User:Ms.Panes/wagons2.0

Wagon Version 2.0

Timestamp:	Ms.Panes 01:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Type:	The wagon item
Scope:	Everyone
Description:	See Suggestion:20080120_A_Little_Red_Wagon for details. Changes: It no longer costs any extra AP to pull the wagon, with or without another person in it (ie, 1 AP for survivors and zombies with lurching gait, 2 AP for zombies without lurching gait). When a person gets in (zombie or survivor), they can spend 1-10 AP. The amount of AP spent is how many spaces they can be pulled (with or without lurching gait) before they automatically fall out of the wagon. If they get out of the wagon of their own volition, any unused AP is lost. Spending AP to sit does not injure you if you're infected. Because you now spend AP to sit in the wagon, you can no longer be pushed out, but must either be killed, or pulled around until you fall out. They are now called medical gurneys, as some find red wagons inappropriate to UD. I was hoping to have them found in junkyards, but due to the flavor change they are now found in hospitals at 0.25%, ie 1/400 searches (again, not interfering with the find rates of other items). The quantity of medical gurneys is open for debate. Other names/locations for this item are welcome. I hope this would solve any problems people brought up. My question, can I remove the previous suggestion and put this one up for voting later instead? I don't want to get duped over fixing it.

Discussion (Wagon Version 2.0)

*is sad that it is no longer a red wagon*--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 01:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Me too. :_( --Ms.Panes 03:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

this is awesome. only one question: please please please can i shoot from it?--Themonkeyman11 02:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Pied piper still. I thought the fact that your last version was spaminated, with half the keep votes being because the suggestion was funny would have clued you in that this is neither wanted nor needed. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can remove your old suggestion. Just put {{removed|by the author}} at the top of the suggestion page, and remove any text from the page that says [[category:current suggestions]]. And yeah, its logically sound, but doesn't really seem fitting to how the game is played.  Swiers 03:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It won't let me, the edit button is gone. The user list says you're a sysop, can you do it? --Ms.Panes 03:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, because at 20:07, January 20, 2008, Grim s move it to the spaminated category. It already went through the full voting process. If you'd made this request before the suggestion was vote was processed, there might be a case that your intended removal should over-ride the vote processing, but in this case it seems to late.
Then again, the spamming clearly was implemented before the normal voting period ended, and the template links to a page that says Sysops have the power to remove suggestions that they believe are simply going to be spammed, as long as there are 3 spam votes and no non-author keeps and your suggestion DID have non author keeps. What gives? Well, it seems we have a policy conflict where the policy given for sysop spamination varies depending on which page of guidelines you are looking at.  Swiers 04:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sweirs, that would be an old page that was not updated when new guidelines were implimented. Cycling suggestions has the current guidelines. Such a page can and should be updated. Since you already know where the page is, you can go do that. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 07:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A comment about the previous itteration was a comment about Dawn of the Dead. In that instance, they were being PUSHED in a wheelbarrow, not PULLED in a wagon. But as for this version, you nullified your very intent. What is the difference between Bob and John each spending 10 AP to walk 10 spaces seperately or Bob and John each spending 10 AP to move 10 spaces, but John is pushing Bob on a gurney? Nothing. Even worse if Bob gets off "early" he forfeits the extra AP. Also, if Bob can't do anything while on the gurney, then the suggestion is utterly pointless. And if you were to revert it to where Bob doesn't spend AP to move, then your in zerge territory.--Pesatyel 06:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The only advantage I see is if you were infected and you needed a lift back to the hospital or something... even so, I don't think this would be particularly useful or even the best way for this to work. It would be better if a gurney was a large encumberence item (at least 40% if not higher) that would allow you to pick up and move dying characters (12 hp or less) or even dead bodies. Of course then you run into the problem of moving people's characters, which is obviously a big "no-no." --Uncle Bill 07:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Just being on the gurney itself could be interpreted as a request for help. You could *hope* someone sees you and pulls you to (relative) safety, or hope that they'll take pity on you as likely infected and cure you. No, it's not the best way to get out of trouble, but it might increase your odds a bit. You're low on health, you're infected, do you use the last of your strength to try to find a hospital or at least *some* kind of non EHB building, or do you jump on the gurney and pray? --Ms.Panes 07:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflicted again! What if I change it so: the AP is not forfeit, but is returned if the person gets off early; and allow people to make other actions, but it doesn't get them off the gurney?

