Talk:Suggestions/archive25

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Handgreen.png Archive Page
This page is an archive page of Talk:Suggestions. Please do not add comments to it. If you wish to discuss the Suggestions page do so at Talk:Suggestions.


Post Necrosis Syndrome

Timestamp: Storyteller 16:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Type: Zombie Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: When a survivor dies, they become a zombie, which is basically a "corrupted" body that can be corrected with revivification. In this skill, some parts of the "corrupted" body becomes reisistant to revivification, causing the zombie to become a survivor who is still half zombie. A Necrosis Victim has powers of both a survivor and a zombie, but the corrupted parts of the body is in constant conflict with the revivificated part, causing the victim to be very weak.

I know there are other skills suggested like this, but I just wanted to put up a version of my own. This skill is in the same "tree" as Brain Rot, but is not a subskill of it. Costs 100 exp to buy. Basically, when revivification is attempted on a zombie anywhere other than inside a Necrotech building with this skill, they have a 25% chance that they stand up as a "Necrosis Victim," A survivior with zombie characteristics (revivifaction in a Necrotech building will result in a 0% chance to occur). They would have access to both zombie and survivor abilities, skills, and attacks. On map, they are designated as "x Necrosis Victims," a separate list from both zeds and survivors. Necrosis Victims' indentities can be revealed through the use of DNA extractor. Because they are neither fully zombie nor fully survivor, both survivors and zombies only get 1/2 exp per damage rounded down from attacking a necrosis victim.

These victims can use items just as a human could, and can use normal speech. When attacking with an item, though, they get a -50% of base chance to hit. When they search, they have a -50% base chance of finding an item. When attacking with teeth, there is a 50% chance that digestion (if the skill was taken) would fail because the revivified half rejecting the act. When free running, there is a 25% chance of failing, ending up outside the destination instead of inside it, and all normally survivor-only activities take +1 AP (unless supplemented by some skill, such as lurching gait).

Even with all this negativities, this skill may still look very good. But here's the main problem with this skill: A victime is constantly in a infected state (-1 HP per action, regardless of AP spent), and has half their usual maximmum HP. As explained before, the "corrupted" areas of the body is constantly fighting its revivified half, causing the body to weaken.

The main benefit of this skill is the effect it has on the zombie hand attack. It does not receive negative effects because it does not use an item, and even gets a better chance to hit from the hand-to-hand combat skill. This gives them the ability to have the highest possible chance to hit on a 3 damage attack when maxed out. The main problem in using this skill, though, is that with such low health, low chance to find items(such as FAKs), and the constant HP degeneration, the victim would not last long or would spend most of their AP searching for FAKs.

There are several way out of this condition. Using a FAK heals them, but only does not cure them. If they die, they can stand up as a zombie. If they are revivified again, then they become a full survivor after standing up (they can revivify themselves if they have the means to do so).

Some problems that may arise if this is implemented is the use of the zombie bombing tactic, as mentioned in the discussion page. Also, a zombie wishing to use this skil would not be able to get Brain Rot due to the fact that a zombie must be revived for this skill to work.

Discussion

Mmmm, zombie bombing goodness. --Mold 18:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I'll have to think of a way around that somehow. --Storyteller 19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the first two things we need to do are push the probability of happening up to 100%, and drop the max hp cap down to 1/5 normal. :D I kid. Seriously, though, zombie bombing is a valid tactic, I don't think trying to negate this suggestion's usefulness to it is a good idea - just bear in mind it can and does happen when considering how much is too much. --Mold 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Vigor plus Neck Lurch plus hand to hand combat plus Digestion = average 1.8 HP regained per attack, or net .8 after the infection loss. Not to shabby, and still more damage than claws do. The special ID for necrosis victims leaves a lot of issues unclear, like whether you can see their profiles like a survivors or it is hidden like a zombies. Also, the "can use human or zombie speech" bit is pointless; ALL humans can use "zombie speech" byt just typing in things zombies would normally say. --S.Wiers X:00x-mas tree dead pool 00:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think bite attack would get bonus from hand to hand combat... you really aren't using hand after all. On the ID part, I am not too sure. I was thinking, maybe there could be a "list names" button that allows players to see the profile of the victims, but them maybe not. This is the discussion board after all. You tell me what you think. I somewhat based this off your Revenant idea afterall. --Storyteller 02:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Though I did forget about digestion. That would probably make this less balanced than I thought I had made it. Maybe occasional failure due to the revivified half rejecting it? --Storyteller 00:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea. It provides a neat alternative for death cultists and a new way to role play, without seeming to nerf either survivors or zombags. Might need a little bit of calculations for the percentages, but the core is worthwhile. As far as the ID goes, maybe there could be a flag that will provide the text "You notice scabs and dead skin still clinging to [PC]" on all just revived corpses. Using a DNA scanner on the PC could ID them as Necrosis or not? That sounds a little complex though.Last Ranger 19:49, 13 March 2007 (PST)

I think this is good enough to be put on the suggestions page, and will shortly be making a revised version. If there's anything that should really be changed, please tell me! --Storyteller 23:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Lose the Gun, Keep the Ammo

Timestamp: Uncle Bill 03:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Type: Inventory
Scope: People with guns
Description: As you all know by now, the new game changes make it a lot harder to carry around a lot of loaded weapons. That makes sense, because how many people do you really see walking around with six shotguns? Unfortunately, with search rates being what they are, you are just as likely to find a partially loaded weapon as you are ammunition. Getting rid of the new weapon helps you keep your inventory small but is a waste of ammo.

So here's my solution. From now on, dropping a weapon will transfer it's ammunition to a partially loaded gun if you have one available. Some examples:

  • You have two pistols (3)(6) and find one more (4). Dropping either of the partially loaded pistols gives you (6)(6). One extra bullet is wasted because you had nowhere for it to go.
  • You have two pistols (1)(3) and drop one of them. You end up with a pistol with (4) shots left.
  • Dropping a fully loaded pistol gives you a pistol clip, which takes up less space.
  • Dropping a shotgun (1) gives you a shotgun shell. A shotgun (2) would give you two shells.

