Suggestions/7th-Mar-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

Unnatural Gait

This idea has been Spaminated with 7 spams, 1 kill, and 1 author keep. No free XP. As Velkrin said "Your suggestions keep getting killed because they are unbalanced or just flat out bad. If you actually expect something to pass, either revise, taking into account what the voters said, or use the discussion page to work it into something balanced." --CPQD 03:59, 7 March 2006 (GMT)

Conserve Ammunition: Reload Skill

Timestamp: 04:27, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors, Military
Description: This is a revision of Ammo Conservation. You have experience reloading weapons and efficiently organizing your ammunition. A survivor with Reload prefers keeping their ammunition in as few guns as possible and hates to throw away bullets. When a survior with this skill reloads a weapon the total number of ammunition currently in their guns they have is moved into as few guns as possible, and if there are excess shots they are not thrown away but combined into a new item. Here's how it would work:

You have Pistol (4), Pistol (1), Pistol (2), Pistol (3). 10 shots total. You load one pistol clip into your guns. Here's what your new inventory looks like: Pistol (6), Pistol (6), Pistol (4), Pistol 0. 16 shots total.

What happens if you don't have room in your guns for all the new bullets? Let's say you don't have room for the new bullets you're loading. Your inventory has Pistol (5), Pistol (4), Pistol (6) 15 shots total and only room for 3 more bullets in the guns. You load a clip. Your guns are now full and the excess bullets are moved into a new item called "Bullets (X)". X would be the total number of loose bullets in your inventory, they'd all be lumped into that one item. In this case assuming you didn't have loose bullets already it'd be Bullets (3). Every six shots in Bullets (X) counts as an item and any number not divisible by six would be rounded up. For example Bullets (13) would count as three items. Clicking on Bulletx (X) would cost 1AP and load up to six shots into your guns, the same as clicking on a pistol clip. You would be able to discard Bullets (X) but it would first only discard as many as needed to bring X down to the nearest multiple of six, and then it would discard six bullets at a time. This is to allow people to free up some room in their inventory without having to chuck bullets they want to keep.

Shotguns would work similarly You have Shotgun (1), Shotgun (1), Shotgun (1). You load a shell. Now you have Shotgun (2), Shotgun (2), Shotgun (0). The only difference is that there would not be a "Shells (X)" button. Since each shot is an individual item there is no need to combine shells the way you'd combine excess pistol shots.

In Conclusion This is a simple change that just reduces clutter from inventories. It does not allow players to carry more ammunition than they can now, nor does it reduce the AP cost to load bullets into guns. All it does it allow you to keep your bullets in as few guns as possible and to not have to throw away bullets. It works both from a flavor perspective (why would a sane person throw away ammunition or carry twice as many guns as they need?) and from a game mechanics position.

