Talk:Suggestions/11th-Jan-2007

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Zombie Weapon Use

Zombie Weapon Use

I'm not understanding the negativity toward the idea. The damage, sure 6 might be high and I considered 5, but the way the voting is going, it wouldn't matter. But what I can't figure out is that zombies can already use weapons...yet people are kiling spamming on THAT issue?

So, how about this:

Make it a skill (bash?) for 5 damage and "dexterity" adds +15% to hit? -Pesatyel 01:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to address this issue with my Mindful Destruction suggestion and was shot down. If I were you I would give up entirely on trying to convert people to zombie weapon use. It will always get Spammed.--SporeSore 18:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Not really. Your suggestion was about crowbars and barricades. Part of the problem is that people don't give a rats ass about suggestions. This one, among others sat in discussion for quite awhile. But only a handful of us seem to even realize the discussion page exists!--Pesatyel 02:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Zombies attack by biting and bashing, it's part of the genre. Weapons accuracy and damage for them are specifically designed to discourage zombies from using them. If zombies can attack with mellee weapons, then they may as well be survivors. Try to think of a way to improve their bite and claw attacks, that's what they're supposed to be using -- boxy T L ZS PA DA 02:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Why can't anyone answer the main question? They say zombies attack with bite/claws, ignoring the fact that zombies can use blunt weapons!' There really isn't a whole lot that can be done to "improve" bite and claw and if that is what they are SUPPOSED to be using, then why can zombies use blunt weapons? I don't believe it was an "oversight" on Kevan's part as it is simpler to just remove it since nobody uses it anyway. The basic ideas was this:
  • Gives Flak Jacket a use beyond PKing (why WOULD people wear it if it didn't stop zombies?).
  • Give zombies a more powerful attack and improve an ability they already have without overpowering them (granted, 6 damage may have been too high, but that's where discussion is SUPPOSED to help...).
Take a look at Peer Reviewed. There aren't that many actual zombie attack ideas (and alot of them are against barricades). Tell me, off the top of your head, what MORE can be done with claws and bite? Higher damage? Been tried and died, not to mention balance. Greater hit %? Same thing, would throw off balance? So, tell me, what more can be done with claws and bite?--Pesatyel 03:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Item of the Month

Timestamp: Uncle Bill 03:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Type: A way to test new items
Scope: Items from peer reviewed
Description: Each month, a new item from peer reviewed becomes available. These would be found at varying locations, depending on what seems appropriate for that item, but they would mainly be found at landmark type areas such as mansions, forts, power stations, cathedrals, and the zoo. (A happy little side effect is that it would encourage people to travel more.)

EDIT: Disclaimer - These items would disappear after a certain amount of time. --Uncle Bill 23:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

All details are open to discussion. I want to know what's a good search rate, how long should this last (24 hours? A week? All month?) what are some peer reviewed items you'd like to see (and where you'd find them).