I know that there have been other inventory combining suggestions before, but I feel that not only is this needed now more than ever, but that this one keeps things as simple as possible.

Suggestions welcome!

Discussion

This is the best idea so far regarding saving ammo. A few bullets will still get wasted, but the implementation is simple, obvious, and would also work for shotguns. --SporeSore 13:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be for this now because of the new changes, it wasn't really an issue before. –Ray Vern Pig.gifphz •T 14:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Its pretty good. The only problem I see is that it potentially saves AP over normal ammo loading. Finding (say) 2 pistols with 3 shots a piece would mean you could drop 1 and have 1 fully loaded pistol for zero AP. But I don't see how this could be exploited (guns are much less common than clips) and its not a big boost, so I think that's OK- its just a bit odd is all.S.Wiers X:00x-mas tree dead pool 22:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... hadn't thought of that. But making it cost AP is probably too much of a penalty. I'm going to submit it as is and see how it does. --Uncle Bill 03:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The situation you describe would only result in a saving in encumberance for 0AP. 2 pistols with 3 shots each is the same as 1 pistol with 6 shots (except for the space it takes up). I don't see it as a cheap loading option. May be it would be worth making the dropping of a loaded pistol cost 1AP instead of being free?? (I happy with it as is though). –Ray Vern Pig.gifphz •T 12:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Zerg-Free Trading

Timestamp: Jon Pyre 05:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Survivors
Description: The encumbrance nerf prevents a survivor from stocking up with everything they could possibly ever need, example: 15 shotguns a generator and 8 FAKS in one inventory. Now that you can't carry everything on your own it makes sense that survivors should be able to exchange items with each other as the need arises.

I suggest introducing a Shopping subskill called Trading. The only problem with trading, as previously imagined, is zerging. One character could make a dozen slave characters to find them items and then have the zergs hand them all over to the real character. To avoid this each item will have a value assigned to it based on its rarity, and you can only receive something from another character by giving them items of equal value that they have requested. Items could be valued in categories like worthless (books, newspapers for instance), common (first-aid), scare (syringes), and rare (generators). So you could trade a scare item for another scare item, but it might require 3 common items to receive a scare item.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the old trading screen in Oregon Trail. A similar mechanic might work here. You'd have a new link next to wiki and profile links: "Trading". It would bring up your trading preference screen. On the left would have a list of every item in the game coupled with a checkbox for each. You would check off the items you are willing to receive. In the middle would be a listing every item you have, individually with a checkbox, so you could choose what you would be willing to part with. On the right side there would be a drop down menu "Trade for", also listing every item in the game. Clicking "trade for" would bring up the first person in the room with that item willing to trade it. You'd see the desire item on the right, and all your items that person is willing to accept each with a checkbox. Check off the items you want. As long as the value is equal the trade will go through. There'd also be "Trade away" which would bring up a random offer for the item of yours you put away. You could then choose whether or not to accept it.

Upon logging back in the person who was traded with while they were away would see a message like this:

MaltonGuy traded 3 first-aid kits to you in exchange for a revivification syringe (4 hours ago).

Discussion

Nexus Wars has a 1AP give item command, the difference being Nexus Wars has no IP limit. In UD, it would cost 1 IP hit to either drop an item, or to reject being given something. A give item system is easier to implement would have a lot less server load, and accomplish more or less the same ends as trading. The first issue is whether people think it is worth the possible IP griefing (X gives you 20 newspapers for kicks) for the benefits received. The second issue, which always arises in item exchange discussions, is preventing players from giving items to their own alts.--SporeSore 14:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Does Nexus War suffer from much zerging? One would imagine that a give command would encourage the zergers. --Toejam 22:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Nexus War has very tough non-zerging code. All characters on the same account(you can have up to 3 for free) can not interact with each other and cannot do anything in the same game area within 12 hours(?) of each other. I do not know what IP tracking is used to prevent multiple account abuse, but I am certain it is tracked. I suspect it is very hard to zerg. --SporeSore 13:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You left 1 thing out...zergers could trade full firearms for empty firearms, resulting in less ammo searching for their main alt to do. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 14:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - the problem with trading is zergers. Why carry everything when your slave-drones can carry it for you? You might argue back with zerg-flag solutions, but any fairly organised group could fool that system. In that case, this becomes a huge group buff, leaving the loners disadvantaged. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 15:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What is a "scare" item? Surely the Jon Pyre means "scarce". IP griefing would become a problem -- trading would have to be made a 0 IP thing for the receiver. Then there is the zerging difficulty, even with anti-zerging measures. --Anotherpongo 08:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Not A Broken Guard Suggestion

Timestamp: ShadowScope 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Type: Skill
Scope: Suriviors Who Want to Protect!
Description: A surivior wants to protect his genny or radio from being destroyed. Somehow, this is seen as a great auto-defense, not so happy and neat and such. Here's prehaps a balanced way to have Guarding.

A New Skill: "Guard", a standalone civilian skill, gives you all the training you need in order to guard the Radio and Gennys from being destroyed by GKers, Death Cultists, and Zombies.

You have a new Button: Guard (1 AP), and a drop down menu to show that you are guarding either the radio or the genny. If you click on it, it changes to:

"You see a radio here. It is being guarded by So-And-So."

You are considered out of guard mode when you use another AP for any action. Like, if you search, or if you heal, or if you shoot zeds. So, usually, it's better to go and spend your lats AP guarding...if you want to.

Basically, when a GKer or an RKer attacks, he has the possiblity (25%) of attacking the So-and-So character INSTEAD of the Genny or the Radio. The roll is done so that first you check to see if you hit, and then you check to see if you hit the Genny/Radio or the So-and-So person.

Why? Well, if a person is foolishly guarding an inaminate object instead of suriving, it's kinda obivous that he'll just stand there and do whatever it takes to protect the thing. Of course, he'll likely fail (hence the 25% chance), but still. If the person loses some health in the process of guarding the Generator and the Radio...well, that's his fault for being so selfless.

Only one person can guard one inaminate object. For example, one person guard the radio, and one person guard the genny.

