User:Mettaur/CNR Pile

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

The Caught Not Reading pile. This page is dedicated to those who vote spam with objections that make it obvious that they haven't bothered to read the suggestion.

Emphasis has been added when necessary.

Fireman`s Carry

Caught Not Reading: User:Banana_Bear4 User:Almafeta User: Timid Dan User: HerrStefantheGreat User:Rozozag Grim_s, possibly more who dodn't give their reasoning and thought you could actually carry someone out the barricades.

Timestamp: 10:26, 19 May 2006 (EST)
Type: Skill and Flavor
Scope: Humans and Zombies
Description: Body Building is a prerequisite to this 100 XP skill. This skill can also be used by zombies.

The effect is that a player with this skill can pick up another player (or their dead body) and carry them to another location, Before all the Kill and Spam votes start piling in, let me finish.

The skill has a (40%-60%) chance of success to pick up a person(/body). (the higher the other player`s level, the harder they are to pick up maybe) The player who has the skill must select a player to pick up and spend an AP to do it. Failure to pick someone up gives a message stating that you started to pick them up but lost your grip. The person being picked up gets a similar message stating that you tried to pick them up. You can carry only 1 person at a time. While carrying another player, this skill also limits what can be done by the person carrying. They can no longer attack or use Items, and they cannot (enter or exit buildings unless the doors to that building are left open.) They CAN only Speak, put the person back down (with no AP cost), or move (with an additional 1 AP cost, due to the additional weight of another player.) Should you be killed or run out of AP while carrying a player, you automatically drop them, and a message stating that you are unable to carry them any further is shown, to both you and the one you were carrying.

Now, while being carried, The player can still do all actions that don`t require moving, AKA move to a different square or enter/exit a building, and they can`t use Axes, Pipes, Bats, Crowbars, (or Shotguns) as they are difficult to use while hanging over someone`s shoulders. If the player wishes to be put down, they can either say it to the player carrying them and hope they do so, or attack the person carrying them. (the first successful hit causes an auto drop.) Players being carried can still be attacked, and should they die up there their body (can still be carried without having to pick it back up.) (Players can "Stand up" while being carried.) A message that So-And-So is carrying you or put you down is given when the action is performed. Zombies(/dead bodies) that are carried who have Scent Trail can use it on the one who carried them, if applicable.

Why would someone want this skill? I`d be surprised if no one did, as it is highly useful both in a positive rescue kind of way, or a negative sacrificial sort of way. (You can pick up that body you just revived and move them to a safer location) or allies who have run out of AP can be helped, or you could pick up that PKer and drop them in an enemy infested area while they have no AP or pick up an enemy and drop them in an area with all your buddies so you can kill them one at a time...

