Talk:Suggestions/5th-Jan-2006

Suggestion discussion

Today's suggestions

The Horror

RE: - Malls should be the hardest places for zombies to conquer. Right now they are, but this skill would make it too easy.--Denzel Washington 22:49, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

RE: - That's where I disagree with you. They have multiple entry points (think many many large broken plate glass windows, lots of large doorways, plenty of back entrances, even an open plan design). It would be very difficult to defend a mall. --Daxx 23:02, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

RE: - A mall should be the fortress where humans can regroup and actually try to resist zombies. But apparently we have different conceptions of it, so this discussion won't lead anywhere.--Denzel Washington 23:06, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I believe the forts should be for that. Obviously our opinions differ, so I'll drop it now. --Daxx 23:10, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Doesn't matter, this makes it impossible to hold just about ANY building in the game! Survivors should be able to choose to fight or flee, but with this, they can only flee since otherwise, once they run out of ammo, they have no choice but to run since an axe won't get them far in a siege! --Volke 00:28, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I do believe axes are very effective in sieges, if not more so than guns. You shouldn't rely on your ammo, and if you have to you should search when there aren't any zombies around. --Daxx 00:31, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

3 damage at 40% accuracy doesn't beat the full Pistol or saved shotguns. They are in no way better and are only good for those who go solo or to save ammo against weakened zombies. Ammo is invaluable in sieges, and with this, it is thus impossible for survivors to win another siege since while a single axe can down a single zombie a day, it only takes 1/6 AP (can't remember if headshot can be performed with the axe or not) for them to undo all 50/60 damage that the axe did to them. Also remember that an axe can only down one zombie with the full 50 AP, which means that once the zombie gets back up, the survivor can't fight back before (if they aren't already) being out of AP. Basically, this makes it impossible for survivors to ever win another siege, and what's the fun if David can never beat Goliath? --Volke 01:01, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

You've forgotten the AP you have to spend searching for ammo and reloading, which is why per AP axes score very highly compared to firearms, and I think better. You forget that it takes a lot of AP to find ammo anyway, and so firearms are actually worse than axes in sieges regardless. Sorry. You're using inefficient tactics. --Daxx 21:56, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Volke, you're missing something important. This won't suddenly deplete weapons of stored ammunition. The DPA of an axer and the DPA of a gunner, when searching is taken into effect, is actually quite similar. One would imagine that in that kind of siege situation, the first priority would be to barricade behind the invasion, then kill the ones there, THEN get more ammo. Frankly, any situation in which you have to search when they're already inside is a lost cause. This change is just to prevent people from running in, searching like hell, and running out. --Slicer 01:11, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

At major sieges, they do that, but search for ammo if they happen to get a moment where they don't have to work. I've been in sieges, and in all of them, gathering ammo while zombies are inside is important, especially pistol clips, as those last a lot longer than shotgun shells and do the most damage. Caiger had survivors manage all that while searching, and finally were able to win becuase of it! This also applies to PDs that people use as forts. I just see this as a nerf to something that's really just fine, and while many run in, search, and run out, there are many video games where you can do that, and it's just fine. Besides, survivors are supposed to be faster and more agile than zombies, right? They should be able to run circles around th brain-eater while looking for goods and then run out without being too bad unless the zombies tries to attack! I suppose if it had to be implemented in some way, I can let it go if 50-100 zombies were required for the effect, as then it'd make sense, but surely even you agree that just one (or even a small group for that matter) cutting the finding percentages in half is a bit much, right? --Volke 01:42, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

"Kill This breaks too many suggestion rules, including arguing realism and temporary bonuses and penalties. - S Kruger" Temporary bonuses are things that must be kept as a seperate variable, such as infection. This is not temporary, as the server already processes weather or not a zombie is in the area. On an unrelated note, the outside and the inside of a building are treated as seperate areas, so it would in no way hinder survivors in a barricaded building during a siege. Jirtan 03:57, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

While sieges are the current "big thing", I'm worried about suburbs. If this were implemented, a zombie horde could kill a suburb by taking over just the resource buildings. Even if organized, survivors couldn't amass enough syringe, ammo, and FAK stockpiles while still free running and barricading to counteract just a few zombies in a few buildings.C tiger 16:24, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Change of "Fifty People Nearest to You" Speech Idea 2

Re: If your problem is that people do not get to send messages to others whom they'd want hearing it, why not make two other, different suggestions? E.g. a megaphone to address everyone in the square (extra AP and a generator to use), which I think might have been discussed before, even... and the ability to "walk" to a specific person and talk to them in a whisper :) Point being, I don't think this is a good solution; or makes much sense IC, but that aside... I sympathise with what you want to achieve, though. -pinkgothic 00:04, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Corpse Discernment

Daxx, I'm really, really curious why the "dump all non-reviving" would make you vote Kill instead of Keep. --Slicer 00:06, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Well, personally I feel it adds just that little bit too much of an advantage to having the skill, especially where a large battle is taking place. I do like the idea, but I feel it might be unbalancing. I'll also change my vote if you put up a good argument for keeping that part. I'm open to persuasion. I don't know what everyone else thinks. --Daxx 00:09, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I agree with Daxx on this. I find it rather unbalancing with that part, honestly. -pinkgothic 00:21, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

It struck me as a baby-and-bathwater situation; if you knew that someone was going to come to life as a human, why the hell would you throw them out? I can see how it's imbalanced- instant allies in major sieges!- but the current situation (people standing up as humans in 200+ zombie hordes, gaaaah!) doesn't seem to be much better. --Slicer 00:29, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

You see, to dump a body you only spend 1 AP. Yes, you know there is people reviving among them, if you start taking the reviving bodies out of the pile it would took you a time you dont want to waste. If there was a new button 'Dump all non-reviving' that costed more (much more) AP to use, it'll be allright. But with a single AP, it aint. --hagnat 00:47, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)