The Guard did his duty. He guarded the genny or the radio from the destruction. This also does not force the GKer into PKing, for he only needs to attack the Guard once. Yes, this may be seen as an auto-action, but it is one that really...doesn't sound useful. The Guard is losing health, and only delaying the inevtible. Some problems:

1. Prehaps if the Guard is decreased to a certain health (say, 40 HP/50 HP) he's declared out of Guard Duty and won't interfere with the person killing the genny/radio? The problem is that it would encourge "guard bots", bots who would basically check to see if anyone is guarding it, and if so, will just waste AP guarding it. 2. How much AP will be lost by the GKer/RKer in the process? If it becomes too AP effienct...oh no! It will become the new barricades.If it is not AP effienct, well, nobody would guard.

Discussion

Not sure i like this version much more than the one on the suggestion page. As you say it is vulnerable to bots. While the idea sounds good i am not sure it will work in this game simply because auto actions do not fit well. Infact the only way i can see this skill being workable is if it warned anyone that has it that the category he was guarding was under attack in real time. For example "since your last action X attacked the radio/generator/barricade/a survivor/a zombie". you could set your priority from that list or perhaps take the skill multiple times to allow you to keep an eye on more than one thing. Thinking about it, if the skill was named awareness it could even be a crossover skill for zeds with MOL. In that case i would suggest making it part of a new skill tree. "awareness,guardian,eagle eye" each allowing 1 subject to be monitored, obviously if you do not want spam don't take it or turn it off!--Honestmistake 17:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, well, by the time you log in, the genny would be smashed to bits. And if you do see an attack, real-time, on the genny, well, by the time you train your gun on the GKer or the RKer, he would have already destroyed the Genny or the Radio. Maybe all guard suggestions are inherently broken. *shrugs* I could see it helpful, one skill that allows people to concerate either on Surivior attacks, Genny attacks, radio, attacks, etc. They get the spam only when real-time fighting, and it would be somewhat cross-over, altough I don't see the reason why it would help zeds...--ShadowScope 17:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Basicaly this would only really be a help during live combat where knowing who is active and what they are doing could offer significant benefits. Zombies get to see who is fixing cades, harmanz can target the Gker or barricade attacking cultist etc...--Honestmistake 19:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then how about this... Make a skill called Guard (or Sentry, or whatever). You can spend 5 AP to guard a generator, and it would block the next 5 attacks against the generator. You take the hits instead, and the attack is reported to everyone in the room. Only one person at a time can have guard duty, and if you were the last one to hit the "guard" button... it's you. (This would have to be balanced somehow to make sure someone didn't volunteer for guard duty just so they could kill the genny.) --Uncle Bill 03:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestmistake's idea is far more better. It's not an auto-defense, actually. You just are awake, doing stuff, logging in, when you see the genny, or the cades, being attacked and torn up. Then you spring into action to defend it, wasting AP. But you have to LOG IN first to see the attacks otherwise your skill is useless. It's not overpowered at all. I'll submit it ASAP.--ShadowScope 04:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
That's basically what I suggested last time this idea came up. Similar to making a syringe, you allocate X AP to "defense". Whenever someone attacks the target and your character is there, they have a chance of hitting you instead...until the X AP you spent is used up. The AP is considered spent regardless of whether or not anyone actually attacks the target or if you leave the location.--Pesatyel 06:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Silencer

Timestamp: Ducis DuxSlothTalk 01:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Type: weapon change
Scope: Anyone who finds one
Description: Silencer. I know as soon as many people hear this, they will snap, scream "Trenchcoater!" and slap spam to the list in under 30 seconds. Hear me out people. I am aware of several silencer suggestions in peer rejected, however none of them were thought out well or given a chance at discussion.

What I am proposing is simple - a new pistol type, that would only be found in Fort Armories, at 0.5%/1%. Being rare stops it becoming so widespread that normal pistols are not used.

It will be labeled as (s)Pistol in your inventory, take up 2 spaces, and has an encumbrance of 4%.

You are only allowed one silenced pistol in your inventory.

How will it be different in-game? When the silenced pistol is used, only your victim can see your name and profile ID - no one else in the room will see this, only ' an unknown shooter killed "insterusernamehere" '. Yes, this goes for zombies as well.

Now people will bitch about it being used as a PK'ing weapon - well, in essence I suppose this is. However it does not make getting away with Pking any easier, as the person you shot can still report you with ease.

I didn't want to complicate this by adding in an item 'silencer' which you could attach or anything, I just wanted to keep it straight and simple. And rare. Don't forget that one. I think we need a rare weapon in UD, something to add character that is not overpowered.

I suppose really in the end, this is a flavor item that has an alternate in-game function. Sound good?

Discussion

Yes, this DOES make PKing easier. That's the only reason for something like this. I walk in, kill you with a silenced pistol and your 50 buddies in the room have no idea. And rare does not equal balanced. Other than PKing, what POSSIBLY could this be used for?--Pesatyel 02:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Helps prevent less experienced zombies from knowing who's active during a siege. --SirensT RR 02:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Good thing or bad thing? --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 02:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. He just asked for another possible use. --SirensT RR 03:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Bad thing. Why do you want to screw over less experienced (ie. newbie) zombies? We want them to continue playing, not leave.--Pesatyel 00:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am already seeing death cultists becoming the mist widespread type here. Do you have any idea what this will mean during a siege? A small group of death cultists could easily come in, kill people, throw out their bodies to keep them from saying anything, and then proceed to turn the siege to the zed's side. This is unsalvageable. --Nimble Zombie 03:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem pretty narrow minded about those death cultists - each cultist could only kill about one person before running out of AP - remember, because it is quite rare, you will be reloading that single pistol a lot. And it's not like the rest of the people in the room will be oblivious - they still see people being killed, they just do not know who is killing them. Adds another element to the game. Calling it 'unsalvagable' seems pretty obscure to me too. What do you mean by this?? --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 03:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Blast away with more "powerful" weapons and make the killing blow with this since you can't see anything but the kill. That's what Death Cultists and PKers ALREADY do. This would just make them more effective.--Pesatyel 00:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So...65% chance of 5 damage (okay 4 with a flak jacket) means 2.6 damage per AP, factoring in the reloads means about TWO kills per death cultist, not one. And that's really serious. A group of say three death cultists could take out 12% of a group of 50 people in a mall. Without anyone knowing. Now how will that affect a mall siege? Well, all they need to do is take out the six people who are ACTIVE at that time. By doing so, the mall becomes effectively defenseless and the zombies can flood in. Unsalvageable? Yeah. -- Ashnazg 1515, 12 March 2007