Everything that is in ( ) is an uncertainty to me and I would like comments on these areas particularly. Also make sure you read the comments of myself and others before posting, as we might have already found a solution to a problem in the suggestion.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote- I don't have any comments as of yet.--Savat 10:27, 19 May 2006 (EST)
  2. Kill - Leave my body alone you naughty fireman. Don D Crummitt 15:39, 19 May 2006 (BST)
  3. Spam - I don't care about the restrictions, you cannot move other players against their will. --Cyberbob240CDF - U! 15:55, 19 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Why not? It is more helpful to suggestors if you can give good reasons why the suggestion is bad.--Savat 11:27, 19 May 2006 (EST)
      • Re - I shouldn't even have to, because you should have read the "Suggestions Dos and Do Nots" before submitting this pile of refuse. --Cyberbob240CDF - U! 23:22, 19 May 2006 (BST)
  4. Spam - What Cyberbob said--Mookiemookie 16:05, 19 May 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - the potential for abuse is too great. like most if not all of the other 'moving other people' suggestions have been.--Bulgakov 16:09, 19 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Tell me how it can be abused.--Savat 11:30, 19 May 2006 (EST)
  6. Spam - This suggestion is pure idiocy. –Xoid Talk U! 16:13, 19 May 2006 (BST)
  7. Spam on My Shoulders! Ok, yeah, this has to stop.--Wifey 16:47, 19 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - It is starting to sound like some of you don't know what the fireman's carry is, it is probably the easiest way to cary a person without them sliping off... Do I need to go over how it is done? Sometimes I forget that not everyone has had survival training.--Savat 11:58, 19 May 2006 (EST)
  8. Spam - Way too easy for PK'ers to abuse. For 1/3 of the cost of shooting someone, you can just carry them outside to a waiting horde of zombies. Or zombies could carry half the population of a building outside. That's the problem with ALL involuntary move suggestions. No amount of failure percentage balances this, suggestions that move other players are pretty much universally bad. This adds SILLY on top of bad, though, as apparently XP makes you fat and too heavy to carry. --Timid Dan 17:02, 19 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - What if level had no effect, what should the success rate to pick a person up be?--Savat 13:41, 19 May 2006 (EST)
      • Re About 0%. If you note, I said "No amount of failure percentage balances this". Moving other people is waaaaay too easy to abuse, never should be a part of UD. --Timid Dan 19:01, 19 May 2006 (BST)
      • Re -Forget about the game for a second, in reality, what do you feel the percentage of sucess a really beefed up person would have to pick another person up?--Savat 14:08, 19 May 2006 (EST)
        • Re - Listen, I don't really care how much you think this skill/suggestion would add realism to the game. The target of the suggestions page isn't to increase realism... it's to increase FUN and FAIR PLAY. If the game was about realism, there wouldn't be fucking zombies running around. --Timid Dan 19:14, 19 May 2006 (BST)
  9. Spam - you asked how it could be abused. Heres an example. Player enters building. Player picks up character. Player takes character outside. Player finds zombie. Player puts character down. Zombie kills character. Player goes back for more. --HerrStefantheGreat 17:06, 19 May 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill Make it outdoors-only and I'll re-evaluate. As is, I won't even cast a keep vote to defend it from spamination. You don't need to be able to exit: just carry someone to the open building next door, and they're zombie food. Also, people should have to consent (or be dead bodies) in order to be carried. --Dan 17:38, 19 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Outside only isn't so bad, but it messes with some of the coolness of the skill I think. I'd be willing to change it though. As for the consent issue, All someone has to do to get down is land a successfull hit on the one carrying them to be dropped. I would say that is fairly close to how a nonconsented fireman's carry might be.--Savat 13:23, 19 May 2006 (EST)
  11. Kill -- One zombie enters mall, grabs human, drops him off outside of mall to horde, wax, rinse, repeat. No good. Almafeta 17:42, 19 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Ok, let's try this. Zombies can't put human players down, why would they want to? Also, It makes it kinda hard to enter or exit a building when you can't even open the door... I don't see where this is an issue.--Savat 13:16, 19 May 2006 (EST)
  12. Spam This suggestion would be great, I don't mean that as anything but the truth. I really want this skill in game, death doesn't matter, and this would really help me mess with people! Or we could pretend we were in that body guard movie while I carried people through crowds. Also, I am upset I didn't get to vote on stim packs. -Banana-\(o_-o)/-Bear 17:46, 19 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - So why are you voting Spam then? If you like it then vote Keep, because in truth this is no more Spam than attacking, reviving, or healing a person without consent.--Savat 13:26, 19 May 2006 (EST)
