 03:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Reluctant Keep - Well, I guess that this suggestion isnt incomplete... I made it reluctant because it seems like just improving the flak jacket without needing to buy an extra skill or find a new item is a handout of some sort. You should need something in order to make this work... --GhostStalker 03:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Keep What, you mean I'll need to actually plan my super stealthy invisible ninja (tm) strike? Sounds good! Bluetigers 04:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
9. I like it, but I think it is a dupe. -Mark 05:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Conditional Keep - Make it an extra skill, and I'm all for it. -Thelightguy 08:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Gage is not smart enough to be a Mod, and this proved it - Also, this is a good idea --Gene Splicer 23:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Keep You know, why can't the PKer just use a fire axe and completely nerf this? flak jackets would still be unaffected, and acctually this would still mean there was an argument against wearing a flak jakect: if I had a flak jacket and this had been implemented when I started out, it would have prevented 16 points of damage from september 1 to now. and thats not even counting that he probably would have switched to an axe when he realised shotgun blasts did 4 less damage. wow, big nerf. --AlexanderRM 6:58 PM, 5 January 2007 (EST)
    

Kill Votes
Against Votes here

1. Kill - A tad bit overpowered. I do not want my pistols doing 3 damage if I'm bounty hunting. It'd be easier to use the axe.--Joe O'Wood TALKCONTRIBSUD 18:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

   Incomplete - A good idea overall, as I like the idea of being protected, but you havent told us how to upgrade the flak jacket. Is it a skill? An item? Or does this just automatically happen? If its the latter, I'll change my vote. --GhostStalker 21:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote. --GhostStalker 03:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

   • Re - It's automatic; that's why I didn't specifiy a way. Survivors are assumed to repair them in the background, just as they are assumed to eat and use the bathroom. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 21:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Kill - I like the general idea, but this is a bit overpowered. Best to use an axe if a pistol only hits for 3 damage. Also, the idea that it takes 20 pistol hits to kill a person is ridiculous. --Wikidead 22:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
   • Re- The pistol still has much higher accuracy and will thus still do damage faster than an axe. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 02:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Kill - Stupid. The living predominantly use flack jackets. So why do we now need to make a distinction between 'survivor' jackets and 'zombie' jackets? And yes, I did read the suggestion before you start pointing furiously. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 03:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Kill - until you explain how you reached those figures. --Funt Solo 10:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
   • Re-All right, let's assume X number of zombies attack an EHB with the same number of survivors in it. Now, assuming all other things are equal (number of skills, coordination, etc), the cost per zombie to destroy the barricades will be 68, because for each zombie destroying barricades there is one survivor putting them back up. Now, according to the combat calculator, it takes 34 AP for a zombie to kill a survivor. So, 68+34=102 AP for the zombie to kill a survivor (I was off by one in the actual suggestion). If a PKer searches in an unpowered PD, their attack efficiency is .98 against flak jackets according to the firearms vs melee weapons efficiency page. S0 60/.98=61.22, or 62 AP (since you can't use a fraction of an AP). --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 18:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
5. A Kill because it really doesn't prevent PKing as much, and it may sound reasonable. Yet, one has to use Fire Axes in order to kill people now, not Firearms. So it is a nerf, a big nerf. Oh, and, well, it would be a GREAT idea, if this gets implemented, for people to start GKing and BKing, and smile as their flak jackets asborb all the damage.--ShadowScope 02:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Kill - I'd put it the other way around. Zombies don't give a frak about blunt force trauma, so flack jackets would work REALLY well to protect them, even if somewhat degraded. Zombies certainly could use SOME sort of buff, and increasing survivor safety (vs PKs) is exactly the opposite of a zombie buff... --Swiers 05:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
7. kill i really want to vote keep on this cos it is a genuinely good idea and some of the SPAM voting morons below have pissed me off! Sadly though some peope have made good points and it just goes a little too far. Make it require a military skill or only last 10 hits and need AP to fix. Make it only 10% more effective so its 50-50 to reduce damage 2 in every 5 and make it exempt flare guns entirely (as flak already should) this damage is from fire not impact so should not realy be affected!--Honestmistake 03:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Kill This is an argument to improve the combat ability of zombies, not to decrease the ability of PKers. Secondly, why not allow zombies to have improved flak jackets also?--User: Bassander 9:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
   