As opposed to a death cultist with a shotgun walking in, and killing 5 people, then being killed and joining the zombie hordes (or being revived by another death cultist, and then repeating the entire thing), the ability to kill two people a day isn't that major - aside from the fact that this rewards metagaming. Rewarding metagaming is bad. People who use tools outside of the game should have no more advantage than people who do not.
Anyways, rare =! balanced. And something that makes PKers harder to find is bad. I mean, with this suggestion, in a siege where no revive points are active, a group of PKers could live inside the mall, killing anyone they wanted with complete impunity. One of the core things about PKers is that they need to run away. They choose to play a part that has to constantly live with the risk of being hunted down and killed.
On to reality: A silenced pistol is, actually, not completely silent. It merely changes the bang of the gun into the hiss of gas being released. And, while reality isn't that important in UD, I would think that a silenced pistol would, in UD, probably make more sense if it limited the message of someone being shot by someone to the nearest 10, 20, or perhaps 30 people, who were able to look around and see who was holding a gun, not change them message other people see to "an unknown shooter killed ..." --Saluton 15:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, do you think then it should be 3 damage then, and limited to the nearest 10 or 15 people? --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 01:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A knife is even more quiet than a silenced pistol, but knife kills can be seen by everyone. Anonymous killings are bad for the game. --Matt Scott 9 12:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the knife is "even more quiet than a silenced pistol" - how many times do you have to stab them before they die? Point is, they are not comparable. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 14:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
That is an irrelevant observation since you only get to see the kill, not any of the attacks. As I said above (and commented on when the knife was suggested the same way as this silencer), most people would do what they do now, attack with their "better" weapons (pistol/axe and occasional shotgun) then switch to the "silenced" weapon (be it this silencer or a knife) for the killing blow. The main problem with the whole idea is it's very nature. Keeping people from seeing when someone kills someone else and it makes no difference if it is a knife, a silenced pistol or a shotgun with a pillow over the barrel.--Pesatyel 01:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Well then say that if any other weapons are used, the identity of the killer would be exposed as per normal. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 00:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thats the point. If this were in the game, WHY would anyone (ie. PKers) use any other weapon for a kill unless they had to?--Pesatyel 02:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Read the last two paragraphs of my suggestion. That there is the main reasoning behind it, and reasons to use it. I know I would. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 03:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I did. I saw nothing useful in there or any other part of this suggestion. Sorry. Rare does NOT equal balanced. Eventually EVERYONE will have one. And how is this NOT overpowered? The essential function is to keep others from seeing when you kill someone. Sure, they CAN report it, just like any other PK. But if 20 people see "Bob killed Joe", they have some more "proof" over a possible baseless allegation of PKing. Not to mention those 20 people could be friends or have some other reason to kill your ass in return. Not to mention it could still take some time for "Joe" to report the PK where as his 20 friends could possibly kill you right then and there...if they knew. If you want to add character, I think it would be cool if people could see what you used to kill someone with. "Bob used a pistol to kill Joe". In addition, allow for simplistic renaming of weapons. "Bob used a 44 magnum to kill Joe". Still a pistol but a different name.--Pesatyel 06:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
How about this? Only the person who gets attacked DO NOT know who attacked (or if the attack is lethal, killed) them. If a person dies, everyone else knows who is the murderer and who is the murdered. This would nerf the Attack and Switch tactic. A person who goes and attack over and over with the Shotgun, and then moves for the Silencer finds that while this person does not see who made the last blow, he knows who made everything BUT the last blow, so the victim could conclude who the PKer is. This will encourge PKers (and other Suriviors) to use the Silencers, so that nobody knows who attack them. I can see "attack and run" tactics, by which a PKer ambush a person, attack them until they are at little health and then run. Still, I think "Do not encourge PKing" is a valid point, and I don't think suggestion can pass.--ShadowScope 19:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That's different. Basically, your saying that if I killed you with the silencer, eveyrone but YOU would see it? So if I didn't want YOU to know who killed you, I'd have to make sure to use the silencer for EVERY attack?--Pesatyel 20:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Correct. This means you won't use your better weapons (like axes) to wittle me down to 1 HP before finishing me off with the Sliencer (a major exploit that would be fixed). This would make other people still want to PK you, but if you do not know whom PKed you, it will take a long time for you to get revenge...and other people might not want to fight your battles, so the PKer could escape. I'm worried if this might be bad for the Player who get PKed, it might be a bit too much greifying.--ShadowScope 01:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Well that would depend on how powerful the weapon is. Maybe the idea is that is it more like a "derringer" type pistol. 2 shots, say 3 (maybe 4) damage, max of 50% to hit. Something like that. The suggestion above was not specific in that regard but it appeared to me to have the same stats as a regular pistol.--Pesatyel 03:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll write something to that effect and submit it seperatly. It looks to be useful only in hit-and-run attacks, which might be preffered to by PKers who doesn't want to get caught. Worried that it might be too nerfed however by your suggestion.--ShadowScope 06:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, but there has to be some kind of trade off. The benefit to the PKer is nobody knowing you did the deed. The penalty is that it is harder/takes longer to do it.--Pesatyel 07:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like any form of hidden kill. It would not only help PKers to stay under the radar, but it'd help bounty hunters (glorified PKers) to kill us without getting a reputation as a killer, it'd let zergers strike without giving themselves away, etc. --c138 RR - PKer 10:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Deathly Feasting

Timestamp: S.Wiers X:00x-mas tree dead pool 22:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: Subskill of "digestion".

Zombies all tend to consume the flesh of the dead, but zombies with this skill have an altered metabolism that extracts much more energy from they flesh the consume, at the cost of requiring them to eat almost constantly.

