Talk:Suggestions/25th-Dec-2006
Tips For The Newly Revived
| Timestamp: | Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 12:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC) |
| Type: | Help |
| Scope: | The Newly Revived |
| Description: | There are tips for those killed as a human for the first time, where are the tips for those zombies who were revived for the first time? I propose that when a zombie character gets revived for the first time, there will be a short sentence telling them what to do if they get revived, such as how to get back to the zombie state, and some other useful things. The sentence could be like: Being revived back is no big deal. It is a chance for you to get a flak jacket, as well as any human skills that may be useful to zombies. If you want to return to your zombie state, all you have to do is get killed by another survivor or zombie, or for a faster way of dying, find a tall building and jump out the window. |
Discussion
Tell me what you think. --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 12:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable. I am surprised they don't already get some sort of info. Maybe add a short description of how this happened. A brand new player who has never played a human may not understand how they are suddenly alive again and that those nice people over in the powered building next to the cemetery are the bastards who deserve to die for doing it. --Nosimplehiway 13:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Huh....doesn't it already tell you who revived you? I think the word revive should be a big giveaway of what the hell has just happened to their zombie character. --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 13:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree but it shouldn't assume they want to be a zombie. It should just present a brief summary of what they can do as a survivor to gain xp, how to find items, how to avoid getting killed, and then say how to return to zombiedom. Maybe "You have been brought back to life by a trained scientist and are now a survivor. Searching in key buildings will turn up weapons and other useful items. If you want to survive the night it is a good idea to find a barricaded building to sleep in before logging out. If you want to return to being a zombie you can either wait to be killed or jump out a window in certain buildings." --Jon Pyre 14:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it seems to me that he's talking about players that STARTED as the Corpse class. Thus I think it would be safe to presume they want to be a zombie. A player who started as a survivor, died and then got revived has already had at LEAST a 50 AP to get a basic idea of what a survivor is like.--Pesatyel 22:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- I just don't think the message should make any assumptions one way or another. There are people that started out as survivors and prefer zombies, and people that started out zombies that prefer survivors. Just give the facts, and let their own preference do the rest. --Jon Pyre 03:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good. But add after the second sentence, "If you want to play as a survivor, find a safehouse at very strongly barricaded and stay inside." -Mark 16:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Pesatyel is correct. I am talking about those who started as Corpse, Jon. And Mark, I am just about to add that second sentence... --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 12:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good. But add after the second sentence, "If you want to play as a survivor, find a safehouse at very strongly barricaded and stay inside." -Mark 16:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- I just don't think the message should make any assumptions one way or another. There are people that started out as survivors and prefer zombies, and people that started out zombies that prefer survivors. Just give the facts, and let their own preference do the rest. --Jon Pyre 03:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it seems to me that he's talking about players that STARTED as the Corpse class. Thus I think it would be safe to presume they want to be a zombie. A player who started as a survivor, died and then got revived has already had at LEAST a 50 AP to get a basic idea of what a survivor is like.--Pesatyel 22:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I like Pyre's version. It gives all the info but minimal bias and assumptions. --Reaper with no name TJ! 04:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
(Sighs...)Can someone move this suggestion? I put it up for voting Christmas day...I have no idea how to do just that... --Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 13:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Anti-Pker Ideas
| Timestamp: | Pesatyel 07:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC) |
| Type: | Game alteration |
| Scope: | Survivors |
| Description: | A few simple ideas.
|
Discussion
These would all get spammed into oblivion. Not necessarily by me, but you know it's true. --Funt Solo 
11:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
*Gage prepares the spam cannon--Gage 12:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
We have to find something that can be an anti-PK weapon that PKers will be okay with, that will not cause any problems. To avoid greifing them. 0 XP won't work. Neither does decreasing revive costs. Giving more guns might not do the trick. In-game bounty hunting lists have been done to death. Scent Trail for Humans are overpowered. And an 100 XP skill that immeadily tells that you are a PKer but gives you full XP instead of half XP makes it too Outbreaky, as well as encourges PKing. My personal favorite is getting some uber Flak Jacket just for humans, so that it can make gunshots weaker. This uber Flak Jacket also work for PKers, so they can be defended from Bounty Hunters...and Axes can get a use for PKing, since they can avoid Flak Jackets...--ShadowScope 17:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
See, that's just it, based on the LONG discussion below, the ONLY way to really affect PKing (without making it impossible) is by artificial, unrealistic means. Other than the 3 above, I really couldn't think of ANYTHING else that might come close to working. Any other ideas would either make it impossible or be way to complicated.