      • Re - I'll field this one, as BB4 doesn't appear to be. There's a little thing called sarcasm, Savat. --Cyberbob240CDF - U! 02:05, 20 May 2006 (BST)
  13. Spam This is NOT the same as healing/reviving/whatever without someone's concent. It's a good idea in theory, but too many people would abuse it. I don't know about you, but I don't want to wake up one day to find out that someone decided to carry me down to Ridleybank... --Volke 18:36, 19 May 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - Hmm, you wanted to know how this could be abused? Here you go. "I'm a PKer. I drop you outside by zombies, and your death is assured. My life is easy now." --Rozozag 18:38, 19 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re -Yes, but someone could do the same thing to that player, also, what's to stop another character from going out to save that player? Infact, that should be part of the flavor, Other people in the same space will see a message saying that So-And-So/a zombie carried off What-His-Face.--Savat 13:48, 19 May 2006 (EST)
  15. keep - griefing wouldnt be too bad as your not safe in a building thats wide open anyway --xbehave 18:40, 19 May 2006 (BST)
  16. Spam My PKer heart likes the idea to grab innocents and dump them in Ridleybank, but my brain tells me that it's a stupid suggestion. -Craw 18:49, 19 May 2006 (BST)
  17. Spam - While the thought of a team of firemen stealing into an overrun safehouse and toting away the sleeping inhabitants is compelling, the thought of a team of PKers feeding those sleepers to the zombies instantly crowds it out. Also, it's kind of unfair to the zombies that they could work so hard to bring down the 'cades and then see their meals stolen away before their very eyes. --John Ember 19:39, 19 May 2006 (BST)
  18. Spam -I'd like to like this idea...I really would. It looks like you put a lot of work into it, but it is way too abusable. Your "balancing" measure, the fact that the player being carried could attack, doesn't work all that well in practice. Since all of the players can only be online for so long a day (the average is probably a half-hour, but some people spread that out a bit), there is an excellent chance that the other player you attempt to carry are not there to defend themselves at the time. Other survivors could pitch in to save you, but they probably have better things to do than track someone who could be several building away (perhaps if you automatically yelled a trackable call, it would be possible) by the time they get to it. The only other balancers are the limitations on the Carry itself, which are formiddable but not insurmountable. How is this different from reviving or killing someone while they're offline? The difference is that they are assumed to require some amount of effort beforehand (breaking the barricade or finding the syringe), where this is too easy. It might be used for rescues (though you probably pretty busy saving yourself at the time) but most certainly used in an offensive capacity. No thanks...I've got enough to worry about.--Xavier06 19:55, 19 May 2006 (BST)
  19. Spam Flagrant Pied piper skill. This would be a griefer's dream skill. --Zaruthustra-Mod 20:12, 19 May 2006 (BST)
  20. kill Too easy to abuse. Someone could possibly make a huge chain and move 30 people at once. I don't think there is too many glitches with this suggestion. For humor value: could you have one person pick up another person, then another pick up the first, and so on? e.g. 30 people running through a suburb on eachother's shoulders. Another idea: make it so there is a chance you can lose your grip. this will make it less effective for grifers. Mattiator 22:20, 19 May 2006 (BST)
  21. Spam - The entire idea behind this suggestion is game breaking, and no amount of restrictions or limits will change that. If there was a skill like this i would go into a building and toss everyone outside, where they will likely die. During mall seiges zombies would get revived and hurl defenders out over the barricades in some hordes. There is absolutely no way you can stop this from being abused, or from hurting the game, Even if you limit it tou outside only, you are then going to starve the younger zombies, who feed on the people left outside before they can knock down barricades and open doors. --Grim s-Mod 22:38, 19 May 2006 (BST)
  22. Kill Actually, limiting it to people on your contact list would make it significantly less game breaking, but then it would be nigh-useless. --Cerebrus13 23:09, 19 May 2006 (BST)
  23. Spam Spam. Spam. Spam. Spam. Spam. Spam. Spam. Spam. Spam. Spam. Spam. Spam. Spam. Spam. Spam. Spam. --Jon Pyre 00:29, 20 May 2006 (BST)
  24. Kill as too abusable/greifable, but I really like the idea of moving bodies. We already have the ability to dump bodies outside a building - I'd vote keep for this if you could only use it on dead/reviving bodies (with an immediate drop if they stand up). Note to some of the above voting spam: it's a skill, with a prerequisite, and this not very zergable. Update For #$%^ sake, this is the worst case of Caught Not Reading on the suggestions page ever. Please READ the suggestions first. You can't carry someone in or out a building unless the doors are wide open. -- Mettaur 02:04, 20 May 2006 (BST)
  25. Spam - Really bad idea. Don't move other players. --Cinnibar 02:17, 20 May 2006 (BST)