Discussion

Sounds cool to me.--Cap'n Silly Squid Macaroni! 10:31 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well the main problem is it would really suck to get some fancy new item...then have it taken away arbitrarily since it would NOT be a good idea to make it "permanent."--Pesatyel 05:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is cool, because it might help keep casual and occasional players interested by constantly having new game elements without changing the gaming structurally. It would be even more effective if the change were implemented a few days before it was announced, creating lots of buzz around it. If they were just flavor items, I don't see why they can't be permanently in the inventory, at least until used. Will it actually hurt anybody if Christmas lights are put up for Easter? As for search percentages, I'd say either have very low search percentages in common locations (say, 1% in all parks) or higher percentages in rare or uncommon locations(say 10% in the zoo). If someone travels across half of Malton to get some pants sized for a monkey, searching should not be a problem. --Nosimplehiway 12:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Searching is irrelevant. People WILL search and WILL find this stuff. If they are just "flavor" items, people will spam the idea on that the games doesn't need more useless crap. Thus, they gotta do SOMETHING. And the author's idea was to use this on Peer Reviewed ideas. Thus if we were to include Watches, well if Kevan was going to do it this way, why not just implement them "normally" since that's basically what this suggestion would do? What's the difference between this suggestion and just implementing the ideas? I think it goes back to the "permanency" idea. If Kevan implements Watches or MP5, he'd have to take them away at some point. Because if Kevan were ready to implement items, we wouldn' NEED this suggestion.--Pesatyel 02:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
That's true, but what I was going for was a way to temporarily try out things that looked good on paper. I'd like to see everything be temporary in some way. If it's an expendable item, then you could keep it until it was used. In the case of something like chainsaws, they could "break down" if used after their time was up. For the "tested" items, we could leave feedback on the wiki whether the item was liked or not. --Uncle Bill 03:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sort of like test marketing a new product to see how well it is received?--Nosimplehiway 06:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
So, if you had a DISCLAIMER indicating it would disappear after a set time?--Pesatyel 06:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Consider it done. --Uncle Bill 23:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well then, how much time?--Pesatyel 03:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What seems fair to everyone? It's the "item of the month," so we could go as long as a month. But then what if you find something on the last day and then lose it 6 hours later? How about items being available to find for the first week of the month, and then they stick around until the start of the new month when the new item of the month comes out? Or would you want more time? --Uncle Bill 05:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Add the "This would be a way to test out items that look good on paper" line to the main suggestion. Maybe when you find such an item, it says "You find an MP5. This looks damaged/shoddily made, it will probably break down after a few uses." This would be a nice, in flavour way for people to know that their fancy new item is not something they can expect to keep forever --Gene Splicer 14:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I like it somewhat...altough I just know it will become unbalanced and people will use it during seiges, and the items used during seiges will prove to be a turning point for that seige success. The problem is that items are usually for suriviors..Any way to betatest changes for Zombies?--ShadowScope 20:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"In an attempt to learn more of the Undead threat, Necrotech have airdropped canisters of an experimental agent to the following locations (list of locations). They are very interested in seeing how the agents affect zombies entering these areas, though it is beleived any effects will only be temporary" (Zombies entering listed areas will gain (Mystery Effect) for X days. Canisters will run out in (Y) days) --Gene Splicer 22:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Heh, this might be good for my "zombie weapon use" idea. But see what I mean about THAT idea? It is an unexplored facet of zombie play...but zombies are ONLY supposed to use claws/bite? I digress. The basic idea of the suggestion is to "test" Peer Reviewed ideas. There are zombie ideas in Peer Review to BE tested. Simple thing would be for the zombie to "find" some item that would "trigger" the zombie ability in question (the same would apply to non-item survivor ideas). As for sieges, well that IS part of the testing process, is it not? And, ultimately since there is no perma-death, in the overall scheme of things something like an MP-5 turning the tide at a battle (or maybe a few) becuase of the newness of the item doesn't mean a whole lot when everything returns to "normal" (especially after the test items disappear).