But the question remains, WHY would these three above ideas get spamminated? Yes, they nerf PKing. That's the whole idea. But is that the ONLY reason to spam or is there something else?--Pesatyel 18:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think PKing should be countered by an artificial limitation like any of the above three, but by something natural like being able to track down the attacker, or somehow prepare a defense to thwart them. --Jon Pyre 23:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't believe "natural" will work (the half XP PKer penalty isn't "natural" either). Obviously the two ideas you mentioned been tried NUMEROUS times and obliterated. The main problem is that most "natural" ideas require cooperation, for one thing. Not to mention usualy being complicated. And I might add that "preparing a defense" would have to be artificial as well. Unless I mistake what you mean by "natural" (which I'm actually not that clear on). That isn't to say the ideas COULDN'T work. Just that they currently DON'T work and, I believe, most voters are sick of them.--Pesatyel 05:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Anti-PKer ideas? Why!? PKing. Isn't. A problem. Understand? Not to mention that your ideas are ridiculously overpowered, and you're breaking suggestions rule number whatever: "Make it more fun, not less fun." Imagine how PKers feel, when they suddenly can't hit for shit, can't do any damage, and run down their XP twice as fast. -I'm one angry Cutlet 06:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's called a DISCUSSION. I really don't give a rat's ass about PKers. How about the VICTIMS? ONE PKer can kill as many as THREE people if they really wanted to (not mention dumping the bodies just to be extra asshole). Oh, so as long as that ONE PKer has fun, fuck the victim's right? They must enjoy being PKed, right? From what I've been reading their are three types of PKers: Challengers (those that enjoy the challenge associated), RPers (those that do it for various role-playing reasons) and Greifers (those that do it because they are retarded assholes). Group 1 MAY like the challenge presented by the suggestions above, for example and group C wouldn't. Are you trying to tell us that all (okay most) PKers are in group C? And you don't see that as a problem? I've heard PKers claim "it is the only fun thing left in the game." amoung other crap. Why? Doesn't that say there is something inherently wrong with a game where the MAIN focus should be on survivors fighting zombies? I don't deny that PKing SHOULD be in the game, but from what it sounds like your telling me, most PKers are just Griefers so "fun" doesn't enter into it.--Pesatyel 09:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- The amount of people that a PKer can kill doesn't enter into it. As far as I can see, there's no difference between being PKed and having your brains munched by some zombies. It's just as annoying either way. Dying is a part of the game. On your second point, I don't believe that most PKers are Griefers, I think they fall mainly into your "A" category, but these ideas won't give them any extra challenge, it'll just give them a hard time. If you want to challenge PKers, make it easier for potential victims to defend themselves, not harder for PKers to kill. But with this influx of PK ideas coming into the suggestions page, we're losing sight of the real point of Urban Dead: Zombies Vs. Humans. PKers are just another little element that adds some enjoyable tension, but isn't really a problem to the majority of survivors. -Cutlet 10:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
C'mon. The only reason you're upset about PKers is because you can't play the game EXACTLY the way YOU want to play it ALL the time. Ever actually watched zombie movies? Nearly every one of them is carrying the underlying message of "humans are the real monsters", and they've all got idiots who go around shooting at the only bipeds not looking for brainz. It's a valid style of play. If you want to do something about PKers, go join a bounty hunter group. God knows they need all the help they can get; they're pretty damn useless atm. This is a case of STOP CRYING AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT YOURSELF. --c138 RR 00:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- ^Hear hear!^ c138 hit the nail on the head. PKers are just another (cool) part of the game. -Cutlet 09:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
PKing is a cool part of the game, but that doesn't mean that it isn't too easy to do, which is what people like me and Pyre have been arguing. About two days ago I killed a PKer I found at Marven Mall. Today I woke up to find he had gotten a revive and killed me. Just try to tell me that a lone zombie could do that. No amount of Bounty hunting will solve that problem. The PKer will just shamble over to a revive point and wait for some scientist who doesn't know any better to poke them with a syringe. After that, they're free to go on killing. That's way too easy, and there's no way to stop it because someone out there is going to end up reviving them. If we made zombies that powerful, survivors would be wiped out overnight. PKers should be subject to the same limitations as any other player with regards to how much damage they can do. --Reaper with no name TJ! 17:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hey Einstein. Last time I checked, PKers were subject to the same limitations as any other player, with regards to how much damage we can do. Our shotguns still deal the same damage; your flak jacket still wastes our ammo; our pistol clips still carry the same number of bullets; our AP still lasts as long as yours does.