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - "This doesnt nerf it, it just makes it more difficult". That is a nerf you moron. Here is a clue: If i wanted to play with a zombies efficiency, I would play a bloody zombie. This is way overpowered. It has yet to be shown that PKers are a problem to the games balance, and until they do, any suggestion to pummel them like this one is premature and senseless. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 20:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
   • Re - I would think you of all people would know what the word nerf means, but clearly you don't. To nerf something is to weaken it to the point of uselessness. And I already showed that PKing is unbalanced. Look at the numbers. It takes much less AP for a zombie to kill a survivor than it does for a PKer. Heck, even under this suggestion PKers are still more efficient than zombies. According to the suggestion dos and do nots, rare does not equal balance, so if individual PKers are unbalanced,, then PKers as a whole are. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 21:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Incomplete- it's not been thought through. Massively nerfs PKers, Bounty Hunters, Zerg Hunters and text raper Hunters. 20 on target pistol shots to kill on person? Takes away from the tactical decision of whether to wear a Flak Jacket or not- do I go for that teeny bit extra ammo, or near-invulnerability. I second what Grim said- is PKing really that much of a problem? And is it not more fun to deal with in the metagame? --The Supreme Court ^RR 21:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Spam - I never played the PKing part of the game: I suffered it from sadistic guys that enjoyed to cause innecesary suffering, that is called griefing. Now, neither I do complain against that, nor I do wish this to change: The incapability of survivors to help each other at a zombie outbreak IS and SHOULD be the main reason that the zombie plague is so effective and dangerous, PERIOD. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 03:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Spam Ok, I changed my mind. This is a nerf and you know it. Being a member of red rum I can say that we aren't a HUGE factor in game play. Sure, we may mass a big attack every now and then, but is pking such a problem we need over powered flack jakcets to get rid of it? You could have just suggested remove the ability to player kill. Screw you. --Mayor Fitting 05:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
   • Re- There are 2 reasons why I would never suggest the removal of PKing: 1) People like you enjoy it, and you deserve to have fun just like everyone else. 2) It is the only way to combat GKing, RKing, etc. My problem with PKing is not that it exists but that it nerfs zombies. It takes 62 AP for a PKer to kill, assuming they search in an unpowered PD. For a zombie, that takes 102 AP, assuming no one repairs the barricades. If the effectiveness of PKers could be brought down to around the same level as a zombie's, then I would have no problem with PKing, because it would then be balanced. I'm sick of spending my days hacking away at barricades while people like you just free-run in and do what would require 10 zombies to achieve. Sure, you may not have a large effect on the game, but that's only because there are so few of you. Rare does not equal balanced. As long as 1 PKer is more powerful than 1 zombie, then PKing as a whole will always be unbalanced. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 02:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
5. It doesn't take 103AP to kill a survivor when you are a zombie. It takes ~30. Do your math again. Idiot.--Gage 05:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
   • Re- They have to destroy the barricades first, remember? Assuming an equal number of barricading defenders, that means that the average cost for each zombie is 68(to destroy the barricades)+the cost to actually kill a survivor(which is actually 34 according to the combat calculator, so I was off by one). That comes out to 102 AP. My point still remains. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 02:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Spam - So zombies get worse Flak Jackets, eh? Even if they fixed them before hand, eh? Why so, tough guy? Reduce damage by 2 per 5? Wow, makes PKing useless. No, really, it does. wtf use my pistols, wtf waste time loading up shotguns? Everyone's gonna have this ability, no doubt. As an RRF Gore Corps member, I demand you stop being a motherfucking retard.--Polter 08:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
   • re- Because they got damaged when the zombie died. And even under this suggestion, the PKers will still be more powerful than zombies. Multiply it out using the equations in the firearms vs melee weapon efficiency page, and you'll see that it will still only take 82-83 AP for a PKer to kill someone if they are searching in an unpowered PD. Why don't you stop being a retard and check your math before you claim that this makes PKing useless? You can't argue with simple mathematics. PKers are more efficient than zombies, end of story. If you don't like this and want PKers to keep nerfing zombies, then just say so; Stop trying to make outlandish claims like "PKers aren't unbalanced" when you have no evidence backing it up and I've already demonstrated mathematically why they are. 2 and 2 does not equal 5, no matter how much you want it to. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 02:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

::RE Polter, I love you. --Mayor Fitting 01:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Invalid re struck --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 02:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

---

---