Talk:Suggestions/18th-Feb-2007

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Developing Suggestions

Manufacture(Item combiner)

Timestamp: Tryce of Thunder 21:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: As it says in the name, it's an item combiner skill. It would be bought under construction, with the reasoning that you've been making barricades for so long, you're tying to move on to actually making something more complicated. I'm not sure about a skill tree/sub skills, but these are the ideas I have come up with if they were to exist:

1. You have to purchase a skill for each individual item in order to make it, and then you can further purchase proficiency for that item, increasing its quality, damage, accuracy, or what have you

2. Be able to make every single item currently out there upon getting manufacture, but having to purchase the proficiency for each individual item.

3. Be able to make every single item currently out there upon getting manufacture, and just having to purchase a general proficiency that improves all items you can make.

Those are my 3 ideas. I'm considering it to be a complete mystery about what you can make, and just have you guess about it, but that seems too clunky, so I would just say show what you are able to make with the current items you can make (so if you could make item A, but not item B, item B would not show up under the combiner).

For about making the items themselves, I shall lay some base rules:

1. If you make any item, it will have a chance to not be made. Weather or not you lose your materials is up to debate.

2. As an exception to rule one, most items made in a powered factory will have a 100% chance of being made, and will be improved than if you made it anywhere else.

As an alternative or partner to the sub skills, we could have to so that if an item is made in a powered factory, it will have the improvements as if you had the supposed proficiency skill for it.

I think this idea is good, but since it’s a big addition, I’d like to refine as much as possible before submitting it. I already have a few ideas of what could be made, but I’ll hold off on that until I see if people want this. (NOTE: I looked at the comment, and have decided to show some sample items). Some of these would make more sense with new items, so I'll list those as well. Any number ranges are for a general idea.

Sample items:

Flamethrower-

Materials: Spraycan(1), Lighter(1)(new item), and Wire(1)(new item).
Weapon stats: Damage is 2-3, accuracy is 40-55%. It has 10 shots and cannot be reloaded.
Other data: Upon hitting the target, it becomes burned. Burn functions like an infection, but is not transferable(so if you die, it goes away), and lasts for 10 AP. Burn can't be stacked, so if you currently burned, you can't be burned again until you're unburned.
Factory made: It only has 8 shots, but can now be realoaded with fuel cans. One fuel can gives 8 shots.


Chain & Padlock-

Materials: Chains(1) (new item), and Lock(1) (new item).
Effects: Upon killing a zombie, if you lack headshot, an option will appear to chain the zombie up. A chained Zombie needs to spend 2 extra AP to stand up.
Other data: Cannot be stack with Headshot. A chained zombie with be displayed like this. "There are 3 dead bodies here. 2 of them are bound in chains"
Factory made: The zombie spends 3 extra AP to stand up as opposed to 2 extra AP. It can now also be used on buildings, which simply makes it impossible to enter from the street or exit TO the street, regardless of barricade level(I am unsure as to weather or not someone trying to get in should be able to bust it down, since on one hand, it would be a cheap way to secure a building, but on the OTHER hand, we have grifers and cultists). Please note that you can only set them up and take them down(wire cutters) from outside of the building.


That's all I could think of to start with. If I get any more ideas or someone makes a suggestion, I'll try add it in.Tryce of Thunder 21:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Hmm ... Well, I won't be able to say if this is a good idea or not until I know what could be made with it. If we're just talking along the lines of items that are useful for flavor, but are not much better than the component parts, or other items, then sure, it's a good idea. On the other hand, Molotov Cocktails would force me to vote kill, simply because they tend to be a bit overpowered.

