Suggestion talk:20090301 Skyscrapers as Navigation Landmarks

Which Buildings?

I'm just curious as to what buildings people think should be made into 'Tall Landmarks'? Personally, to keep it simple I would say all Towers, that only 2.5% (250 towers according to the wiki) of the locations and helps to distinguish them from the rest of the generic buildings. --Kamikazie-Bunny 20:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

From Developing Suggestions

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 21:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	The city
Description:	We already have tall buildings in Malton. I suggest retconning some of these to be really tall buildings. There wouldn't be many of these, perhaps only one or two per suburb. Their purpose would be to help people navigate. Urbanites in real life use skyscrapers to get a general sense of where they are. Malton's skyscrapers would be visible from up to ten spaces away, from any place outdoors like so: The Wilcott Tower is visible 6n4w, the Yeardly Tower 5s1e, the Loren Tower 10e. So if you know the mall you want to go to is just east of Wilcott tower, this would help you get your bearings and go the right way. Note that this helps both survivors and zombies, since both have to walk around the city. This would eliminate the need to check a map in some cases. Other than being visible on outdoor descriptions, skyscrapers would function no differently than tall buildings, allowing binocular use and suicide. I'd like to note, in addition to being a useful navigation feature I like the sense of depth this would add to the city. Seeing giant structures in the distance would make the game feel more real than the 3x3 grid of blocks we see on the display.

Discussion (Skyscrapers)

I would find this confusing if it was in the text, but how about a scent-death-style map with icons for your current location and any nearby skyscrapers? --Explodey 22:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, how would you explain the change? "The survivors have recently banded together and constructed massive structures with their limited supplies", it just doesn't make any sense on how they would just show up all of a sudden.--SirArgo ^Talk 22:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe "Survivors start using local skyscrapers as reference points while traveling. No one knows why they didn't think of it sooner." --William Told and Co. ^{ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ} 01:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a change to the city really, it's a change to how our displays are showing the city. --A Big F'ing Dog 16:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The question isn't explaining it. That's easily done. The question is how it would WORK when the map is only 3x3.--Pesatyel 04:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? It could just show up like a mall or just stay one square. I do think it would just be random to suddenly discover that the towers were actually 80 floor high skyscrapers.--SirArgo ^Talk 07:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the map is 3x3 with your character in the middle square. So HOW do you see a square that is 2 or more squares away without moving towards it?--Pesatyel 10:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

What's the map got to do with this? As far as I understand this, the really tall buildings would just be listed in the area description. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 13:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That's right, it would be in the description like so: You are standing outside the McMullen Building, an imposing yellow-stone building surrounded by a large paved plaza. The building's doors have been left wide open, and you can see that the interior of the building has been ruined for a very long time. In the distance you see the Colt Tower 5s1w, and the Edwards Tower 1n2e. --A Big F'ing Dog 16:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That's my point, it doesn't SAY THAT in the suggestion itself, so there is apt to be some confusion.--Pesatyel 22:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it does say "Other than being visible on outdoor descriptions..." Also, the whole "The Wilcott Tower is visible 6n4w, the Yeardly Tower 5s1e, the Loren Tower 10e." is a big hint that it'll be in textual format. But yeah, it'd be best to clarify that before putting this to voting. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I'll make sure to describe it more clearly. --A Big F'ing Dog 15:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, it sounds like a solid suggestion but I have one problem with it. Malton is more-or-less set in Britain, and in the UK there are hardly any skyscrapers to speak of. A few in London perhaps, but rare to find anywhere else.--Kez0 20:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but that isn't to say there aren't ANY skyscrapers, which is the point. There are literally 10,000 locations in Malton, at least half (I'm not going to look it up) are buildings so having a handful of THAT (like what, 50 buildings?) be "tall" like this wouldn't matter in that instance.--Pesatyel 22:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

And height is relative. These towers may still not compare to the Empire State Building or One Canada Square in London. But they could be higher enough than other tall buildings to stand out. --A Big F'ing Dog 15:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

---