When in the presence of a dead body, the zombie regains 1 AP per 20 minutes, rather than every 30 minutes. However, when NOT in the presence of a dead body, the zombie only regains one AP per 40 minutes. They would still "top out" at 50 AP's either way.

Discussion

A bit of a twist on the idea of zombies consuming flesh, and potentially an interesting AP changing mechanic. Given that dead bodies can stand up as zombies at any time, it would take some work to ensure that you were always regaining AP at an optimal rate. If you manage it less than half the time, the skill actually HURTS your AP regains. Which seems appropriate- zombies in the movies are pretty slow to act unless they have a source of food. In fact, if implemented diferently (not as a skill, but a base line zombie function) this might nicely balance the recent introduction of "encumbrance" by requiring zombies to seek out (or turn others into) dead bodies to regain APs. --S.Wiers X:00x-mas tree dead pool 22:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Using dead bodies for anything is not a good idea. This would be way easily zergible.--Pesatyel 01:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, damn, that is an easy way to get a dead body, you are right. Or an organized group of zombies could just each chip in one AP to kill a member who does not have this skill. Plus it also would make no sense to gain AP every 20 minutes if you were DEAD, but frequently they would be other dead bodies nearby. Dang, and it came almost close to giving zombies a bit of complexity... --S.Wiers X:00x-mas tree dead pool 03:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hm...I got an idea. Suppose, say, a zombie buys this skill. He now has gain 1 AP every 40 mintues. But, say, this Zombies kills a Surivior. Now, when that happens, the zombie should immeadily gets a status of : "Feasting". This Feasting Status represents the zombies eating the Surivior up, digseting it and gaining Action Points due to it. The Feasting status effect can remain even when the zombie is dead, or the Feasting status effect disappers when a zombie gets murdered. If a zombie does not die, the Feasting effect expires in 24 hours after the Zombie's surivior kill (other surivior kills do not stack). While a zombie has the "Feasting" status effect, he gains 1 AP every 20 mintues.--ShadowScope 16:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Rewards zergers, and messes with XP. In a siege, a single dead body would allow an entire horde to attack 72 times a day (per zombie), while the defending survivors could only act 48 times a day (per survivor). That is an extra 24 attacks, or an extra half-day of AP for a survivor, and would require the survivors to have a constant 50% advantage over the zombies in turns of numbers to be able to equal them in AP. --Saluton 15:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

make Scent Trail work on zombies / scent messaging

Timestamp: S.Wiers X:00x-mas tree dead pool 22:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Type: Skill adjustment
Scope: zombies with Scent Trail
Description: First, some background. The Scent Trail skill works by giving the zombie who has the skill a message when they log in that tells them where survivors who interacted with them (scanned, injected, attacked, healed) are currently at.

Because they only get this message once, at log in, and the trail is broken if the zombie (or survivor) dies, its not all that useful. I"m not saying its bad, but its a pretty minor skill that could use a boost.

What I am proposing is that, if a zombie interacts with the zombie who has this skill, the skill would function, allowing that zombie to be tracked. Survivors who interact and then later turn into zombies could not be tracked- their smell changes- but zombies could be.

What's the point? Zombies don;t really care much about tracking down zombies who attack them do they? Well, no, they don't. But they DO often care about tracking down their own "team mates".

To that end, I propose as the second half of this suggestion a new zombie attack called "scent message". The attack would do no damage and basically just gives the zombie you "attack" a good whiff, similar to what happens when a Necrotech Employee scans a zombie. Its really only called an attack because that is the simplest way to code it; it would better be described in flavor as going up to the other zombie and gesturing franticly in an attempt to get them to follow you. This would be useful if, say, one zombie wanted to lead another to a safe house they were going to attack.

Discussion

Relative damages

Timestamp: Nimble Zombie 20:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Type: Helping newbies (not noobs)
Scope: Everyone
Description: As it is in UD it's extremely hard to start out a new player, zombie or survivor. New players are unable to survive long enough to actually cause much damage, they get decimated because tere are so many high-level players out there who are maxed out and kill a new player with three shots. I think that instead of higher-leveled players being able to destroy new players so easily, instead the higher player has a hit penalty of about 5% per level difference when fighting a lower level player (from beginners luck). The lower-level has no bonus or penalty, so it can't be zerg-abused.After all, they still only have like a 5-10% chance to hit anyway.

Discussion

That's not a bad idea. Can you be more specific though? And what about zombie anonymity?--Pesatyel 20:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you don't neccesarily have to show that they are attacking with a penalty, and besides, how much revealing does the level do? It doesnt show you what it is, it just shows you what level they are (You can find out approxamately someone's level when they attack you, if you're good at it, along ith other possible actions.) What do you want to clarify? The real point is that anyone gets a 5% penalty to hit when attacking a lower level charachter, although it doesn't work the other way. Simple. --Nimble Zombie 20:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Killing a new player with three shots? A bit of exaggeration; it takes a minimum of 5 attacks, with a shotgun, to kill anyone, unless they have already been attacked. Anyways, as a rather high level player (20 or so), I can say that this would make it impossible for me to kill new zombie players - a huge nerf for people who have played the game for a while, and a huge advantage in sieges. A level 30 player (survivor, with some zombie skills), trying to kill a level 10 player (zombie, with just enough skills to hit fairly often, and lurching gait/ankle grab - in other words, enough skills to bash down barricades and attack those inside) would suffer a -100% penalty, putting the chance to hit at -35% or so. Still seems like this couldn't be zerg-abused? It needs penalty and level caps - say, a maximum penalty of 10%, which only comes into effect when a level 5+ character is fighting a character under level 5? A bit of a penalty, but not enough to unbalance the game. --Saluton 21:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Per this suggestion, level 42 zombies would be absolutely unable to affect characters who are level 32 or lower. That's clearly not the intention, but that's what it says, and thats clearly a pretty awful thing to do. --S.Wiers X:00x-mas tree dead pool 22:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if it was a -10% dodge bonus that all characters got and it reduced at the rate of 1 or 2% per level gained. For humans this could rrepresent being in better phsical shape due to not having suffered for so long while for zeds it represents the last vestiges of human thought spurring them to move out of the way of harm? As suggested though it just does not work. --Honestmistake 23:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