The actual mechanics for the idea are good; however, like I said, I can't vote on just the mechanics. The impact on the game, in terms of what the items could do, is important. And saying "Kevan could decide" just doesn't work. --Saluton 21:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add in some sample items. Tryce of Thunder 21:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The chain and padlock arn't such a good idea; nor is the flamethrower. Good mechanics, but the items made with them arn't so good. --Saluton 23:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Could you please expand upon why they aren't so great? Since this is a discussion an all. Tryce of Thunder 00:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Total dupe of this suggestion http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions/15th-Jan-2006#Item_Crafting. Do 'yer homework. --Absolution 07:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. That says that both zeds and humans can use it, and only humans can use this one. And there are many more differences, ones that I will be happy to point out if my points require further proof in this small debate. Tryce of Thunder 07:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Look, its a dupe. The only thing you have changed is that instead of makeing a old item (in the case of old idea) is makeing a NEW weapon that also adds in extra room for griefers to exploit. You are also adding a item that will basicly trap zombies inside buildings or force them to spen MORE ap trying to bash the lock....I dont know about you but cades already seem to do that fine, they dont need more help. At any rate this will force more Zed players to quit because of how much is being stacked aginst them.--Fallout10mm 08:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The ONLY thing I have changed? Let's ignore the fact that zeds can't do it, making an item in a powered results in a 100% chance of success and an improved item, and that the items used will most likely already have another use besides being materials(I.E. Shotgun Barrel. It has no use outside of being combined into a shotgun, but something like a spray can does). Now, about the Flamethrower. The burn effect can be gotten rid of by a FAK, and if you lack one, it only lasts for 10 ap, and can't be transfered after you die and stand up again. This makes it not as good as an infection, which doesn't cause too much greifing in the 1st place. And about the Chain & Padlock, it just prevents anyone trying to enter or exit the buidling directly from or to the street. Anyone, even zeds, could just click an adjacent square and be out of the building. So they aren't trapped as you claim they are. And before you argue from the other angle named "But if it doesn't do a whole lot, then it's pointless since it doesn't have anything over the current stuff." This. Is. A. Game. It is meant to be fun, and this is designed to add some fun, some variety, some spice, to the game. If you think of an item that would be fun to use and would not be game-breaking on either end of the spectrum, feel free to tell me about it. Tryce of Thunder 09:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't like either item you have suggested (why need a skill to use a padlock? and the flamethrower is way too good!) I do however like the idea of making stuff in a kinda A-Team way! How about fuel can, wire and a book of matches to boobytrap doors? whoever opens it is doused in petrol and set alight. 50% to hit, damage as infection with a "drop and roll" action available to give a 25% chance to put it out! To make it fair on zombies if they are on fire and successfully tangle someone their attacks cause +1 Damage until they lose their grip!--Honestmistake 17:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've discussed the chain & padlock outside of here, and have decided chain & padlock won't work. And for the flamethrower, how is it over-powered? If anything, in it's current state, it's under-powered.
Also, about that trap idea, that falls under "auto attack", which is heavily frowned upon. A lot of people have tried the idea of traps, and they just don't work. Tryce of Thunder 21:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
the flamethrower is overpowered because by combining 3 items you get 10 shots at 50% accuracy that cause 12HP! While traps are often frowned on I really do not think the one i suggest is overpowered. If a survivor falls for it they can drop and roll while if a zed falls for it they get a damage bonus. It is technically an auto-attack but giving it a cost of 10AP to making it a 1 shot limits its use a lot while adding a bit of fun realism! Lets face it if hordes of hungry zeds prowled the streets then you would try to rig up something like this, in fact the biggest flaw i see in it is that its more usefull to the zeds than the survivor!--Honestmistake 15:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, you do not get the burn effect. The burn is like an infection. As in, if they use an AP, they take one point of damage. And also, it may take 10 ap, but a ****load of people play this game. You commonly see over 70 people in a mall. What if all of them have one of these? They'd be set up left and right. AND, what if someone gets unlucky with the drop and roll? When you had 25% accuracy(weather it be your axe or pistol) you didn't hit that often did you? Same thing for this. Also, what if someone has an infection when they get hit? They will now take 2 points of damage and die quick bewteen getting a FAK and putting out the fire. And regardless of this debate, I feel the idea will not go over well the community. You can suggest your idea if you wish, but I am not going to add that trap under the list of items you can make. (Also, to the people reading this, I had a huge update for this, but my comp crapped out right as I finishing it up, so that's why you see no changes still. One of the updates was to "trash" Chain & Padlock until someone comes up with an idea to make it feasible.)Tryce of Thunder 01:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I did get the burn effect being like infection... but as it lasts 10 rounds it is effectively +10HPs? The trap would obviously (i hope!) only be usable one at a time, that is only one per entrance! That said, i won't be trying to get traps peer reviewed because as much as i like them i doubt they would get a favourable hearing!--Honestmistake 00:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Although we need to keep note that to make a flamethrower you need to find these three items. Similar to loading a shotgun, you'd need to spend the AP in both procurement of the ammo (lighter, etc) and then AP to activate the skill, and then you fire. 50% might be a little too much, but I wouldn't call the weapon broken. I definitly think this deserves more consideration. Maybe use EXP to make items, like old P&P RPGs? Advancing the construction tree makes sense.--Last Ranger 17:46, 26February 2007 (PST)
Nah, using EXP just doesn't make too much sense. What if a newb got this at level 3 and had to pay XP that could be used to level him up? Kind of a set-back if you ask me. And I think 50% is good 'cause if it's 40%, you may as well use an axe because all you do is spend more AP to make something that does extra burn damage when you could use that AP to do just as much, if not more damage, with a Fire Axe. Tryce of Thunder 00:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Well as long as he understands that it'll use exp to make the item, why would he? I can see the skill working out to be "Combine->Ball Bearings/Gasoline/Lighter, 75 EXP"? --Last Ranger 20:01, 27 February 2007 (PST)
But then we've changed the skill so that it can only effectively be used by high level players. And the AP needed to search for the items and the AP used in making them should be payment enough. Tryce of Thunder 23:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Policy Discussion

This area is for formal discussion of policy changes for the suggestions page, as per the Voting Guidelines.

Addition to the Invalid Votes rules

That CNR be formally added as an invalid vote. There are a number of times (the most recent being this suggestion here: Speech) where voters are voting for/against a suggestion which is not the one being suggested. The above suggestion is one allowing someone to, with the purchase of a skill, occasionally speak to 100 people in a location at once instead of the usual 50. It would also allow this speach to be twice as long as normal. There are a number of kill votes which only read part about increasing the character limit, and are killing in such manners as "Just spend the extra AP". As this Kill vote is saying "This can already be done by spending more AP" when it cannot, the vote is obviously not applicable. These kinds of votes can (and have, but not yet in this suggestion) lead to a cascade of "as Bob" votes resulting in a suggestion being killed for no good reason, which then cannot resubmitted as is due to the probability of it being Duped.