"What is the difference between Bob and John each spending 10 AP to walk 10 spaces seperately or Bob and John each spending 10 AP to move 10 spaces, but John is pushing Bob on a gurney?" <- If Bob has an infection and is on the gurney, he doesn't die when he gets pulled/pushed 10 squares away.

It (gurney, wagon, wheelbarrow, whatever you want to call it) is not really designed to make one side a lot stronger or the other a lot weaker, but to introduce an object that allows people to try out new strategies in how they play. It's also designed to give something new and concrete to fight over. Really, what good does an empty building do a zombie? You can't take it with you, and staying inside just gets you killed. Zombies are mobile, they clear out one building and move on, and a gurney is a potentially useful object that they can pry from the dead fingers of a harman and drag along in victory. --Ms.Panes 07:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My question is, as I assume you can't jump from building to building while pulling a gurney, if you cannot find shelter in 10 moves, and your person falls off, will you be able to put them back on again? There are a bunch of unanswered questions here that maybe you answered in your previous post, but I don't see here. Can the gurney be broken by weapons, wear and tear? And with a .25% chance of finding it, wouldn't it be almost impossible to get one conveniently, making it so that it won't change the game mechanics much? Will you be able to put anything, like a generator, on the gurney? Finally what would the message after your name say? Would it say you were pulling it, or would it just say, and a gurney? Sorry for all the questions, I just don't see the answers. --Vandurn 14:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion:20080120_A_Little_Red_Wagon should answer most of your questions. I only put up what was changed from the old suggestion when I wrote out wagon 2.0, everything else is the same as last time. The low find rate is because it's a permanent item (can't be destroyed). Eventually they would all be found and in the game, so in the long run a low search rate won't make it harder to acquire one. I just like the idea that these would be slowly added instead of being found all at once. You don't try to search to get a gurney, you happen across one. Mostly you kill people for the gurney or grab one that's unattended. Gurneys cannot be destroyed. They hold one person, nothing else, and the person has to get on themselves. "I assume you can't jump from building to building while pulling a gurney" <- If it's empty you can, if someone is on it you can't. Of course, since gurneys are more cumbersome than wagons, perhaps that should be changed for realism?

Now, the naming thing... good question. I think it wouldn't put gurney next to your name in the main list, it would just say, "13 survivors and 1 zombie have gurneys, and there are 10 left unattended." When targeting someone for attack, it would list "a zombie, Bob, Tom (gurney), Robby" so that if you want a gurney you can kill someone for it. Now, my only thing is, should it say "a zombie, a zombie (gurney)" so you can target the ones with gurneys, or keep it as "a zombie" so that you can't necessarily pick them out?

Hmm... I think it should just be "a zombie", but if you have him/her in your contact list it tells you if they have one, ie "a zombie, Bob the Zombie (gurney), Bill the Zombie, Mr. Survivor". --Ms.Panes 23:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If you allow survivors to "do stuff" while on the gurney, you over power it. But if you don't, then its no better than "walking". This would only marginally help the infected. If it requires another survivor to "aid" then it would make more sense to just use a FAK, wouldn't it? Who as the gurney? The infected character? He's just going to sit on the gurney in hopes of someone finding and pushing him?--Pesatyel 06:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone is willing to spare a FAK. Hmm... the potential benefit to infected survivors is supposed to be a minor one. But I suppose you're right, it does need a little *something* extra so that survivors would want it more than just to keep it from zombies. If it could be taken into barricaded buildings that would indeed provide a reason (survivor hops on, zombies break in, survivor is pulled next door by other survivor OR infected, hop on, pulled inside), but I'm worried that would overpower it. Maybe if it costed 5 AP to pull someone in? Or the fact that the distance you can pull someone is limited would make it ok? No... that's still too much like a power up. I'm trying to make a new tool, where the power is in how you use it. I'll have to think about it. I'll try to answer the rest tomorrow, it's *way* past bed time. --Ms.Panes 10:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't think of anything at the moment, other than to say, watch Dawn of the Dead and see what they did. I know that "real" zombie movies don't equate well to Urban Dead, but there IS some minimalism that does. Also, survivors ARE frequently willing to spare a FAK because it is one of the easiest and/or safest ways to get XP.--Pesatyel 04:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Not every survivor has an fak, nor is it that useful if they're still outside surrounded by zombies.--Zach016 22:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't presume that, so don't say I did. Players heal others for two main reason, the most common being for the XP. The other is, well, to heal. And, yes, players DO do it "while surrounded". I do it all the time. The nature of UD is not one that there is the constant pressure of dying. There is the strong probability that several if not most (or even all) the characters in a given square are "inactive". Healing someone outside is VERY useful and really the only point to having the First Aid skill in some ways. But beyond that, using a FAK IF AVAILABLE (sheesh) is better than this idea. I mean the victim has to be the one to use the gurney (ie. have one and get on it) for my character to do anything with it. I can't have the gurney and put the victim onto it. So the victim would have to be sitting on the gurney and waiting for me to wander by and push them.--Pesatyel 07:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this: survivors can "go limp" or something, which basically means that another survivor can put them on a gurney. Limp survivors would be listed in a drop down menu. They'd still have to spend the "riding AP" ahead of time, but if someone comes by with a gurney they'd be able to place the limp person on it (2 AP?) and pull them away. That way it'd still be voluntary, but the person pulling would have a more active role.--Ms.Panes 20:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