Faster Manufacturing

Caught Not Reading: User:Grim_s, User: Dudefromhell (bonus points for using flawed maths), User: Mattiator (bonsu points for casting a dupe vote on a non-dupe), possibly others who didn't explain their reasoning and didn't read the big bold searching will still be more effective than manufacturing bit.

Timestamp: 19:02, 7 May 2006 (BST)
Type: Balance Change
Scope: NT Revivers
Description: Currently, Manufacturing a syringe costs 20 AP and requires a powered NT building. Searching in an unpowered NT building will get you a syringe roughly 10% of the time. Manufacturing a syringe is thus effectively pointless - with the lights on you can usually find 3 with the AP it takes to Manufacture just one.

Suggestion is that the 'Manufacture Syringe' AP cost will be lowered to 10 AP.

Note that even with half the AP cost, searching will still be more effective than manufacturing so this should not upset the game balance in any way. Manufacturing has the out-of-game advantages that you don't have to hammer the search button and discard the useless duplicate GPS Units and DNA Extractors searching gets you (not to mention the network/server load from repeated searches and drops).

Votes

  1. Author Keep- -- Mettaur 19:02, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep - I don't mind. It still takes 10 ap to revive someone --ramby T--W! - SGP 19:18, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  3. kill - Personally, I think the two available choices are making comprimise of both, using more Ap for guranteed number of syringe, and risking no syringe find with searching. --Changchad 19:42, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  4. keep - even thoyou got your numbers wrong, even in a powered building it takes about 11/12 searches to get a syringe, i think wasting 10 to get 1 is a fair gamble tbh--xbehave 19:46, 7 May 2006 (BST)
    Re: I should have mentioned the Search_Odds/Necrotech_Building_Data earlier. According to DEM's data it was 12.6% chance to get a syringe before lighting is taken into account. My 10% was on the conservative side. -- Mettaur 20:51, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  5. kill - Yes that is done intentionally. Want to comfort of not having to search, you pay extra AP. That extra comfort pulls in a lot of people. When the manufacture syringes came out, even though it cost more to use then simply finding them, the number of syringes sky rocketed. A ten AP boost to the revive was needed to balance the game. Wanna speculate what lowering it 10AP whould do? I for one like the new balance and don't want to go to 30%/70% zombies/humans again. massively overpowered.--Vista W! 20:09, 7 May 2006 (BST) edit reply to DavidMalfisto That conveniance effects game balance. as people use manufacture more then searching. go look at the stats tracker what manufacture had for influence. That 10% to 15% swing was because of convience. reviving made more dificult: a reversal of that percentage. every aspect of reviving is crucial to game balance. That's why it costed more in the first place, not because of RT combat, but because the added convience whould draw in more people creating them. the higher cost was to offset that effect a bit.
    Re: I put searching will still be more effective than manufacturing in bold for a reason - you are still paying for the convenience. The cost of that convenience is ludicrously high at the moment. -- Mettaur 20:51, 7 May 2006 (BST)
    I read it and that will be in no way enough, at the end of the link is my reasoning.--Vista W! 23:39, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  6. Keep - Seeing as you get the syringe instantly it was supposed to cost more than searching as it would screw RT combat. Now it costs 10 AP for a revive and combat revives just aren't going to happen. If an NT building has a genny, it's more efficent to search and there's no reason not to search. Not to mention the fact that making a syringe is a third tier skill. I'd prefer seeing it cost 15 AP to make a syringe (to counter the fact that you're sure to get one), but 10 AP isn't game breaking. And Vista, now we have boosted search rates from powered buildings the cost of reviving has already dropped. This is merely convience, not game balance. DavidMalfisto 20:08, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep - i was in favour of lowering the cost to manufacture a srynge since the day using one started to cost 10 ap. --hagnat mod 20:12, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - Too low AP cost.--Wifey 21:05, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  9. Keep - I agree with Hagnat. It would still be 20AP to get and then use a syringe. Isn't that enough? --HerrStefantheGreat 21:15, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  10. Spam - Vista's vote. This would completely and utterly break the back of the zombies AGAIN. Guess what? Zombies dont like being ground into the dirt. For the first time... well... ever, zombies have equalled humans in numbers. Making it far more easy to manufacture syringes would revive another syringe glut, and just like the last time, the population would be utterly devestated. And before anyone dismisses me for being a "zombie player", i have an NT alt in the Guns of Brixton. Yes he would LOVE easier syringes, but i wouldnt want them at the cost of killing the game. --Grim s-Mod 21:26, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill - Same thing as some of the others: The extra AP cost is for the security of not having to dance with the RNG - Mia Kristos 21:29, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  12. Keep - I helped the