How about it it depended on the how many combat levels you get, ie the one's that allow you to have a better hit %, or make it so that it is enacted every 2 or so levels, or it just takes away say, 5% from 1 level abouve, then 5% of the remaining, and so on, so it never really reaches -100% of total? --Nimble Zombie 23:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, wouldn't this benieft zergers? A zerger can create human/zombie meatshields and use them to defend a building. Yes, they can do so already, but now, they become MORE EFFECTIVE, especially since they are considered new and have no skills whatsoever, meaning they suddenly becomes harder to kill (which I believe is quite unbelivable). I think it will be killed based on that logic alone...boosting Zergers lead to the end of the game.--ShadowScope 17:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So? this would also hurt zergers. You just need two zergers to war with each other, sending their meatshields to battle, being that all of them are level one it balances and negates it. --Nimble Zombie 23:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Drop Item Prompt

Timestamp: Matt Scott 9 20:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Type: Interface tweak
Scope: Survivors
Description: When you search for an item and your inventory is full or your encumbrance is to high, instead of immediately dropping a found item, you are given the option to drop another item in its place. It would work like this:
  • You search and find an item you want to keep, but you don't have enough space.
  • You receive the message: "You find X, but you are out of inventory space. You may drop an item to make room." Immediately underneath this text is an instance of the Drop Item drop-down menu.
  • Here you have the option to use the provided drop-down or not. If you use it to drop an item, then the item is dropped and it checks to see if you have enough room for the original item you found. If not, it loops through the process again.
  • This loop continues until, A) you have enough room in your inventory for the found item, B) you quit dropping items and perform any other action, or C) you are interrupted by being attacked, etc.

To avoid confusion, when the new Drop Item box appears, the Drop Item box that is typically at the bottom of the page will be hidden so as to avoid two Drop Item boxes on the page. Using the Drop Item prompt will cost 0 AP and 1 IP hit just as normal. You are not getting a free search or item out of this, because you already paid the AP when you performed the search.

This is of course yet another encumbrance inspired submission. I think it still allows encumbrance to serve its purpose, while correcting one of the more annoying side effects.

Discussion I like what Nexus War does. It allows you to pick up the item, but you can't do anything until you have dropped enough stuff to be under your inventory limit. It's basically what you seem to be saying but a litle less complicated.--Pesatyel 02:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


Hide Map while Dead

Timestamp: Matt Scott 9 20:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Type: Interface change
Scope: All players
Description: When you die, the map is greyed out and displays "You are dead." This works just like running out of AP, which hides the map and displays the message, "You are asleep" as a survivor, or "You cannot think anymore" as a zombie. Why? When you're asleep, you can't see, but when you're DEAD you can? This will add a little more suspense to standing up after being killed or revived. Affects both zombies and survivors.

Discussion

I think what you call here "suspense", most people would call "annoyance". There is an easy rational for why you can see around you while "dead"; in Urban Dead, you never actually "die". At worst, you are knocked down and turned into a zombie (if you weren't one already) or from a zombie into a survivor, and simply do not have the energy to stand back up until you rest for a while. As such, its reasonable to assume you can see how many people are around before choosing to stand up, and can listen for feeding groans- both things you would likely do just before standing. Note that this is in fact all you can do- other events (including your own body being moved, which usually happens shortly after you are killed) are not reported when you are dead. S.Wiers X:00x-mas tree dead pool 22:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"and simply do not have the energy to stand back up until you rest for a while" -- You mean like when we run out of AP? And you say we don't "die", but the implications of that are kind of silly. I spend all my AP and I black out, but I get my head blown off with a shotgun and I sit down for a breather? Seems like it ought to be the opposite. Let us look around while we are out of AP and hide the map while we're dead. And I'm not arguing for realism here, just for continuity -- If being unconscious means you can't see the map, then it ought to be that way across the board. --Matt Scott 9 22:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody "dies" in Urban Dead. People are just turned into zombies. Dead bodies may not have the energy to get up, but they are still zombies. Revivifying bodies are kind of part zombie, part human, as the glowing contents of the syringe do their "slow, molecular work". While dead bodies being able to see and hear is unrealistic in some ways, it enables one to strategically decide when to stand up, rather than leaving everything to chance. This would ruin gameplay for zombie ambushers. Realism doesn't always equal fun. --Anotherpongo 09:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And there it is. I knew the old "realism != fun" mantra would come up, but like I just said -- I'm not arguing for realism, just continuity. If what you are saying is the case, then the map shouldn't be hidden when I'm out of AP. Would that be a better suggestion? --Matt Scott 9 14:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It probably would be, yes. I think the reason the map "greys out" is to prevent "refresh abuse". But having the screen blank when you run out of IP hits seems to handle that problem as is. Its not really all that hard to manage your AP to avoid screen blanking from that source anyhow, if you wish to refresh views for a while. So effectively this would just give everybody 1 extra AP they are never allowed to spend. S.Wiers X:00x-mas tree dead pool 17:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
See, I'd think it would prevent "refresh abuse", because then you'd know where you stand when you use that last AP to enter a safehouse. If I get stuck using my last AP to get off the street, I have to keep refreshing to make sure I didn't jump out of the pot and into the fire. --Matt Scott 9 20:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Brainstorming Thread on Making Zombies More Fun Without Nerfing Survivors

The title says it all. As it stands, zombies simply aren't as much fun to play as survivors are, and my proof for this is the stats page. Most of the suggestions I've seen did not buff zombies as much as they did nerf survivors. This includes the "cannot barricade with a zombie inside," the "barricades made from the outside," and many others. It's plain to see that it all revolves around barricades. Most people don't want to completely make survivors unplayable, but make zombies just more fun.