@Pesatyel, what you just said was, for the most part useless garbage which in no way defends your point. If aviable is a varible, what if it isn't? what about after you heal them?. Getting xp is great for you, and it gives them a chance to survive, but this gives them more of a chance as well as healing (who said it was no longer an option anyway?). As for this:

• "the victim would have to be sitting on the gurney and waiting for me to wander by and push them" your point is? goddamn it has a varible begun by the player themselves, setting it up so they can be helped instead of, well I sure hope someone comes by with a few FAK's before a zombie with 45AP and full skills, and someone at the same time the zombie is attacking, and after, gee willikers woulden't that be dandy - hell this is terrible if they try to help themselves a bit.--Zach016 01:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't be a dumbass. EVERYTHING is a variable. What if the survivor spends the AP and "waits" on the gurney and NOBODY shows up to push? The survivor with the gurney has to spend AP to "use" it in advance. So,they spend, say 10 AP to sit on the gurney doing nothing and hope that someone comes buy and pushes them 10 squares. How does this "give them more of a chance as well as healing"? I'm not saying don't help yourself. I'm ALL for it! (I hate Mrh?-Cows). But, again how does this give them a chance? The limiting factor is the victim's hp. The gurney lowers that factor. Under normal circumstance, the person has only so much time to get rid of the infection. If they move 10 spaces, they lose 10 hit points. So, instead of well I sure hope someone comes by with a few FAK's before a zombie with 45AP and full skills, and someone at the same time the zombie is attacking, and after, gee willikers woulden't that be dandy it is well I sure hope someone comes by and pushes me on the gurney before a zombie with 45AP and full skills, and someone at the same time the zombie is attacking, and after, gee willikers woulden't that be dandy. See how assine your "counter" argument is? It's the same thing! At least my comemment "gives them a chance to survive". How does yours?

I just thought of something funny- what if say, just one type of building had removable doors, but they could only be removed by survivors with construction? Let's say there were 50 of that type, but only 40 doors to go around? Then you would use the gurney to transport the doors from one safehouse to another, with people killing each other to get a hold of them to protect "their" safehouse... only both people were going to the same place, and the second guy gets eaten because now he's out of AP and can't get inside.

Imagine people running all over town screaming, "Oh my God, the zombies broke in! $#!7, I'm out of here, and I'm taking the door with me!" :D --Ms.Panes 06:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ms. Panes I want you to read my first word, "@Pesatyel", I in no way was going against your arguement,but against Pesatyels wait around and get an FAK only arguement when this woulden't be affected in the first place, but an addition to it. Don't spaz on the people defending your suggestion, it won't help voting--Zach016 15:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In the case it was someone who forgot to sign there comment:

• "What if the survivor spends the AP and "waits" on the gurney and NOBODY shows up to push?" Then where the hell do you expect this FAK from ethier? what if I only have 1AP left and am going to be gone for while? we can go in the negatives here, and we can be down to 3HP and use this (im assuming it would only take 1HP away, im not completly sure if infections raise if you say, manufacture a syringe)
• "How does this "give them more of a chance as well as healing"?" the chance someone comes by and takes them to a VSB building, as well as healing them (as far as I knew it was still possible, and in conjution with the gurney, increasing survival chances depending on total AP, hell who said there shoulden't be risks in its use?
• "well I sure hope someone comes by and pushes me on the gurney before a zombie with 45AP and full skills, and someone at the same time the zombie is attacking, and after, gee willikers woulden't that be dandy" not if someone takes you 1o spaces to a VSB they know of, then you bypass the risk of missing it, therefore not the same.--Zach016 15:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, someone forgot to sign. I only idly talked about pushing doors on gurneys. And I think you're doing an excellent job explaining/defending the gurney suggestion. --Ms.Panes 02:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we need to answer the question, WHO has the gurney? The victim or the pusher? And can this be "pushed" into buildings? Also, for the same reason we don't have cars, there is a lot of obstacles and garbage about that would interfer with a "clean" push, wouldn't it? It seems that something simpler might be being able to "shoulder" an infected person instead or something.--Pesatyel 07:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The person pulling the gurney decides where it goes, regardless of whether someone is on it. However, people can't be stopped from getting on/off the gurney, you can only let go of it or kill them if you don't want to pull someone. I don't think rubble would interfere with the gurney anymore than walking around would. It's not wide like a car nor is it traveling at a high velocity, so it really doesn't need a super clear path like a car would. And yes, you can pull it into buildings. If no one is on it you can take it anywhere you can normally go, (although, as gurneys are heavier than wagons, maybe you can't free run with it), but if someone is on it it can only be pulled into/out of unbarricaded buildings.

I don't think it would be that simple to push past rubble. Small wheels like that get stuck easily. Besides, I always kinda figured it should cost 2 AP to move (or maybe 2 per 3).--Pesatyel 07:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It was, but the extra cost got transfered to the person riding to prevent zerging and to quell complaints about "free actions" (originally it was 3 AP to pull someone, but 0 AP to ride). --Ms.Panes 00:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a question I tried to ask earlier, that I think you missed: What if I change it so that the AP is not forfeit, but is returned if the person gets off early; and/or allow people to make other actions, but it doesn't get them off the gurney? --Ms.Panes 02:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... Let's see if I can come up with more ways to use the gurney. Moving equipment would likely be too overpowered, I think, so what else would a survivor use it for? A ladder? No... Maybe get enough together to make a roadblock? Hmm... Eventually I'll come up with the answer. --Ms.Panes 02:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the basic problem is there really isn't any use for this (whether it be wheelchair, gurney, wheelbarrow or desk/office chair). The ONLY reason is to escort an infected person from point A to point B (out of a "danger zone" or into a building). Thre really isn't any other reason. Barricade ideas are shot down quickly (and these would make flimsy 'cades). Couple of ideas:

• Make the cost of movement be paid by both characters (1 AP from each). The AP expenditure is like talking in this instance. Maybe have a limit of, say 8 AP max paid by the victim (when the victim runs out of AP, pusher gets "You are too tired to push any farther").
• Make it so that ONLY infected and "dying" survivors can use (ie. be on) the pusher (I think wheelchair works better).
• Buttons: When the victim (above) reaches that status, they will see a button marked "ask for help" or something. when pressed they will ask for help from next person with a wheelchair to enter their square. That person will see a "load" button. Pressing it means the victim will be in the chair AND the chair moves with the pusher. Also the button will change to "stop pushing" for the pusher and "stand" for the victim.
• Cannot go through barricades (or Free Run, of course).
• It costs, say 2 AP for a person to get on (and off).
• Wheelchair would be, say 10% encumberance.
• Both the pusher and victim are at, say, -5% to hit and +5% to BE hit.

The AP cost would limit zerging, I think (since the idea would be to have the AP cost paid by the pushing zerg). And, of course, there would be assholes who would "help" just to leave you somewhere you shouldn't be. But then, if your "dying" (ie. at 12 hp or less) that would be minorly relevant. The victim was only 6 claws, at most, away from death anyway (not to mention HP loss from infection).--Pesatyel 07:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

---