DEM with what we called the DEM syringe search chalange and discovered how much more effective searching was. Then the new feature showed it would be even easyer to find things in a powered building, making it even less effective to Manufacture. I think Manufacturing should only be a little more costly then searching as opposed to several times more costly (I could search 20 times and average much more then 1) --Teksura 21:53, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  13. Spam - Vista and Grim pretty much nailed the problems I had with it. Unblancing the game and all that. --ThunderJoe 22:14, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  14. Spam - SSS. (As above) --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - W! 22:20, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  15. Keep -Suggest making it 15 so it isnt too easy to manufacture other than that im for it --LCpl Mendoza 22:51, 7 May 2006 (BST)
    Re - Then that should be a "kill," not a "keep."--Wifey 23:24, 7 May 2006 (BST) Author RE's only please.--The General W! Mod 21:45, 9 May 2006 (BST)
  16. Kill - If you do that, then there will be a 50% decrease of Zombies. My logic is that 50% increase for syringes (because that's 5 a day instead of 2.5) will mean 50% more zombies can be revived which means 50% less zombies. Point is, KILL!!!! --Dudefromhell 23:09, 7 May 2006 (BST)
    Re - Please read above where I put searching will still be more effective than manufacturing. There will not be 50% more syringes. In fact, many players will still use searching as even with this change searching will still give more syringes. --Mettaur 23:25, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  17. Keep - Searching improves the odds of finding one, and it was previously stated that the AP for manufacturing a syringe was balanced to be only slightly more than the average AP cost to find one. Rebalance it, pleasekaythanks. -Wyn (talk!) 23:33, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  18. Kill - However, you may want to work with the AP cost and then it might become a keep. --Darkstar949 23:35, 7 May 2006 (BST)
    Tally: 9 Keep, 6 Kill, 3 Spam. -- Mettaur 23:30, 7 May 2006 (BST)
  19. Kill - This would utterly destroy the ballance of the game. As you said we can alredy get cheeper syringes just by searching so why change it? Manufacturing was designed to waste stupid survivors AP. If you don't like the AP cost just search, simple. - Jedaz 00:06, 8 May 2006 (BST)
  20. Kill - Suggestions should alter the balance slightly; this one does so by too big an increment. When calculating the effect, don't forget the clicks spent dropping the junk when searching: most characters are limited by the IP-address hit limit, not by the rate of AP gain. --Dan 00:26, 8 May 2006 (BST)
  21. Keep - reasons for this vote= 1. to many f'in spam votes this last week.2.It would be great to get 5 syringes a day --revoso 01:23, 8 May 2006 (BST)
  22. Kill - Until we have comprehensive data on what the new search odds actually are, I don't feel comfortable trying to bring Manufacture more in line with them. --John Ember 01:44, 8 May 2006 (BST)
  23. Keep - Now that syringe use is throttled, stockpile as many as you want. The revive rate is what dictates the survivor:zombie ratio, and this doesn't change it, unless you're considering scientist zergers, but that is a metagame issue. --ism MotA - R'sR 02:26, 8 May 2006 (BST)
  24. Kill - I think the cost is fine as it is, and I think we need to wait a while and see excatly how the improved search odds in powered buildings is going to impact on the game before making these sort of changes. -whoops --Salicyclic 02:30, 8 May 2006 (BST)
  25. Kill - Convenience has an effect on game balance, as said. Not everyone likes to click 50 times to search each day. 10 AP is too drastic a change--McArrowni 03:21, 8 May 2006 (BST)
  26. Kill - First rule of business logistics: Convenience always costs more. Dickus Maximus 04:01, 8 May 2006 (BST)
  27. Kill- I'd go for it at 15, but altogether you might want to hold off on this suggestion and wait until we've got a good picture of the current search rate. My experience tells me that the rate seems higher than it was before, meaning that Manufacture should be brought down a little. I've gotten 6-8 in a 50-AP search and 3-4 doesn't seem that uncommon. But let's back this up with some more hard data, then worry about whether Manufacture is priced too high.--Xavier06 16:29, 8 May 2006 (BST)
  28. Kill- for time reasons people will still probaly manufacter and for realism sake i think searching for one would take less time than making oneAvicm 02:03, 9 May 2006 (BST)
  29. dupe Don't dupe me. please. [Necrotech skills]Mattiator 02:08, 10 May 2006 (BST)
    Re: Caught Not Reading - this suggestion does not introduce any new skills. Please read before you post. -- Mettaur 12:49, 10 May 2006 (BST)
  30. Kill If searching is better, then search. Manifacturing may take longer, but you'll at least know for sure that you'll get a syringe.--William Raker 13:53, 19 May 2006 (BST)
  31. Kill - While I play as a scientist, and this would REALLY help me out, I have to say that it would unbalance things far too much. While yes, the lower server hits and higher rev rate is good, I still have to say that it pushes things too far against the poor already-outnumbered zeds.--Craer 00:12, 20 May 2006 (BST)
  32. Kill - Too low an AP cost. –Xoid Talk U! 05:53, 20 May 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 11 Keep, 17 Kill, 3 Spam, 1 Dupe. 32 Total. –Xoid Talk U! 05:53, 20 May 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=User:Mettaur/CNR_Pile&oldid=253461"