I think there are two things to do. First, make barricades easier to destroy. Not harder to build, just easier to take down. Second, make more choices for starting zombie. Vigour Mortis is currently the absolute must for starting zombies. If you do away with it and make it standard, then organization problems ensue. I think new zombies should get two starting skills: Vigour Mortis, and one for each other tree. There are two ways to do this. One is each of the following is in a class: Memories of Life, Death Grip, Lurching Gait, Scent Fear, and Digestion. The second is more like this: Death Grip, Rend Flesh, Neck Lurch, Digestion, and Lurching Gait.

You're all going to say, "Two skills! Not fair!" Zombies need more incentive to play as zombies. Two skills helps make it more fun, and easier, so zombies don't get frustrated and quit. Now of course, all of this is just for starters. This is a brainstorming thread, so comment on what I've said, and put in your own ideas. Let's come out with something that passes Peer Reviewed with flying colors, and gets put into the game. -Mark D. Stroyer 05:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the differences I found between playing as a zombie and playing a survivor was that with a survivor, new skills felt like a luxury, but for a zombie, they seemed to be a necessity. As a survivor, once I had diagnosis, I knew I had a reliable XP source to fall back on, but as a zombie, I knew I would need at least MoL, 2 claw skills and possibly lurching gait before I would have a stable XP supply. Before I bought those skills, it seemed the XP could dry up at any minute. Looking back at the changes Kevan's made to the game since it started, a fair few of them (feeding drag, feeding groans and now XP for barricades) have been very newbie friendly .

On a different note, somebody posted an idea here before that people would have to search for barricade material before using it. I think this could make barricades more interesting to attack, especially if different barricade materials had different strengths/weaknesses eg "Large sofa- Hard to remove, but flammable" and "Propane tank- may explode if destroyed". This would make the zombie life a little more varied day to day. --Toejam 13:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have pondered this problem and made a few suggestions about it that were spammed. There are two issues. The first issue is that to make playing zombies more fun means allowing more in-game interaction for zombies without having to metagame. Possible solutions. 1)Enhance scent trail in some way so that zombies can scent further and/or scent after death at 3/4 range. Scent death as it stands is useless. Improving it would allow more zombie revenge; revenge is fun. 2)Add an enhance death rattle that allows the letters t(or d) and f(or v or w). Adding two letters of this type would make in-game communication between zombies more intelligible without metagaming zombie codes etc. 3)Allow some in-game means of coordinating attacks. Right now the only way to do this is metagaming, with some system like X:00. Another recurring suggestion is a pheromone marker, that would somehow allow a zombie to roughly indicate when it plans to attack at a given location. The second issue is that it may be necessary to either buff up zombies or nerf survivors to make being a zombie a little easier.--SporeSore 16:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that survivor nerfs are generally complete nerfs, without making zombies more fun. If it's just made that living as a survivor is difficult, but not suicide, that should be nerf enough. I also think that zombies should be very, very powerful. They are powerful right now, in terms of damage/AP, but not enough, I think. -Mark D. Stroyer 17:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think faster advancement in itself would make the zombie game play more enjoyable. If it DID, you would see lots more people taking a new survivor, earning a few levels as a survivor, storing up a few hundred XP, and then switching over to playing as a zombie. That seems not to happen, so it is doubtful that lack of xp / skills is what keeps people from playing as a zombie. --S.Wiers X:00 18:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think they need something else to do. Consider the life of a survivor - there are several different roles to fill - healer, hunter, PKer, reviver, collector (of DNA), builder (of cades), they can even roleplay (as shown by the activities witnessed by a friend of mine in-game - still can't get by the fact that two people wasted their entire days AP pretending to have sex....far too odd). A zombie has but three things to occupy them - smash cades, eat harmanz, smash equipment - and most of the time they just smash cades. Not a very interesting life...–Ray Vern Pig.gifphz •T 19:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not entirely true- zombies do have more depth of play than that, especially once you get up to 10th level or so. I'm currently writing a Guide to meta-careers for zombies, though the Guide:Meta-careers page is already taken (and has nothing but advice for survivors, as if meta-careers were only for survivors... :P). --S.Wiers X:00 21:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd be (very) interested in seeing that guide. All I seem to do when I am a zombie (maxed out) is knock down cades, eat people and destroy equipment. Then again, I don't use any out of game resources (other than this wiki) in order to play. If you have to meta-game in order to make it fun, then something should be done about it. –Ray Vern Pig.gifphz •T 21:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It helps to metagame, but you don't have to. One fun alternative career to do is use the DEM revive request list to find the nearest revive point, and see how many needles / headshots you can suck up in one day. Works with or without Brain Rot, though usually its more of a rotters game because of the added aggrivation when they try to scan yah. Hell, you can even list your zombie on there and then commit suicide when they bring yah back.  ;) --S.Wiers X:00 23:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
how is that fun? it just sounds like pointless griefing. Still whatever floats your boat!--Honestmistake 00:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
"Pointless griefing" is how zombies win sieges and hold territory. You make it cost to much for survivors to work and stay there, and you make sure the ones who die stay dead, and eventually, after a lot of hard work, the city is 54% zombie instead of the 34% it was 2 months ago.

