Talk:Suggestions/30th-Dec-2005

Suggestion Discussion

Today's Discussion

Okay, a question, or a rant, whatever (Bean Bag Gun)

I admit, I posted the suggestion on Bean Bag Gun. I had actually thought about it for about 15 minutes before posting it, and I keep revising the HP and AP damage downward. However, the idea was shot down within, oh, 10 minutes of posting, and I didn't even get to see most of the comments, other than "it must be humorous, it was a bad suggestion, 'don't touch the AP!'" So WHY was it so humorous, and what exactly is bad about it?

Before I can even read most of the comments the whole suggestion was spamminated (when at least one of the "spam" votes was unsigned, and therefore invalid!)

Yes, I read the Dos and Donts of Suggestions. The section about "don't touch other people's APs" simply mentioned that don't propose anything that has major effect on target's AP.

I don't believe 3 AP for a "knockdown" weapon is a MAJOR effect, and I even added a note that "Ankle Grab" zeds can stand back up using only 1 AP. Given that headshot takes 5 AP to recover, it may be possible to tune it down to 2 AP, but any less would make the weapon completely useless.

Maybe the problem is with the way the gun was implemented? The idea is the target HIT with bean bag gun will fall over, as if dead, but keeps its HP (less the SLIGHT damage) and must spend X AP to stand back up (less if you have ankle grab). But how ELSE would you implement a "stun" weapon that simply slows the target down without doing permanent damage, within context of this game? And what exactly is bad about this implementation? And what are the alternatives?

One guy commented that somehow "this reduces all zeds to 5 HP". I don't understand this comment at all, and now I will never have a chance to ask him to clarify the comment.

So, this is sort of a rant, I guess. Shouldn't any comment about the QUALITY of the suggestion be accompanied by an explanation? Like "Impossible to implement", "Fundamental change to game mechanics", or "nerfs one side, too powerful", or something like that, right? Of course, now that the comments have been "summarized" there's not even any evidence of that.

--Kschang 05:54, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Here are the votes I pulled from History. Enjoy:

• Kill - Something about instant knock-down weapons in the suggestions guidelines I believe. Also, I hate fixing your wiki formatting. Rhialto 04:53, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Spam - This belongs in humorous, even though there are beanbag weapons out there.
• Spam - What is with this series of ridiculous suggestions that keep trying to mess with AP? For the last time, read the suggestion rules, and leave AP alone! --Daednabru 04:58, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
• Kill - There never is permanent damage to Zeds, they can always just get back up. You basically just cut there HP down to 5 DarthMortis Dec. 30 12 midnight EST
• Spam --Jack-Swithun 05:03, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Because I have no life. --Signal9 07:24, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)

The alternative to your implementation of stun weapons is to not have stun weapons. Incidentally, the unsigned spam vote was mine. My signature doesn't always work, for some reason. This was discussed on the suggestion page. CthulhuFhtagn 02:05, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)

These Spaminators are getting out of hand. Id like to see a time limit to the removal of a suggestion for any reason. Like after the first day of voting, if its spam it gets spammed on the "previous days voting" page. As for your suggeston I think having a gang of bean baggers knocking over offline zombies thus protecting them from headshot would have been silly.bbrraaiinnss Jan 2 2006

In this particular case, the suggestion itself is ridiculous: With the current game mechanics, for zombies death is equal to being knocked down. They will rise as zombies. What DarthMortis meant in his vote was that insta-knock-down would equal shooting a 5HP zombies with pistol (or shotgun). Thus, it would effectivily reduce zombies' HP to 5. --Brizth 10:18, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Yep! DarthMortis Jan 3rd 4:00pm EST