--Pesatyel 07:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you want to have the zombie weapon use, you could also add in that Peer-Undecided and Peer-Rejected weapons that Kevan likes could also be tested via this method. Limiting it to Peer-Review limits his options, and Kevan may like making new changes to old ideas and making them work. I assume correctly that it is only weapons and changes that matter, right?--ShadowScope 16:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd think this would apply to ANY suggestion. Just that weapon/item ones would be the easiest to work with. You find an MP-5, it goes in your inventory and is relatively easy to keep track of as opposed to this.--Pesatyel 23:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but I would like for it to be clarified in the main suggestion text, so that it be clear that any suggestion can be tested.--ShadowScope 02:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As for "duration" I think the best thing would be to give each item a set period (say a week, maybe two) in which it can be found and, once found, it lasts either until used (if a single use-type idea) OR say 4-7 days (for multi-use type ideas). That way if a player finds some item "at the last minute" they still have the chance to use it. Another option could be to have a set period to find the item (say a few days), but nobody can "use" the item until that time wne the search period ends (basically, if the players have 3 days to find an MP-5, they can't USE the MP-5 until AFTER the 3rd day). JUST an idea, but not a good one.--Pesatyel 07:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I like "X days to find, when found, lasts for Y days" option. This prevents the "do nothing but search for for the days the item is available, and then have a massive stockpile to use for weeks afterwards" problem of Z uses items, while still allowing people who only just heard about it on the last day to get a good go of trying it out --Gene Splicer 20:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The only problem I can think of is that zombies can't search, so THAT would have to be temporarily implemented as well. Don't think it would be that much a problem. Allow zombies to "search" in cemetaries, wastelands and outdoors. I'd also have to think that, to be fair, both a survivor idea and a zombie on would have to be "test" at the same time.--Pesatyel 23:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean so zombies can find and try out the human things? Or do you mean so zombies can find and try out new zombie things? Also: How about, for the zombie upgrades, the "canisters" thing I mentioned, and have the canisters be actual objects like generators or radios. They would appear in cerain locations after being airdropped by Necrotech ("To further study the undead menace, Necrotech have airdropped canisters containing modified Necrotech nanotech outside all Police Stations in the following suburbs:") and zombies could have the option to smash them, with successes equal to barricades etc("You smash at the canister. A green substance leaks out over your hands. You feel different"). Success does not destroy canister, just causes the zombie to be "infected" with the experimental necrotech solution and gain the relevent skill (mutation?) for X days. This would mean, to avail of a skill, a zombie would have to go to a canister location and succesfully hit it, mimicing Survivors having to go to appropriate buildings and search for their items of the month. Skills deemed "succesful" could be flavoured in later as "The (whatever) effect seen during the (whenever) Necrotech Tests has begun to re-emrge in previously infected zombies, possibly permanently this time." --Gene Splicer 15:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Good input so far. What about the idea of making some of the upgraded/test items (or zombie buffs) available to those who have donated the $5? Could be a way to generate more money towards improving the game overall. --Uncle Bill 18:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that would work. Too many casual players.--Pesatyel 00:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Aye, stick with it being available to whoever wants to put in the effort of tracking it down --Gene Splicer 15:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Kill Counter