(whether or not the above suggestion deserves to enter peer reviewed as is is irrelevant to this discussion, it is the irrelevant votes we are examining, not the suggestion itself)

I submit that, if it is blatantly obvious from the readers justification that they have not fully read/understood the suggestion, the author or a mod can strike it out with an accompanying note explaining why it is not relevant. It should be struck out as opposed to deleted to prevent other people making the same mistake (I will kill because X. Wait, an identical vote has been struck out as CNR. Maybe I should reread) and to allow the author to see where areas of misunderstanding are arising (hmmm... three people misunderstood this part. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I will add a note).

If people beleive that a suggestion is being misunderstood because it is just too damn hard to read (txt spk, horrific grammar and spelling, just very badly phrased) they can kill or spam it as "illegible or unclear, rewrite it" (which is already allowed, just rarely used) --Gene Splicer 13:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone misreads a suggestion, it is up to the submitter to explain that to them, and the person who voted can then change their vote if they wish. Besides, if this goes through, it would make it very likely that submitters would only strike against/spam/dupe votes with reasons that they feel are invalid, and ignore invalid keep votes (or even strike all votes against right before voting ends). I see no reason to change the current mechanic of just explaining why the vote is not fully thought out to the voter, and leaving it up to the voter to change their vote, as I said - This method works, does not give too much power to the submitter, and allows the voter to have their original vote remain while they reread the suggestion and change it accordingly, unlike the one that you suggest. --Saluton 21:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
the only problem with that is that many (most?) voters do not go back to a suggestion after they have voted unless they realy care about the result. Perhaps allowing a few trusted voters or mods make the decision if requested by the author would work... The author should never be allowed to directly strike the vote as they are likely to be just a little biased!--Honestmistake 11:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
How would people feel about this as a mod-only ability? Also, the vote would have to clearly contradict some part of the suggestion. Such as a zombie buff with a kill vote "No more survivor buffs", or a suggestion about fire stations with someone killing with "Police stations are fine as they are" --Gene Splicer 01:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems like this would just encourage folks to give vauge, nonspecific reasons for thier votes. Really, if a vote like "no, I don't like it" would remain valid, why would anybody bother with something more specific if it just means the vote can be struck later? --S.Wiers X:00 16:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Swiers. "No" is a valid vote. If a suggestion is good enough, then the occasional (arguable) CNR can be ignored. You, Gene, have just recently accused me of an invalid vote, because of something I wrote in my Re. What I might write in reply to the author doesn't invalidate my original reason for voting. This would be more work for the mods, who have enough to do dealing with real issues. If you gave the power to everyone, it'd be a free-for-all and a drama-factory. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 10:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I hate those "No. Just no." votes; they totally miss the point of justifying a vote, which is to create transparency in people's reasoning. Transparency is important here because it discourages people from acting on idiotic reasons like "I hate the user who suggested this", and having the justifications clearly laid out gives the author, and anyone else reading, a clear indication of what went well and what went wrong in the suggestion. This is the BIG way we improve the quality of future suggestions, probably even more than the Do's and Don'ts. --Toejam 23:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I like that idea, how about we change "Votes that do not have reasoning behind them are invalid. You MUST justify your vote" to "Votes that do not have reasoning behind them are invalid. You MUST show how you came to the conclusion of your vote". That would make things more transparent, but on the flip side it would create longer suggestions because everyone may write a paragraph explaning why they voted the way they did. - JedazΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 23:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather go the other way, and remove the rule about justifying a vote. Look at policy voting - there, the voter can just say yes or no. What's wrong with that? The more you introduce rules about logical justification, the more you dig yourself a hole filled with red tape and drama. What (essentially) is the difference between "I don't want less Malls", "I don't like this suggestion" and "no". They're all coming from the same place. As with most reforms suggested for this whole process, you've got to ask yourself first: what's the problem? Are there swathes of suggestions ending up in Peer Rejected due to a plethora of illogical voters? Is there even one? Can you show it to me? I feel sure the answer in all cases is no. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 10:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with this if the power is reserved for the mods. If someone votes kill on a suggestion that does nothing except increase zombie claw accuracy by 5% and gives the justification "because it buffs survivors", then there's clearly a problem. But if it doesn't clearly contradict the suggestion itself, then it shouldn't count under this rule. --Reaper with no name TJ! 19:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't the current "miscontributation" rules cover a mistake that blatant? The vote makes a false statement, and hence can be removed via that method, right?. I don't think such obviosly mistaken votes come up (or matter) often enough to warrant a special case rule. And again, you can't do anything about people who mis-read the suggestion and vote "no" with no real explanation. Could be a lot of people already do that, but why encourage it? --S.Wiers X:00 19:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Talk:Suggestions/18th-Feb-2007&oldid=586435"