User talk:Dst3313

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Malton City Hall

You may be interested in this

http://maltoncityhall.proboards59.com/index.cgi

Please spread the word and tell you men

Mayoral Elections

It has occured to me that we share many of the same aims- particularly the increased efficiency of Revival services, and your proposed "Elimination of the ammunition tax". Given this, we may wish to work together to discredit our more polar rivals. Would you be willing to engage in such activities? Yours, Karloth Vois RR 02:49, 4 April 2007 (BST)

Suggestion

Timestamp: Dst3313 10:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: improvement (anti-zerging)
Scope: All
Description: The basic idea is simple. If a person is flagged with the zerging flag (i.e., whatever's already in the program to determine if you're illegally interacting with one of your own characters), that person is especially vulnerable to being killed. We'll call him "unlucky". A zerg character who gets attacked by a non-zerg will suffer extra damage when attacked, to the point of instant death (or alternatively, 25x damage, so that even a newbie zed's claws will work, but perhaps punching wouldn't). The penalty only exists when the player is zerging - leaving the vicinity of one's own other alts would presumably remove the flag, and thereby remove the penalty as well. The description would inform the player making the hit that they have made a "critical hit" (i.e., a lucky shot blows the Zombie's head clean open, or swing of the axe cleaves the head cleanly off, or a lucky claw/bite has severed the cateroid artery of the victim).

If the player was human, they will be infected (even if they weren't before) upon revification, exactly as if they had died after being bitten. It will cost an extra 10 AP to stand up after being critically hit (the time it takes your zombie body to find it's head in the corpse pile), similar to what happens when you die without Ankle Grab. The goal is to make zerging in sieges by both sides as ineffective as possible. This prevents alts from being particularly effective meatshields as well, since a single shot gets them.

I would have included a suggestion regarding cades (both attacking and rebuilding) by zergers, but I was beat to the punch by this suggestion

I'm hesitant to suggest a "critical hit" system for general use, unless the odds are fairly low, but against zerging I think it's justified, and just one more reason to keep your alts well spaced and seperate.

Keep Votes
For Votes here

  1. Author Keep - I've seen some blatent zerging, and it's unfair to both sides. Battles shouldn't come down to whichever side can cheat most effectively. Dst3313 10:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep My goodness, you found a way to reward people for shitkicking zergers. Tres cool mon ami. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 11:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep - I made a suggestion similar to this, so obviously I'm gonna vote keep on this one, lol. But I'd disable XP gain from these kills, otherwise we'd end up with zergers making dozens of accounts and using their main alt to kill them all just for the easy XP. Regarding people who're unfairly accused of zerging, they should just move out the area, it's really no big deal to move from one mall to another if another guy in your college has a character there. --c138 RR - PKer 15:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Yes please.--Gage 19:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. KEEP Very important to stop from one player becoming to prepared. Kang Jike 20:59, 3 April 2007 (BST)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill Other players would benefit too much from people who zerg. It's like some massive XP sponge. Lt Charlie 11:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re: I hadn't thought about the XP issue. I had envisioned the attacker getting the regular XP points for the attack (whatever he would have gotten for a non-critical successful hit). But you bring up a good point, I must admit. Dst3313 11:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill - This would help turn human zergs into zombie zergs, which are even worse. And making game content that's only available when people zerg could encourage zerging rather than discourage it. --Toejam 14:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. As Davibob and Charlie. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 14:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - What about the people who share a connection with someone else, or in the case of a Modem, happen to be dialed onto the same number at the time? You really can't combat Zerging like this because of these two issues.--Tirak McAlister 15:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. 'Kill - As Tirak McAlister said, the zerg flag can be set by using Modems, or dynamic IP addresses, that make zerging appear to be occurring when it is not, simply because of the way the Internet works. It's not as simple as each computer having a unique IP address, that's hard-coded into the hardware, as I've seen some people say - in a world like that, the Zerg flag would be almost completely accurate. However, it's easy to change IP addresses, and it's possible to get the same IP address as someone who is at the same place in the game as you. --Saluton 18:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill - let the game deal with zergers without benefiting other players. Also, couldn't zergers take advantage of ... themselves? Oh dear ... head spinning. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 19:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill - Zerg A says to Zerg B, "Get all your characters into this place so I can XP farm and I will do the same for you." --Ron Burgundy 00:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill - As Ron Burgundy. --Wikidead 02:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Kill - a zerger could probably use this to test the parameters of the anti-zerging system --Cman yall 04:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam Are you serious? Honestly? This involves a) being absolutely certain it is a zerger b) extra exp for other players and c) a sense of unfairness for those who are wrongly accused of being a zerg. Leave this. Was it you who posted it in the Discussion page? -- Dance Emot.gifTheDavibob LLLDance Emot.gif 10:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    No, I was the one who posted something like this in discussion, though my version wasn't quite as... aggressive... as this one. --c138 RR - PKer 15:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    Non author RE struck. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 15:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. SPAM!!! Please kill this person with a rusty nail. Absolutely rigged against people with more than one account. Mattiator 21:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

G.I.F.D.

Yes, thank you, we know, our forum is suddenly ran out. So we have to take some risk =). Merci quand meme ;) --Zyll 11:58, 18 April 2007 (BST)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=User_talk:Dst3313&oldid=746841"