Timestamp: c138 RR 18:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Type: Profile addition
Scope: Everyone
Description: Adds "Survivors Killed" and "Zombies Killed" to every user's profile page. Both are displayed regardless of the player's status, unlike the "died" counter that only shows when the person is dead. Exactly the same as the death counter, but every time you kill a survivor or a zombie, your appropriate kill counter will go up by 1. This will help survivors spot PKers and zombie spies, will give zombies a reason to compete with each other for bra!nz, will give active players a way of showing off the fact, etc.

Discussion No. It nerfs PKers far too much, and...it's VERY unrealistic. PKers work BECAUSE nobody knows they are PKers. Still, it may, I admit, be a solution to the problem. I would be against it.--ShadowScope 19:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI in case you hadn't realised already, I'm a prolific PKer myself with both my main accounts, and the main reason why I'd support this if someone else had suggested it is that it would permit me to accurately show off how many survivors I've whacked. One defense a PKer could use is "I used to play as a zombie, that's why I've got such a high survivor kill count" because it obviously doesn't say what state you were in when you achieved the kills. --c138 RR 21:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know that you are a PKer, but it would still provide players some reason to check profiles, and it would hurt PKers a lot. You could deterimne who is a PKer and who is not, and while some PKers may like it, others...may not. And, to be quite fair, some people state that "If you used to play a zombie, you always are a ZOMBIE! I'll send you to your grave, Mr. Death Cultist!" I'll mostly likely abstain on voting though, as the points you rasied might work.--ShadowScope 22:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Recently something eerily similar was proposed here. At the time, I argued for it to include exactly this stat, but something of an agreement was reached which did not include this feature. I still say this is a good idea, but that said, we have a process here and this idea was killed. --Nosimplehiway 06:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That was my "Character Achievements" idea and it was basically decided it would nerf PKers too much. Personally I don't give a crap if Pkers are "nerfed" but we gotta go with what works best for everyone (including PKers), right? Since most PKers claim they "do it for the challenge" you'd think something like this would be right up their alley.--Pesatyel 03:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason was that one could use the game knowledge to figure out who is a PKer or not, and not actually use the metagame and do the effort of bounty hunting. Finding out how many people a PKer kills by checking his profiel is not only pretty unrealistic and removes any sort of immerison for the game, but make Bounty Hunting far more easier than actually searching for the PKers and organizing. It's more of a fact that it is an artifical limitation. I do not speak for PKers though, but I think this is the reason they are against it.--ShadowScope 04:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If my character, currently a survivor, has, say 30 survivors killed...how do YOU know he's a PKer? Because he's CURRENTLY a survivor? And there are a LOT of things about checking a player's profile that "don't make sense" to see, but we can. And PKers are against any suggestion that makes it less easy (compared to zombies, it is VERY easy) to do. Don't ask me why.--Pesatyel 07:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
If I see someone who has 30 surivuors killed and is currently killed, I assume he is a PKer or a Combat Revived Zombie. Either way, I'll alert everyone to PK him, and you will be PKed. If you present a justifiaction, you might live, but you will have to give that justifiaction over and over, and I'm sure not many will believe you. To them, PKing is already hard, so there is no need to make them harder. It is mainly about preception...--ShadowScope 16:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Did you READ THE SUGGESTION? So, you'd be an asshole to someone who spent most of their time as a zombie and got a lot of kills, then switched over to play survivor for awhile? The point I was trying to make was that, according to the suggestion the kill count is irrespective of the character's current state. As for my example, said character spent ALL his time as a zombie eating survivors to gain that 30 survivors killed. Never ONCE PKed anyone...but, according to YOU that AUTOMATICALLY makes him a PKER? That's pretty pathetic. Why should ANYONE have to "justify" playing as a survivor if they so choose?--Pesatyel 23:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Lots of players may make the same idiotic mistake I did and use the same justification I made, calling for this person to justify his PKs or die. "Once a zombie, always a zombie." It may be pretty patheic, but because I thought of it, and others may use that same line of reasoning, a player that played zombies and turned Surivior will be griefed as being a PKer. I read the suggestion, and if I became an a-hole, then others can become a-holes too. It is exactly because of what I would do, and what others will do which would be another, prehaps more important reason why no differnation between Zombies and Surivior kill count exist...because those people would be griefied.--ShadowScope 02:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, how about just a single counter combining zombie and survivor kills? So you'd have like "Deaths: 29" then under it, "Kills: 103". --c138 RR - PKer 11:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Make sense. Though, if you do add that in, then you will have to replace Peastyel's "zombie killed" and "surivior killed" with just the kills stat. Zombies are just as hard to kill as suriviors. This way, I think everyone will vote KEEP on it.--ShadowScope 16:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. Did you read my suggestion? The "zombies killed" ONLY appears when the player is a survivor The "survivors killed" ONLY appears when the player is a zombie.--Pesatyel 23:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
What I mean is that if you are a Suriviro and have Total Kills and Zombies Killed for instance, if the Total Kills is higher than Zombie Kills, then you can subtract the number of Total Kills from Zombie Kills and learn how many Surivior Kills the person would have done. It takes a bit of math, but it would basically be the same as orignally written. That is what I mean, Peastyel, and I read your suggestion.--ShadowScope 02:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
But my suggestion DIDN'T have "total kills" it was one or the other AND dependent on which group your were with. I SPECIFICALLY did that in order to fight the "griefs PKers" argument.--Pesatyel 03:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I think there may be some confusion, mostly on my part. I said that if this get implemented, then your idea on having Zombie kills or Surivior kills cannot get implemented, only one or the other can get implemented, and not both. However, I apologize, and I may myself has gotten confused. Sorry.--ShadowScope 06:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see, I guess were both a little confused. Your right, it really WOULD be one or the other, wouldn't it?--Pesatyel 06:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Weapon Customization