Votes

  1. Keep Author vote. Doesn't give anything away. You still have to find the ammo and load the ammo at the same cost. Just makes sense not to have to carry unneeded guns and not to throw away bullets. --Jon Pyre 04:30, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep You shoudn't really need to use it in most cases, anyways. --McArrowni 04:40, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill Most likely, if the pistols are using clips, then it's not like it's easy to get the bullets out of the clips. You reload your gun, then you take your other clip out and throw it away. It's not a hassle to fire that free shot and then reload your gun. Dickus Maximus 05:58, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep I like it --Deathnut RAF 06:20, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill As it is now, you need to consider the advantage of having fully loaded guns all the time, or using all of your bullets. It is a tactical decision. I like it that way. Its like when you play goldeneye, and you have three bullets left in the pp7, but only a few clips left, so you don't reload, and its another layer of strategy. Removing this would make for one less thing for players to do, although it would be convenient. I vote for stuff to do in this case. -Banana Bear4 06:29, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re It's not stuff to do. It's fire every shot before you search for ammunition again or end up with Pistol (3) Pistol (2) Pistol (4) Pistol (2) Pistol (1). Why should players be penalized for keeping their guns at ready by having a crazy disorganized inventory. --Jon Pyre 15:39, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Goldeneye had spare bullets, not spare clips. Fool. --Matson Jade 17:18, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep (change) - A good idea which has been suggested before, but I think it would be better as well as less complicated to have the skill add a "Consolidate Ammo" button which would do what you suggest, at a cost of 1 AP (this would make the players think about when they really want to use it, and also eliminate the need for "Bullets (X)"). --Norcross 07:09, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Dupe Ta-da! Alton Brown 08:03, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re This is a revision of Ammo Conservation changed in response to voter's comments. I wrote that suggestion too, this is my second attempt. Please change your Dupe vote to keep or kill. --Jon Pyre 15:34, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - Not a dupe. The mechanics of this skill are definitely different. I find it funny that you use Goldeneye Banana Bear, seeing as that game's ammo system didn't use clips, just bullets/total_ammo. Try Battlefield 1942 for your argument. I know you can reload magazines with new rounds, right? So this is basically just doing that. --Pinpoint 08:56, 7 March 2006 (GMT) EDIT: Okay, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here Alton. Did you mistakenly erase my vote? --Pinpoint 08:56, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - I still don't quite get why this is needed, but I like how you've constructed the mechanics. --John Ember 17:05, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - i dont like the stuff where you move bullets around for free. The greatest idea for ammo conservation would be to use the emptyest gun first. This way, if you have Pistol(6), Pistol(4) it will shot with Pistol(4) until its ammo is over. But it probably was already suggested. --hagnat talk 18:38, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep--'STER-Talk-Mod 21:38, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - What 'STER said ^. --Blahblahblah 22:08, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill -There are better out there already, and it wouldn't surprise me if some of them are yours already. I don't think we need every possible solution.--Vista 00:04, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - Great idea> I dont understand how you can not vote keep. --TheBigT 00:56, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - I liked your previous version better. Click on Pistol (4) and get Pistol (0) and Bullets (4). I would still think that both the un-loading and re-loading should cost 1 AP.--Jim Stevens 06:09, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 9 Keep, 5 Kill, 1 Dupe 05:21, 27 March 2006 (BST)

Incremental Improvement

Timestamp: 07:11, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Universal or Widespread Skill Improvement
Scope: Any unmodified skill
Description: A Hobby for the Killer Elite

Let's give all those maxed-out characters in UD something to do with those unused xp, something so ridiculously expensive that they won't run out of ways to spend it. Put simply, spend 100 xp, raise a specific skill 1%; limited to doing this up to 5 times per any single skill(total possible improvement to any one skill - 5%). A lot of us have basic skills that could use a 5% increase, and 5% won't break the game in most cases. I can see problems with 5% adding up on stacked skills, so no doubt limits would be placed on raising stacking skills, (at the beginning for sure). Where you honestly think it would cause problems- don't allow it at first. 100xp is a hellova lot to burn for a 1% improvement when you're level 4, but after you've maxed both human and zed skills out, blowing 100xp to improve your Construction skill by 1%, or Vigour Mortis by 1%, or Basic Firearms Training by 1%, or even Neck Lurch, or your Hand To Hand Combat, even by 1% would seem pretty nice. I'm currently walking around with 600xp and not a blasted thing to do with it. I'm by no means alone here. raising six skills by 1% or even one skill by 5% would be darn nice and would feel like I'm still learning something. A different option would be having the ability to raise basic stats like HP, Movement, or your innate search skill by 1%. This sort of XP sponge would easily keep high-level guys busy upgrading for years to come, without completely unbalancing the game for everyone else. People wouldn't be forced to spend points on this sort of micro-improvement, but people who really wanted to see things get better, even a little, would be very happy to have the option. Let me point out that improving a 20% skill by 1% would mean a far greater percentage improvement in that skill than improving a 65% skill by 1%. In Conclusion Sounds like a big change at first, but in reality it would be low impact if done gradually to selected skills. Implemented on a few skills, and expanded as Kevan became comfortable with the game effects, this could keep people busy improving their characters for years. -Syncline

