Talk:Suggestions/15th-Apr-2007
The Malton Tower
Discussion
A little out of place don't ya think? --User:Axe27/Sig 23:13, 13 April 2007 (BST)
Pretty cool; I'd say it matches my experience in the Sears Tower. If realism is a concern, you should bump up the chance that people in the street not be spotted; everybody seems to think buildings in Malton are very densely packed, given the theories on free running. OTOH, for 3 AP, you probably spend a good while observing, and realism != fun. --S.WiersctdpNTmapx:oo 23:54, 13 April 2007 (BST)
Sounds a lot like some other tower suggestion I remember from a while back, I think it went in with Malton City Park or something like that. Eh, I think this suggestion is really cool though. Reminds me of The Center Point Tower in Sydney City this suggestion. Right in the middle of the city, and you can see everything from ages around. Even see number plates and people's watches with binoculars. Take a look Here --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 00:44, 14 April 2007 (BST)
- Aye, I've been to Sydney, Dux - you can't miss it - the goldenrod, I called it. Seattle has the Spruce Noodle (Space Needle). --Funt Solo
09:24, 14 April 2007 (BST)
So, basically, this is just a building with "auto-binoculars?" I was thinking, as far as towers went, what about if they were like the large buildings? That is, in a large building, it costs 1 AP to go from the NW corner to the SW corner, for example. But with a tower, it would cost an AP to go to an "upper level"? They wouldn't be barricadable any more than regular large buildings are. Basically instead of going a square to your right inside a mall, your going a "square" up in the tower.--Pesatyel 05:41, 14 April 2007 (BST)
- No, Malls are all on one level, you do not move from one level to another. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 06:46, 14 April 2007 (BST)
I'm officially jumping on the tower bandwagon. Binoculars are my favorite inventory item, and this is like binocualrs on steroids. I am also a big fan of Malton having more landmarks (zoo, power stations, stadiums, forts...) so this is a double winner for me. --Uncle Bill 01:13, 15 April 2007 (BST)
- Okay, it's gone up for voting now. --Funt Solo 12:07, 15 April 2007 (BST)
Money
| Timestamp: | Jon Pyre 21:35, 14 April 2007 (BST) |
| Type: | Item |
| Scope: | Survivor |
| Description: | Money has never worked as a concept because there's nobody to buy anything from. And Trading hasn't worked because of potential zerging. But maybe the two concepts together could work. I suggest adding money to the game. It'd be findable in banks at a very low rate to prevent inflation, maybe a 1% chance. People would be able to trade money for items with other people. It'd prevent zerging because you couldn't just give items to your alt, a zerg would have needed to spend AP in the past gathering money. And it'd give money the value of being the required element in order to receive items from others.
Each item would have a preset cost, depending on its rarity. You'd select what you want from a drop-down menu, say a first-aid kit, and then others in the room would see: Bill is requesting a first-aid kit (Sell $10) If Bill is still there clicking on that button would take one first-aid kit from your inventory and give 10 dollars from Bill's inventory to yours. Something rarer, like a syringe, might instead cost $25. Since money would be hard to come by it wouldn't be a means of getting "free items". Instead it would be sort of the wild card item in your inventory, the stored effort of your spent AP that could be exchanged to become anything in the future. I think every 5 dollars should take up 1% of inventory, making $500 the absolute maximum, so a player can't stockpile $100,000 and then purchase dozens of shotgun shells every day for weeks to come. Alternatively since $500 is an unrealistically low sum money could be made more common and take less inventory space and the cost of everything could be raised. For instance 5% rate of finding money, 1% inventory per 25 dollars, and 50 dollar first-aid kits. |
Discussion
This is more or less functionally identical to system of direct item-for-item trading based on the item rarity that somebody proposed a while back. Not sure how far that one got, but you may want to look it up to avoid dupe votes. (I also don't see an active suggestion to go with this discussion- am I missing something?) --S.WiersctdpNTmapx:oo 22:57, 14 April 2007 (BST)
I've got to be honest here. Malton is a quarentined city. Money might have had some value during the early outbreaks, but by this point I think a barter system would be a lot more believable. --Uncle Bill 01:08, 15 April 2007 (BST)
- Yes a fallout style of bartering would be interesting/belivable.--Blood Panther 01:13, 15 April 2007 (BST)
It might be a bit more belivable, but at least here we got oureslves something codified that could make sense. Prehaps suriviors are entertaining the illusion things are going back to normal and begin to horde cash?--ShadowScope 03:38, 15 April 2007 (BST) Alternatively, can't we replace the cash with a useful item that could also serve as a way to barter?
- Yeah, if there were going to be sucha thing, the FAK would be a more likely basic currency unit. Even more believable might be beer / wine bottles - fairly useless, but since the game doesn't have cigarettes, they are the most likely unit for "barter currency". --S.WiersctdpNTmapx:oo 03:45, 15 April 2007 (BST)
There could be NecroTech tokens or something, which would be sorta believable...--Lachryma☭ 03:47, 15 April 2007 (BST)
I'd vote keep on it's current form, 'cause I find money believable. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/C
04:09, 15 April 2007 (BST)
Beer/wine would make a good currency because you could either keep it to trade with OR you could use it. Cigarettes would be better (flavor wise) because they are smaller and don't take up as much space. Would you rather lug around a keg or a carton of cigarettes? But I digress... Like I said earlier, I prefer the barter system to the use of cash but I'll abstain from this vote instead of voting no. After all, it's still a pretty good suggestion even if it's not exactly my top choice. --Uncle Bill 06:59, 15 April 2007 (BST)