Timestamp: Cap'n Silly UnsmartMcDougal 12:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Type: New skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: Well I don't know about you, but I'm kinda bored of the same ol' shotgun or pistol, so I'm thinking of a new skill, Weapon Customization, purchasable at Level 15. This skill would enable you to mod your weapons, but you may only have one modified weapon in your inventory at any given time.

Mods could be something like-

SHOTGUN-

Triple Barrel- You can load 3 shells into the shotgun.

Penalty: -2 damage.

Easy Loading Mechanisim- Load 2 shells for 1 AP.

Penalty: -5% accuracy.

Grooved Barrel- +5% accuracy.

Penalty: - Shotgun only holds one shell.

PISTOL-

Laser Sight- +5 accuracy.

Penalty: -2 clip capacity.

Elongated Clip- Can fit 2 clips into 1 pistol.

Penalty: -2 damage.

Short Muzzle- +2 damage.

Penalty: -5% to hit.


FIRE AXE-

Easy Grip- +5% accuracy.

Penalty: No headshotting with the axe).

Sharpened Blade- +1 damage.

Penalty: -5% accuracy.


KNIFE-

Custom Handle Grip- +10% accuracy

Penalty: No headshot.

Razor Blade- +1 damage

Penalty: -5% accuracy.

CLAWS:

Sharp Nails: +1 Damage

Penatly: -5% accuracy

Frenzy Grip: +10% Accuracy

Penatly: -2 Damage

BITE

Sharp Teeth: +1 Damage

Penatly: No Infection

Shearing Teeth: +5% Accuracy

Penatly: No Digestion

NOTE: Italic things were not in the original version.

Discussion What do you guys 'n girls think? Should this need an item? Do the axe ones suck? Give me something to work with here. --Cap'n Silly UnsmartMcDougal 11:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you give the same weapon more than one modification? --Uncle Bill 23:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you like that? --Cap'n Silly UnsmartMcDougal 2:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I like it, especially the fact you can only have one at a time. I think the fireaxe should get a headshot effect rather than the +5 to hit, though. We don't need the axe to be any more accurate.--Grigori 23:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You can already score a headshot with an axe. (Decapitation?) --Uncle Bill 23:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
You can score a headshot with a PUNCH.--Pesatyel 03:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I forgot, sorry. Last time I used a melee weapon was... I can't remember.--Grigori 22:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You need PENALTIES. Eventually, everyones gonna get these, even if they are stackable. I'll note my "examples" (under pistols) above. See the trade off?--Pesatyel 03:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What about upgrading claws and bites? I think a couple of zombie players might be angry at this zombie buff. I wonder if you can carry over Weapon Cutomization after death and...have upgrades for those sort of attacks. Though, Pesatyel, I would like to remind you that "Rare Does Not Equal Balanced".--ShadowScope 04:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about "rare?" That's part of the reason I suggested penalties. Eventually, EVERYONE will have these. But if there is a significant enough penalty (not necessarily equal or worse than the bonus) people would have to consider what their doing more carefully. As for claw and bite, just HOW could we upgrade?--Pesatyel 03:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You should do that, Shadowscope.--Cap'n Silly UnsmartMcDougal 2:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Done, please critque. I'd assume that if you upgrade claws or bite, then you basically use up your upgrade slot. Also, a question, how does upgrading works? And how do one "un-upgrade"?--ShadowScope 05:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I like it! Oh and, what about 10 AP to modify a weapon, 10 AP to remove your mod?--Cap'n Silly UnsmartMcDougal 2:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking better... the penalty trade off thing was a good idea. --Uncle Bill 05:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there needs to BE "un-upgrading." Finding a "normal" version is much easier and un-upgrading would be rather pointless, wouldn't it?--Pesatyel 03:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

