Talk:Suggestions/6th-Nov-2006
Final Grab (version 2)
| Timestamp: | Pesatyel 00:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC) |
| Type: | Skill (attack) |
| Scope: | Zombies |
| Description: | Requires Ankle Grab. Costs 3 AP. Bonus +10% (for surprise) to hit. A zombie is killed. Next to the [Stand Up] button is a new button [Attack]. Pressing the button the zombie to grab and bite the person who just killed him. A succesful hit will do normal bite damage and infect (if the zombie has the skill) but will NOT allow Digestion (if the zombie has the skill). Perhaps the target could see "The zombie you just killed grabs at you and bites your leg for 4 damage. You shake it off and stomp on it's head."
Restrictions: The attack can ONLY be used against the person who killed the zombie and ONLY so long as that person remains in the square with the zombie after the kill. If the person leaves then returns before the zombie can attack, the [Attack] button disappears. This attack can only be used once before the zombie has to stand up again. If the zombie does not have the AP to use the skill they cannot attack. Option: The [Attack] button remains until the killer leaves or the zombie stands up but the AP cost is added to the stand up cost. Thought I'd revamp this a little, partially because there isn't much to discuss, partially because of Reaper's Ankle Bite idea (which is a better name for this skill) and partially because of the discussion in Ashnazg's Bloodlust discussion about bite's effectiveness (a single claw attack seemed a bit weak). The key here is the surprise factor. While related to the "play dead" type of suggestions, it doesn't allow the zombie to "lay in wait" for an ambush. More of a last grasp of the closest target (ie. the killer) similar to Resident Evil (which is where I got the idea). |
Discussion Hmmm...I like it. This is really the sort of feel I've been shooting for with Ankle Bite. Heck, this is probably even better than ankle bite. I'd vote keep. --Reaper with no name 16:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realize there already WAS a suggestion like this in Peer Review (here). Question is, would my version be accepted as well? The main differences are that the my version causes normal damage and infection and the zombie stays "dead" while the other causes the target to move at 2 AP and the zombie automatically stands up.
Or would it just be considered a dupe?--Pesatyel 04:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Bonus attack? That came out of no where. What exactly does THAT mean?--Pesatyel 01:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello? Anybody here?--Pesatyel 08:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
PKer Flag
| Timestamp: | Reaper with no name 16:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC) |
| Type: | Game mechanic |
| Scope: | Everyone, but more so PKers |
| Description: | When it comes to killing, some people became famous. So famous, in fact, that their reputation preceeds them wherever they go...
The idea here is to add a "PKer flag" that goes on a survivor when they kill another survivor (I would probably have the same happen for zombies, but zombie anonymity would currently make this impossible). This flag will not show up if the killer and victim are the only two survivors present. The flag would show up to other players like this: {Player Name}(PKer) This flag announces to the world that the character has killed someone, but doesn't actually affect their ability to kill. It automatically disappears after a week and does not show up while the character is a zombie. Players who kill someone with this flag do not recieve it (ie, bounty hunters don't get the PKer flag for killing a PKer).
What are the advantages to this suggestion? Well, it provides undeniable evidence as to whether or not a person is a PKer. You can't fake the flag. It also doesn't actually nerf the PKer; it only makes other players aware of their intentions (which is really only fair, since they have no clue most of the time who's who until it's too late). There are still a few bugs to be worked out in this (you can probably think of a few off the top of your head), so any ideas would be appreciated. |
Discussion
- Erm. No. PKers already have a PK Flag...their PK Group name. And some PKers use covert action in order to do their crimes and then get away. This nerfs that. Want to find pkers? Use the Meta-Game.--ShadowScope 18:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not all PKers do. And even if they do, you won't know unless you check the profiles of each and every person in a room. If you try this in, say, a mall, then chances are they'll be done killing before you can find out who they are. And the fact that PKers can use covert actions to kill is exactly what makes PKing unfair. Zombies have to organize and tear down barricades before they can attack survivors. PKers only have to stock up on ammo and free-run in before they can attack with their (far stronger) attacks. What this means is that even a single PKer is much more dangerous than a horde of zombies. That is what this is meant to address. It gives people a chance to defend themselves. I mean, bounty hunting can't actually stop someone from PKing; only punish them for it. This allows people to actually have a good way to quickly identify and stop Pkers before they kill again. --Reaper with no name 03:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure many people will go for this, but it has promise. I especially don't like the NPC justification. Consider adding a requirement for other survivors to be present to witness the murder and then only a fair chance (~25-50%) that the flag will be applied (as word of mouth isn't perfect). --IrradiatedCorpse
04:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with IrradiatedCorpse. Require someone be present and give at % chance of happening. The only other thing I can think of is based on the idea of notoriety/infamy. Basically, the more often the character does it, the more noteriety they build up so that, eventually, everyone would recognize him as a PKer (hence the flag). And Shadowscope, players shouldn't be REQUIRED to metagame. The more features that can be integrated into the game itself, the better.--Pesatyel 04:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I still dislike it, because it does discourge and nerf PKing a little, which is against the Do and Do Nots, but then again, Kevan violates those Do and Do Nots all the time. But how do you stop Pking without...well...Pking? Bounty Hunters will end up getting killed a lot as well. Pesatyel's notoriety idea seems good...however, there is a rare chance that someone who is a PKer reforms and decide no longer to PK? He's going to get PKed a lot, because of his previous actions. Lastly, would it be better to make zombies more powerful rather than make PKers weaker? EDIT: I do like the meta-game. It makes UD's world much more enlighting and better rather than sticking inside the game. If you don't metagame, you won't have as much fun as if you do metagame.--ShadowScope 16:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
How do you stop PKing without Pking? Well, you don't. And that's why you don't get the PKer flag if you kill someone who has it. I guess I'll add a requirement that other survivors be present for this to work. It makes sense roleplay-wise and doesn't require me to invoke the dreaded word "NPC", even if it's only being used as a roleplay device. But I have to say I disagree that this nerfs PKing. It doesn't take away the PKer's ability to kill in any way. All it does is tell other people that they are one. And really, do you think most players would heal a PKer or even tolerate their being in the same room as them if they knew they were a PKer? No, they wouldn't. It's not fair for PKers to be able to walk around looking like they're just some regular survivor before going on a rampage when zombies have weaker attacks, barricades they have to smash before they can even use said attacks, and no way to hide from survivors. In short, PKing nerfs zombies as it stands right now (which goes against one of the Basic Game Assumptions: "Survivors and Zombies are Equals"). And even if this did nerf PKing, there is nothing in the Suggestion Do's or Don'ts that even mentions PKing. The closest things to it are "Don't penalize players for playing in character" and "Don't reward players for playing out of character". Of course, I'm not going to argue that PKing is necessarily out of character, but the point remains. The only "game policies" that have to do with PKing are that it is allowed, and that it gets you less XP. So, what we can gather from this is that PKing is allowed, but should be discouraged. That is exactly what this does. --Reaper with no name 17:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd rename this suggestion to "Mark of Cain".
You stop PKing by not resurecting known PKers so they stay zombies. I like this idea (assuming there needs to be witnesses to the kill). I suspect that groups will stop reviving known PKers unless the PKers are their PKers -- aka Bounty Hunters. -- IthacaMike 12:30, 7 November 2006 (EST)
And here we go. PKing should not be encourged, but, really, it should not be hurt as well. It has been discourged, with that half XP gain, and that's all the discourgement it needs. I now see you added in that you don't get the PK Flag if you do PK a PKer with the Flag, making it a even bigger nerf to PKers. PKing is a part of the game, and you will be making it very, very bad currently. Like how ItchaMike is proposing. And it still doesn't make sense. If I kill someone on one side of Malton, does the other side of Malton knows? And how in the world can you trust the word of mouth? You shouldn't trust anyone in this game, and this flag makes it so that you can trust someone. Really, metagame is the only method I tolerate, and not this anti-PK suggestion. Boosting zombies is better than nerfing PKers. (And have you ever heard of 'reformed' PKers out there?)--ShadowScope 19:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
How does getting a Badge of Honor ("Hey, I'm a People Killer!") harm the PKer? Isn't that what they are after, at least in part? Aren't they gunning for the rep? You seem to be suggesting the PKers are some sort of slime that betray trust, backstab, and then try to avoid the consequences for their actions. I agree with you that the killer should get their Badge of Honor no mater who the target is. I also think it should be very long lasting since the glory of the Mano et Mano kill would fade slowly.
In a world where radios and cell phones work (at least some of the time), yes word could spread accross Malton to BOLO for WhiteRabid (pic inclosed) because he killed SallySweetCheeks in the Dowdny Mall in Santlerville.
I'm in favor with the following stipulations:
- a) Any Person on Person killing is eligable for the Badge.
- b) It has to be witnessed by two or more other people.
- c) The badge goes away after a long while.
I'm completely against this. See a kill? Report it. That's how it works. I play 3 PKers, including a Bounty Hunter, and this would be the last straw for me- I would leave the game. Currently there are many people turned to PKing out of boredom (see the growing focus on PKing/Bounty Hunting) and this would take out the fun of meta-gaming. Sorry, but it's a definite kill from me. --Karloth vois RR 20:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
--IthacaMike 1530, 7 November 2006 (EDT)
The idea of PKers reforming is the entire reason that it only lasts one week. The reason the flag is conditional is because otherwise bounty hunters would be mistakenly targeted by people who thought they were your average, run-of-the-mill PKers. And as for the half-XP thing being all the discouragement necessary, that's not true because many PKers are fully leveled and have no need of XP whatsoever. There is also no way to boost zombies up to the same levels of effectiveness as PKers without completely destroying the balance of the game. Remember, PKers are dangerous because they can bypass barricades with free running and attack you with guns. If zombies could do that, there would be no survivors left in the game.