- Now, according to the DEM PK list, 1120 players have PKed at least once since the list was started, slightly less than a year ago. And according to the UD stats page, there are 18528 survivors currently alive and well. This means that for every single person who's been reported committing a player-kill, there are 17 other people with squeaky-clean records. 1:17. Now, if we repeat that little equation with the figures for all active players in the game, the ratio becomes 1:32. 1 PKer per 32 non-PKers. Pking doesn't exactly seem like quite such a huge problem now, does it? --c138 RR 18:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- You're clearly an Einstein (I mean that in the sense that he had very little common sense, just so you know). They're not subject to the limitations of zombies, are they? PKers go right through barricades. And they're not subject to the same limitations as survivors because survivors are fighting a different enemy: zombies. And by the way, Having 1 PKer for every 17 survivors means nothing except that the big picture isn't affected much. But this isn't about the survivors. For me, this is about being fair to the zombies. Zombies have to assemble into hordes just to do what takes a single PKer. How is that not a problem? One of the basic game assumptions is that survivors and zombies are equals. But if PKers can kill more easily than zombies, then it is going against one of the core game concepts. Do PKers belong in the game? Yes, definitely. Should they be able to kill survivors more easily than zombies? No, because then there's no point to being a zombie. --Reaper with no name TJ! 21:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Man... re. Einstein, next time you want to be ironic and throw my sarcasm back at me, figure out a way that won't just make me raise one eyebrow quizzically, lol. Anyway, re. PKers being "better" than zombies. Name me one large-scale battle fought between survivors and PKers that rivals anything the zombies regularly achieve. I'm not talking about one-off killing sprees by some random guy and his mates, I'm talking about a seige, or long-term guerilla attacks. Zombies still own everyone in terms of brute force in numbers. Even the PKers fell to the ground when Caiger went down around them.
- "Should they be able to kill survivors more easily than zombies? No"
- PKers can't kill survivors more easily than zombies. You may need to leave your safehouse every couple of days to find your quarry, but we need to find revives every couple of days when zombies eat us, or those we hunt come back to hunt us in return. You regular survivors have the wonderful advantage of being able to sleep in heavily-populated buildings and areas; PKers sometimes need to spend 20+AP exploring, finding a target, and afterwards retreating to a quiet safehouse well away from the scene of the crime.
- "Zombies have to assemble into hordes just to do what takes a single PKer."
- Um, not true. A single PKer CANNOT clear a building overnight. And if two zombies worked together, one could smash the barricades, and the other could feast, and end up doing the same amount of damage as that PKer who hopped over the barricades with an axe in each hand. As flattered as I am to hear this being suggested, it's just absolutely rediculous to suggest PKers have more strength than zombies.
- PKers deal to survivors exactly the same amount of damage as regular survivors deal to zombies. If you're whining that PKers are overpowered, you're whining that survivors in general are overpowered, and that contradicts your observation of "One of the basic game assumptions is that survivors and zombies are equals." Plenty survivors out there can whack four, five, six or more zombies in a spree, so how exactly is it overpowered or unfair for survivors to be able to do this to each other? --c138 RR 02:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- You're clearly an Einstein (I mean that in the sense that he had very little common sense, just so you know). They're not subject to the limitations of zombies, are they? PKers go right through barricades. And they're not subject to the same limitations as survivors because survivors are fighting a different enemy: zombies. And by the way, Having 1 PKer for every 17 survivors means nothing except that the big picture isn't affected much. But this isn't about the survivors. For me, this is about being fair to the zombies. Zombies have to assemble into hordes just to do what takes a single PKer. How is that not a problem? One of the basic game assumptions is that survivors and zombies are equals. But if PKers can kill more easily than zombies, then it is going against one of the core game concepts. Do PKers belong in the game? Yes, definitely. Should they be able to kill survivors more easily than zombies? No, because then there's no point to being a zombie. --Reaper with no name TJ! 21:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
You wouldn't nerf survivors killing from zombies, so why nerf survivors from killing other survivors? It's an apocalypse, even though there's zombies, that wouldn't stop people from killing eachother... In fact, there'd be more of it (opportunity+mass hysteria). -Certified=Insane☭
02:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Because zombies are nerfed from killing survivors in relation to PKers, that's why. And by the way, in an apocalypse the hysteria is the least of the problems. By definition, the actual threat is what gets people during an apocalypse (otherwise it's not an apocalypse but a panic). It's the post-apocalypse where the panic and lack of order become the biggest issue. But guess what? Urban Dead is a zombie apocalypse, not a post-apocalypse. PKing is supposed to be a side-game, not the main game.
--Reaper with no name TJ! 21:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Here we go again... please continue this discussion on the PK debate page. --Uncle Bill 22:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