A good point. --Cap'n Silly 04:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the number of folks over level 15, and the fact that there is one clearly superior option for each weapon (all the ones you gave that boost damage bu cut accuracy are BIG boosts on average damge per AP)- this might as well just be a "buff weapons for high level characters" suggestion. Which IMO ain't needed. Also, the suggestions for modifications to guns break with realism in many cases. Short barrels don't increase damage for pistols (rather the opposite) and adding or removing barrels from a shotgun amounts to building a new gun! --Swiers 06:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Realism? This game is about dead people running around eating living ones. So if you think that this suggestion is stupid because adding a third barrel to a shotgun is unrealistic, maybe Urban Dead isn't the game for you.--Cap'n Silly 07:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

What about belivability? Really, spending 10 AP to make an uber-weapon? The game may not be unrealisitc, but adding this in may strains the credibility of the game, and destroy the illusion that the game is real...and not only that, make people joke about it and think of it as just plain stupid. Somehow, we need some item, maybe a "Weapon Cutomization Pack" that needs to be search that will allow you to cutomize weapons, including zombie weapons. I can see Swiers' point.--ShadowScope 16:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The point is to maintain suspension of disbelief via internal logic. You MUST suspend your disbelief in zombies for the purpose of game setting- that's an enjoyable part of the game, and what makes it a game. But that doesn't make a bunch of super-gunsmiths cranking out wierd weapons a logical step, so having folks crank out three-barrel shotguns or pistols that defy basic physics would break internal logic, endangering suspension of disbelief. For this reason, things that break internal logic almost always get numerous Spam votes. --Swiers 20:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well a few of the ideas aren't too realistic (such as the 3rd barrel), but some of them are (such as the axe grip). Realism MUST be part of EVERY suggestion, but it isn't the ONLY requirement. Balance and the "uber-weapon" idea are the reasons I suggested adding penaltis to to each one. Also, the author (and this discussion) never decided to make the benefits stackable (though, in some cases, that would be counter-productive) which would be a bad idea. I see no real problem with a player having a pistol with a laser sight and another pistol with an elongated clip...but not ONE with BOTH. The nay sayers WOULD be right about these being "uber-weapons" if there were ONLY benefits. EVERYONE would have a pistol with laser sight for the +5% to hit...but some people might not like the lower clip size (the penalty) for the +5% to hit (though the penalties could stand to be a tad "harsher"). And it looks like the ONLY example the nay sayers can even come up with is the third barrel.--Pesatyel 23:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you see what I mean about people not seeming to know this page exists? Look at the complaints of the people in voting.--Pesatyel 20:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not invite them over so they can help balance this suggestion?--ShadowScope 20:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
In this instance I'm pessimistic. They already KNOW its here. I've actually SEEN people vote "this suggestion should be on the discussion page"...then those voters don't even visit when it gets moved here! I think, once a idea is posted for voting, most voters already make up their minds (like/dislike).--Pesatyel 00:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
At least be glad this got into Peer-Undecided, even with the accusations of "imbalance". I know just by stating it would doom a suggestion to Spamination, but I guess now it's up to Kevan to balance it, assuming he want it.--ShadowScope 05:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I just wish the people that even remotely liked it would help out a bit.--Pesatyel 08:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

From what it looks like on the votes, it seems people generally feel the idea is not balanced, both individually (each bonus and penalty relative) and totally (comparing the weapons to each other). Given the first part, we would simply have to look at each weapon individually and, perhaps, look at MBRs. For the second, we would have too look at firearms compartively and melee weapons compartively...but not with each other.--Pesatyel 08:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Talk:Suggestions/11th-Jan-2007&oldid=531439"