Talk:Suggestions/22nd-Nov-2005

---

Yet Another SMG

All I can say is, eliminating Headshot from the equation was pure genius.

Oh, and RSquared, I called you here to bring up some boring points about guns with you.

• Yes, "magazine" is the right term, and usage of the correct terminology should be encouraged, but "clip" is easier for the layman to understand.
• It's true that most SMG mags are 30 rounds each, but as you said, balance is an issue. I've never heard of pistols with 6-round mags either I mean, even the Desert Eagle and Colt M1911 have seven rounds each!
• Oh yeah, just a FYI: Automatic weapons aren't outlawed in the US, just massively regulated; you need a Classs III weapons permit and need to fork out over $10k for the weapon.

Eheheeh. I hope that didn't bore the rest of you. - KingRaptor 16:46, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Oh, I'm well aware, but saying everything you just mentioned would make for a long Keep vote. I decided to just touch on the facts. Clip instead of magazine is a pet peeve of many an enthusiast. I rationalize the 'pistol' as a revolver, which actually explains the usage of 'pistol clip' - it's a speedloader, which is correctly a clip! As for 3, $10,000 bucks for a legal uzi and $25000 for a working M249 is effectively banned. :P --RSquared 16:58, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

RSquared, you never know if the gun store owners were part of a mafia that smuggled automatic weapons into the city. Theres you bit of realism for you. --ThunderJoe 19:12, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

• Okay, like I said on my vote, love the burst fire, love the no-headshot thing, hate the inaccuracy. I just can't get my brain around the idea of a burst-fire weapon that can only hit a target with one out of three shots every time. Maybe if all three shots hit but the damage was determined randomly for each shot, so you'd either wing the zombie a bit and tick him off or nearly blow him out of his shoes, or somewhere in between. Of course, what would really make me happy is if it were set up so that if either the first or second shots in a burst killed a zombie, the remaining shots would hit the next zombie in the stack. But being guaranteed to only hit a target with one out of three shots seems a bit weird to me, though I understand why it's set up this way. We definitley don't want people with SMGs going all Rambo on the zombies and mowing them down like bowling pins. --Skullhunter 22:06, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

• Inaccurate? You reading the same skillset? It's got a max accuracy of 50% per attack, three attacks (top three zeds on the stack). I absolutely agree that it shouldn't be used for three attacks on the same zed - you could tear through stuff like that. Also, I think he's a little off in his HP/AP estimate. It's 9 attacks at 50% for 4.5 hits and 5 damage/hit, or 22 damage divided by four AP (1 for the reload). That's 4.5 HP/AP against 3 targets. Shotgun is 2 attacks at 65% for 1.1 hits and 10 damage/hit, or 11 damage divided by 3 (1 for the reload). That's 3.7 HP/AP against 1 target. So long as Armories have a poor chance of getting SMG mags relative to pistol clips and shotgun shells (and SMGs themselves are even rarer, and don't come with ammo :) it's pretty relative. --RSquared 23:43, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

---

Fencing

Survivor-side:

New Skill: Repair: Civilian, prerequisite: Construction. A survivor can use an item (I suggest "Length of Pipe", since it's currently useless and fits the idea best) to repair a fence, destroying that item in the process. A survivor can use item "Wirecutters" to destroy a fence, no skill required. Fences prevent entrance to the area (junkyard) or building (power station, etc) that they exist in, but do not prevent egress (like chain-link fences that are slanted in one direction), so no player can get 'trapped' inside a building or area because of a fence; survivors, however, can be kept from entering by it. Free running is unaffected for buildings (upper floor entrances, fire escapes, etc).

Zombie-side:

Zed counter to a fence should be ~3 (TBD) zombies to 'lean on it' and pull it down. That is, if a sufficient number of zombies approach a fence (on an adjacent square, or for a building simply outside it), any one could bring it down with a 1 AP action representing their combined weight leaning on the fence. Survivors cannot use this action - they have to find wirecutters.

Justifications:

A fence provides a little more protection against isolated zombie attacks, but encourages more horde behavior. Wirecutters and Lengths of Pipe become useful again, and the streets are a little more dangerous for survivors.

Comments are welcome --RSquared 18:20, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

I suggested my idea because I miss the fences. I wouldn't actually mind having them back in any form. *snif* ah miss the liddle guys, so sad. Andrew McM 15:09, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Here's a good point, and why i suggested the idea of the fences being reset in the first place- if there is a new skill, how is repairing and taking down fences ANY diferent from repairing and taking down barricades?Andrew McM 19:15, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

• Gameplay: Because fences give a slightly different sort of protection than barricades do, and survivors could use a few more things to spend xp on? Flavor: Because being good with wire and patching chain link is a different sort of action than hauling around tables and chairs to create a barrier? --RSquared 19:33, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

• Not exactly the point I was trying to make. What about Junkyards, zoos etc? How the hell can you make a barricade inside a tiger's den? The buildings that have wire fences should have barricading replaced with fence repair, or something similar, if the fence issue ever gets delt with. The game mechanic is that if you don't you are essentially creating a super fortress, protected by both barricades and fences. Andrew McM 19:15, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

• I see where you're going with that, but I disagree that it'd be a 'super fortress'. My thought is, if you've got enough zombies to take down a EH barricade, you should have enough to overpower a fence. It'd be one extra AP for somebody. Fences would provide a slightly different protection against attack, since one or two zombies can take down a strong barricade, with a little luck. I think of fences like a different kind of door, since the current implementation allowed them to be behind a barricade (IIRC). Maybe for power stations, etc, the fence could replace the door to provide a little variety? After all, we don't think of buildings with doors as 'super fortresses' just because they're protected by closed doors and barricades :P --RSquared 20:21, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

My two cents here: I like where you're going with the "lean on fence" option, although I'd change it to a higher number, say 10 or 15 zombies. That way they're good safe houses for lowbies but can easily be stomped on by hordes. This fixes the qualms about a counter-skill to fence repair, and it's not even that hard to implement. Just count the zombies in the square and if they're above critical mass, give all the zombies a "Push down fence" option for 3 AP. The first person who uses the button pushes the fence down (and is also the only one to spend AP) because he's (only theoretically, I don't want auto-actions while players are offline) got the weight of the horde backing him up. Bentley Foss 21:16, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Numbers can always be changed for balance reasons - that's why I wanted comments. Ten-Fifteen seems a little high, how about five? ^_^ --RSquared

I like the sound of 10, it encourages horde behaviour. This does seem like an interesting idea, one of the rare ones that make sense. I think we need a skill option for the zombies as well, given the unbalanced numbers at the moment. Either something along the lines of Ankle Grab, that lets zombies push the fence over for less AP, or, to actually be the one who pushes you need a skill (zombies without that skill can still contribute to the weight. Andrew McM 20:45, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)