Votes

  1. Kill After maybe, four monthes of play, my main had 1700 surplus xp. So I think this would make a big boost for older players and make it harder for new players. Also this reads more like an idea you had than a fully fleshed out suggestion.. it's a neat idea though. -Banana Bear4 07:42, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - this is more or less the reason why I quit another online free MMORPG, "Navy Field" - it's because veteran players had so great an advantage, us noobs would get slaughtered left and right with extremely little chance of XP gain. It's also a reason why said MMORPG is widely despised by many. If there is one suggestion guaranteed to kill Urban Dead as a game, this is it. Alton Brown 08:00, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - I hardly think a +5% to attack is comparable to taking a frigate or cruiser up against a battleship of an experienced player who knows how to play the game well. What about the Beginner are in Navy Field? Or do the "big boys" get to play there, too? Anyway, like Banana said, this doesn't seem to be fully thought out. Get a more solid suggestion, and I'll probably Keep it. --Pinpoint 08:48, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill Topping out your levels and having a "super elite" character is not that hard to accomplish. Multiply it by a billion and I don't like it. I believe the percentages are fine where they're at--Mookiemookie 13:21, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - I would be more open to this if the XP cost were much higher, and if you specified which skills could be incremented in this way. --John Ember 17:07, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - I like the general idea, and think the XP cost is right. However, it needs a little more thought - boosting a 20% search chance to 25% is a big step. Also, can you boost Basic Firearms Training by 5%, Pistol Training by 5%, and then Advanced Pistol Training by 5% each, and get 80% to hit with a pistol? A straight +1% to a specific weapon (or Construction, but probably not Search) would be better. --Norcross 17:29, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Things like this only serve to throw off the balance of the game to a large degree. Velkrin 19:27, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - I don't see why people are freaking out about this. Talking about this throwing off game balance is like saying "(pick any existing skill) throws off game balance" because the higher level people have it and the "noobs" don't. It's open to both sides, both sides have players with unused XP they'd like to spend. Spending 100 XP for a 1% increase on something is much less game balance upsetting than buying an existing skill that raises it 15% (etc.) for 100 XP. This gives players something to do after maxing out on skills - and it's open to everyone as well. I love the idea of having something to do with all my extra XP. I like where you are going with this - but you need to refine your idea a little more - I think you are close to something good, but taking it to the suggestion discussion page would be a wise move. Gather more input there, polish it up and resubmit. --Blahblahblah 22:28, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - I could take +5 on shotgun, +5 on pistol +5 on axe +5 on construction +5 on searching +5 on claws +5 on bite and +5 on... etc. etc. Max every possibilaty out, have a unstoppable uber super mega character that would be seriously unbalancing and no fun at all to play. And I still could complain about unspent XP right now! At some point Xp is just becomes useless, it isn't a problem, your suggestion isn't a solution. Just... learn to live with it. --Vista 23:57, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - Very good suggestion. I dont know why everyone is screaming it is hurting the game balance. By increasing your chances of hitting with a shotgun from 65% to 70% is nothing big. I mean it would cost 500XP to go all the way to 70% when I got to 65% with no more than three skills that cost 75XP each. Everyone that is voting kill because they claim that this would make an uber soldier did not fully think out their kill votes. --TheBigT 01:06, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - I like the basic concept. I do think that the suggestion needs to be polished up as mentioned above. State which skills you feel should be improved. Also, perhaps consider a rising XP requirement (i.e. 100xp for 'Elite Pistol Training (1)', 200xp for 'Elite Pistol Training (2)',400xp for 'Elite Pistol Training (3)', etc). The higher level you become, the easier it is to gain XP.--Jim Stevens 06:20, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - This is unbalancing, purely because survivors have so many more useful skills they could upgrade than zombies do.---WibbleBRAINS 17:33, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 2 Keep, 10 Kill, 0 Spam 05:18, 27 March 2006 (BST)

Wire Cutters re-suggestion

I'm deleting both this and the Pills suggestion, and frankly I am getting sick and tired of the insulting "kill" votes too. Congradulations, you'll never have to worry about me making another stupid suggestion because your rudeness has insured that I will flat-out never make a suggestion, ever. Or ever vote to "keep" for that matter.

Pills

Deleted as with the above. I'm sick and tired of the constant rude comments, so you all can stuff wirecutters and pills up to where the sun don't shine.

Freeloader

This suggestion has been Spaminated with 7 Spams (including my own) --CPQD 17:04, 7 March 2006 (GMT)

Tranquilizer gun

I remember the days that when somebody claimed their suggestion was balanced, they didn't have trouble keeping a straight face...

9 spam 3 kill--Vista 20:08, 7 March 2006 (GMT)

Enhanced Memories of Life

Timestamp: 16:43, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: New skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: The humans have holed up in safety and only enter the streets to kill zombies for fun and to find supplies. The zombies, meanwhile, just want to live their unlives and eat the occasional brain without constant harassment. Some of the older zombies, however, have begun to remember more things from their previous lives. After watching the humans play Zombie Safari day after day, these zombies have figured out how to use guns, if only they could find them.