RE "pointless griefing" yes zombie tactics such as ransack and indeed eating survivors are greifing and so too are the survivor tactics of building cades and headshotting zeds. Thay are however in genre and the whole point of the game.... wasting your unlife clogging revive points just seems blatantly out of genre! For what you suggest to be really effective means logging on several times a day just to stand up and get to the front of the Q. What the game needs is more in-character ways for zeds to greif survivors such as fragging with free-running or the recent lair skill suggestion, as is a zed can play to smash cades and hopefully kill 1 person a day (if lucky) or smash cades and infect a few people or join a horde and smash malls. Failing that they can adopt effective but not very zombie like tactics to annoy and frustrate survivors, the problem to me is that that just does not seem like much fun (even if it is a great boost to the zed cause) --Honestmistake 18:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And maybe that is a problem- a lot of the really effective (and fun, once you adapt the right viewpoint) zombie tactics are, from the survivor viewpoint, "greifing", although they do not require targeting a specific person or group. (I just picked DEM in the above example because thier revive points are so easy to find, and are always buisy.) I'm sure many players can't get over that mental hurdle. But once you do, you realize that "greifing" is what zombies should be all about. In the movies, they are greif incarnate! --S.Wiers X:00 03:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
That reminds me of this article. Basically, the author argues that to play the game fully, players should be willing to use cheap tactics, and even exploit bugs. This would force the other side to develop counters to those tactics, and ultimately the game benefits. I don't think it totally applies to a game like UD because some really powerful strategies here would be un-fun (eg barricade bots). The best strategy should be a fun strategy. If the game's best strategy for either side would not be fun, there's a problem. --Toejam 16:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
So the crux of the problem is giving zombies more "purpose". It's already been said that the three main roles are "smash cades, eat harmanz, smash equipment". Also there are feeders, if I am not mistaken, and rotters fillin up our cemetaries. *shakes angry fist at rotters* Maybe the good exercise would be to look at the different possible roles for zombies outside of the ones listed here:
  • GK
  • PK
  • 'cade Smasher
  • Rotter
  • Feeder
  • Infecter
What else can we add to the list? Also, list needs bullets but I forget how. --Last Ranger 23:58, 2 March 2007 (PST)
I put some bullets in for you. --Hubrid Nox Sys WTF U! B! 08:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I had already started editing an article that details "meta-careers" to include the above sorts of advice / examples for zombies. The main jobs (besides earning XP by killing survivors) that I see for zombies are:
  • causing infections
  • blocking revives
  • soaking up bullets to deplete survivor ammo / ap resources
  • maintaining ransacks
  • scouting / opening buildings / groaning
  • recruiting / directing strike teams
  • joining a strike team
  • a wide variety of death cultist work (when revived)
None of these are mutually exclusive, and you can even fill several roles at one time; any zombie can log off in a ransacked building or at a revive point, for example, and will probably soak up some bullets while there. (Although few players would take it as far as logging back in to stand up multiple times in a day, they COULD, without loosing to many AP for other jobs.) In fact, zombies gain a great strategic advantage from the fact that they can switch jobs without needing to search for new equipment. An army of ransack maintaining zombies can easily turn into an army that cracks open safe houses. --S.Wiers X:00 17:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That's kinda the problem Wiers. Soaking up bullets, maintaining ransacks, and blocking revives are just kinda boring. They aren't active jobs like 'cading or reviving. So it seems like there need to be more active things for zombies to do.--Last Ranger 14:17, 4 March 2007 (PST)

Which is why, to get on my soap-box, the question of what to do to the game (i.e. adding skills, nerfing things, etc.) is secondary to figuring out, narratively, what kinds of new and interesting stories for zombie characters can be constructed--and build the skills/changes around those. Heck, conceivably one could create skills that had nothing to do with the primary survivor/zombie conflict that would nevertheless make being a zombie more fun for the player, and that, in the end, is what is going to determine the number of zombie characters active in the game. Not strictly how easy/hard it is to be a zombie, but how much fun it is. --Barbecue Barbecue 00:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

we have had a few good suggestions that address that recently. they got a lot of kills (spams) from players who probably don't play zeds and don't want too. what they also don't want is the zeds getting anything which might a) make them more powerful or b) make/enable them to change tactics and be effective without metagaming! sad but it seems to be all to true. --Honestmistake 00:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What to do about Pre-Mature Suggestions

In the short amount of time that has passed since the introduction of the "encumbrance" mechanics, there has been a flood of suggestions whose purpose was to change them. Now, the suggestion guidelines (not that any suggestion ever follows all of them) state that one should give players a chance to experience new game mechanics before they try to change them. But more than any other guideline, this one is ignored. Remember the fort change? There was a similiar (albeit less extreme) rush back then to change the forts, even though few people had even experienced them (I still haven't).

One of the major problems with this (besides the obvious spamming of the page with suggestions to change parts of the game that aren't even known for sure to be broken yet), is that in the future it may prevent truly necessary suggestions from being implemented due to future duping.

For example, lets say that tomorrow Kevan introduces a new gameplay mechanic that helps out zombies (maybe a syringe reworking). The next day there would probably be a flood of new suggestions to change it. Most of these would be rejected with a lot of the votes saying something to the extent of "It's too soon to change this". But then let's say that after a few months, certain unforseen effects of the change end up causing zombies to become too powerful, and we end up with a 10/90 ratio (stop laughing; it's just an example). Perhaps one of the suggestions made in the first few days of the change is exactly what is needed to fix things. All it would take to prevent such a suggestion from ever getting into PR is 3 dupe-happy players who think that survivors should be outnumbered 10 to 1. It wouldn't matter that the only reason the original was rejected was because the mechanic's implications were not yet fully understood. All that would matter is that the original was rejected.

There are currently no rules or policies in place to help prevent this scenario. I don't pretend to have the answers, but I do have a few ideas.

1) Make a rule requiring that a certain amount of time pass before a suggestion can be made which modifies a newly-added/changed game mechanic.

2) Make a rule that suggestions which attempt to modify newly-added/changed game mechanics be immune to being duped in the future if they are made before a certain time period (though any would-be dupes that are made later on would be dupe-able).

3) Give Sysops the power to counter dupe votes in some way.

4) Make a rule that dupe links for a dupe vote are not valid for a suggestion if the original one is old enough (ie, old suggestions can be re-submitted without being duped after enough time has passed that the game has significantly changed).

Now, I like the 4th idea, but it's one that I've mentioned before without success. The 3rd one hinges on whether or not Sysops can be trusted to not abuse this power (either by refusing to counter a dupe vote because they don't like the suggestion or by countering a legitimate dupe vote because they do like the suggestion). It also assumes that sysops will be able to either get to the suggestion before it is removed or notice it in the history. The 2nd idea, while probably able to prevent pre-mature suggestions from being in the future, would probably also create more spam, since it would encourage people who want to change new game mechanics to make their suggestions immediately (so that they can try them again later if they fail). And the 1st idea could be potentially abused anytime there is a gameplay change (Person A could remove Person B's suggestion because they don't like it and claim that it messed with New Game Mechanic C even though it actually didn't).

So, anyone else have ideas or opinions on the matter? --Reaper with no name TJ! 21:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's "premature". --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Talk:Suggestions/archive25&oldid=604419"