I also fail to see how this takes the fun out of meta-gaming. The flag would only last 1 week. It might take longer than that to catch the PKer. Furthermore, this wouldn't keep track of how many people the PKer had killed. All of those aspects of bounty-hunting would still fall to meta-gaming. Heck, this would probably help meta-gaming, because you would have undeniable proof as to whether or not a given person was a PKer, unlike the situation that currently exists where it is possible to frame someone if you have decent photo-editing skills. --Reaper with no name 22:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, to expand on my previous comment, what about "noterity" points? If someone witness a kill, you get a point. Build up, say 10 points and you get a flag. The way to remove points is by not getting caught and/or not PKing for 50 AP (ie. one day's game). And, on a side, note the same could be said for ANY aspect of the game. Healing others, killing zombies, barricading. Part of the problem I see with the game is that players STILL have the mentality that zombies aren't important/aren't a threat/etc (which is partly true). Hence why PKing is so "popular." Sometimes, I think if PKing WERE nerfed, it would remind people this is a ZOMBIE apocalypse, not "PKer's Paradise."--Pesatyel 06:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
It does not take over a week to catch a PKer- my Bounty Hunter is opportunistic, and rarely has to travel far for kills. I wouldn't mind this if it worked only so far as if it was witnessed, and leaving no witnesses alive doesn't produce a flag. Otherwise, you have utterly nerfed PKing, which may be your point, but it's the only interesting fun left in this game. Pestayel- you said it yourself, it's a zombie apocalypse. Anarchy in a quarantined city. --Karloth vois RR 15:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- ...it's the only interesting fun left in the game. And you don't see a problem with that, given the nature of the game? This isn't Nexus War.--Pesatyel 07:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Leave PKing alone. It's bad enough that so many survivors zerg; we don't need zerg hunters getting flagged, then hunted down. Don't even think of tying this to the zerg flag to get around that problem; avoiding the zerg flag is a walk in the park — any lackwit with knowledge of proxies or just a teensy bit of experience can avoid it without any difficulty whatsoever. –Xoid M•T•FU! 16:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't make sense. It's a big city - how would people be able to tell, just by looking at someone, that they killed someone else in the last week? That's like gifting the entire population with psychic powers. --Funt Solo 16:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The herg hunter angle is something I hadn't thought of, I'll admit. But what I'm really worried about are GKers and griefers. Currently, PKing is the only way to stop them, and until I've thought of a way around that little detail I'm not even gonna think about submitting this. --Reaper with no name 22:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
im again! Urbandead whan to be the more realistic?! ur character an youself are to differente person and ur character don't even know how you think,the character think by himself. --Kcold 22:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I think PKing is far too easy. Personally I don't want to get rid of it, but I think something should be done to increase the AP cost so its more in line with a zombie's. Malton currently is "PKers Paradise". I play a dedicated zombie character that uses honorable tactics. If he's revived I jump out a window and attack the building I leapt out of from outside. Frankly as a zombie player it pisses me off to know that my pounding at the barricades accomplishes 1/10th of what I could do if I exploited the lax survivor vs. survivor security. What about this for a suggestion: PKers prey on confusion and panic. Survivors are watching each other's backs normally. Therefore the only times a person can kill another person indoors is if the barricades are down or if dead bodies/zombies are present. This just evens the AP cost out with zombies. --Jon Pyre 17:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I weill not read all this talk, 'cause I have something very simple to say: WILL PEOPLE STOP DOING SUGGESTIONS AGAINST PKers!!! -Certified=Insane☭
22:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
"...WILL PEOPLE STOP DOING SUGGESTIONS AGAINST PKers!!!" Why would we do that? PKing is a problem for people who are trying to play a survivor. I would assume that you probably play at least one PKer. I've been killed by zombies all of two times. I get killed by other people, most of them with way more XP than they can spend, almost every other day. Then I'm stuck waiting at a revive point for a doctor that I'm not sure is ever coming. I would like to see a Malton where PKers check Urbandead every morning and find that they are dead again. And then when they get revived two days later they get to use 40 AP and in the morning they find themselves dead again. Low level survivors have a hard time gaining XP because they die because of PKers. How is this not a problem we should be trying to solve? --Loomos 06:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
And how does this addresses bounty hunters who go after GKers, RKers, zergers, and RP-Killers? --Wikidead 23:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Loomos, if people weren't so lazy and actually worked together then maybe PKers would be dead on a regular basis, but we aren't. I've PKed quite a few times in Caigar and not once was i PKed by a bounty hunter. You people should stop being so lazy and hoping a suggestion will poof away the problem and instead actually do something, instead of crying about it.--Mr yawn 
19:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