Zombies with this skill would pick up any guns and ammunition carried by humans they kill, as long as they have room in their inventory. They would then be able to use these weapons to attack humans until the ammunition runs out, at which point they would drop the weapon. Since zombies aren't very coordinated, they would have only a 15% chance of hitting anything, which averages out to 1.5 HP per AP, slightly less than the 1.8 HP per AP of maxed out Claws with Tangling Grasp. The skill would require Brain Rot, as only the oldest zombies have begun to learn this skill.

The point of this skill is obviously not to boost the killing power of zombies since it would, on average, be less effective than claws, but to provide some gameplay variety. It would also provide zombies with a small chance of finishing off humans with their last AP. Finally, it would give humans a reason to have flak jackets beyond defending against PKers.

EDIT: I forgot about the inventory bit. Although I don't think it would be too big of a deal since only brain-rotted zombies would take the weapons (plus, shouldn't there sometimes be SOME penalty for dying?), but since people object, why not just let the zombie have the weapons, but not take them from the human's inventory? It's not like there's a limited amount of weapons in Malton. This would give the appearance to the zombie that they've taken the guns while the human gets to keep his/her inventory intact. Obviously, this reduces a bit of the realism, but the point of the suggestion is to make gameplay as a zombie more fun, not hurt the humans. As a futher elaboration, naturally any zombie with this skill would be able to use weapons already in its inventory. Finally, this would not create a "Zombie Rambo" as one person suggests, unless, of course, Rambo couldn't hit the side of a barn with a shotgun.

Votes

  1. Keep - Because it's my suggestion and I think it would be fun while not affecting balance in any way anachronist 16:58, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Leave other people's inventory alone --CPQD 17:12, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Spam - Inventory looting = bad, zombie Rambo = worse. --John Ember 17:14, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Leave Other People's Inventory Alone. Also, why would they be able to use stolen guns, but not ones already in their inventory? I could go for one that let them use guns already in their inventory (with no benefit from firearms skills), as that could benefit new Zombies who otherwise take a long time just to earn Vigor Mortis, but even survivors can't loot victims! --Norcross 17:15, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. spam Two problems, the first of which is a fatal flaw. This messes with someone else's inventory on a major level. On a less important note, but still likely to have every one of these suggestions killed, zombies arguably don't need to be more like humans. --McArrowni 17:59, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Kill7 March 2006 -- Vote removed as author didn't sign it. Remember to sign. -- Andrew McM W! 18:04, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Spam - Yowza - looting other player's inventories and jacking their supplies, no thanks, I do not like green eggs and spam. Arguably zombies with rotted brains would be the least apt at performing human tasks. And lastly, I don't like the line between the two sides being blurred like this - humans do human things, zombies do zombie things. If I want my zombies to have guns, I'll go find a revive point and play as human. --Blahblahblah 18:30, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. KILL I have a stock pile of guns and ammo. This would just pi** me off if I get killed and it's all gone to a zombie who can shoot at me. --Deathnut RAF 18:39, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Spam 1) Zombies don't need guns. 2) Leave people's inventory alone. 3)Don't edit suggestions after posting. Timid Dan 18:46, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Spam Zombies with guns... zombies that stole those guns... How come there non-spam votes on this? what needs to be in a suggestion nowadays to convince people that it is spam?--Vista 19:01, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - No messing with other people's inventory. Velkrin 20:19, 7 March 2006 (GMT) Edit: Whoops, forgot to sign.
  11. Kill - Why? FOR THE LOVE OF GOD THE FATHER, WHY? --Jorm 19:54, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. SPAM - Zombies with guns are too goofy. (Yes, I know Romero did it.) --Dickie Fux 20:26, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Spam I say spam, because it touches inventories, but wanna know a secret everybody? I kina like the idea of zombies with guns, and machetes, and freerunning. I would be way more survival horrored if there were zombies falling out of towers into my roof and then blazing away with their akimbo mac 10's at my brainrotted survivor. Wouldn't that be fun? maybe I went overboard a little with the mac 10's... -Banana Bear4 21:11, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Spam - Needs more midgets and chimpanzees--Mookiemookie 22:46, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Spam - Needs more Rocket Launchers. --Grim s 23:21, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Spam - Needs more cyborgs. - CthulhuFhtagn 00:58, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
  17. Spam - Needs more cyborgs that can shoot midgets and chimpanzees out of rocket launchers.. -Kraxxis 18:02, 9 Mar 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 1 Keep, 5 Kill, 11 Spam 05:17, 27 March 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/7th-Mar-2006&oldid=205490"