Suggestion talk:20101227 Move restriction based on encumberance

Move restriction based on encumberance

Timestamp: ~m T! 21:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Type: Mechanic change

Scope: Fully encumbered players

Description: Players with full encumberance move at 2AP per block, just like zombies without Lurching Gait.

Discussion (Move restriction based on encumberance)

Or maybe make it so from 80% or 90% encumberance? ~m ^T! 21:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really like it, unless it is countered by Bodybuilding or some other existing skill. Lurching Gate negates 2AP movement, so overencumberance should have a similar negation skill. ~ 21:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Have 101% be the minimum amount to trigger it, then it's negating by not being a smart-ass stockpiler - the option exists to carry above 100%, but at a penalty. I like this. 01:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I liked both suggestions. I had thought about a new skill to negate it, but it didn't sound good to me. Bodybuilding or Free Running make better choices! Also, 80% or 90% percent was probably dumb, 101% is more logical. Also, fully encumbered zombies sohuld also move at 2AP, regardless of having Lurching Gait or not, right? ~m ^T! 20:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Leave AP alone. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 21:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Aren't we over that? Lurching Gait messes with AP, Headshot messes with AP, Scout Safehouse messes with AP. It's life. ~m ^T! 20:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I got two people who dig it, with some changes (on which I agree); and one who doesn't. Any final remarks before I make this an official suggestion? ~m ^T! 03:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it for this: those who went on a pumpkin scavenging spree on Halloween gets hit by this the most. Why would you force them to drop their "limited edition/once a year" pumpkins just so they don't go over-encumbered? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 04:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Because this is "urban Dead" not "Urban Pumpkin Gardener"?--Honestmistake 20:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

To elaborate, the game is about "OMG zombies! Whatdowedowhatdowedowhatdowedo? Oh no, they're getting inside, run, run, RUN!" and not "But putting another pumpkin there would be bad feng shui!" --VVV ^RPMBG 23:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Got your point, but I gotta agree with Honestmistake on that. Plus, I'm gonna suggest it so it's only active from 101%, and negated by bodybuilding; which sounds reasonable enough, right? After all, scrawny survivors clinging to a ton of pumpkins in the middle of a zombocalypse would get eaten in any zombie movie you name. Or maybe not, but I think they should... ~m ^T! 21:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Worthless suggestion. Make the game more fun, not less fun. It's not as if being able to carry 18% extra encumbrance is game breaking. - User:Whitehouse 22:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

And it's not as if walking per 2AP is game breaking, either. Zombies are forced to at low-levels, anyway. For one, I think more challenge (while not breaking the game, at least) is more fun, and two of my three characters are survivors, currently alive and sometimes carrying overload. ~m ^T! 04:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It's more fun when you have to make every shot count. When you've only got room to carry a handful of items, every opportunity to use one becomes a pressing decision; should you use it now, or might there be a better opportunity later? Whatever you do, there's a fear that you could've put it to use better somehow else. Decisions + Fear = Fun --VVV ^RPMBG 23:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

---

From Voting Section

Kill - Pointless, because everyone has Bodybuilding a few months into the game. The only ones who would be hurt by it are newbs. -- Spiderzed▋ 06:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

What it would do is discourage newbs from carrying large amounts of stuff. But when they're so new, we don't want them spending all day stockpiling supplies. We want them to grab a handful of items and put them to use the same day; The fun comes from using items, and if we encourage them to stockpile, they might quit before they ever get the chance to use their items. And while it will impede newbs' ability to effect Malton, it won't stop them from surviving, and that's what we we should worry about: Their lifespan and their fun. --VVV ^RPMBG 07:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

monstah said:

um... you're not suggesting I am a newb just because you disagree with me, are you?

No, I'm saying it messes with newbs so it isn't good.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh and here I thought you meant Kill Newbs. ~ 18:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Kill Newbs sounds good to me. Anyway, I get a little defensive from time to time, sorry 'bout that. ~m ^T! 04:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

To close or not to close

Misanthropy said:

Keep/Change - Remove the "unless they have Bodybuilding" clause and just have it be a hard limit. Then I'm on board.

Monstah said:

Re - Will do, as soon as this closes voting! I'm thinking of messing with Free Running too, while we're at it; see which version gets more Kills. I'm feeling frisky.

You actually don't need to wait until voting closes if you want to make corrections. You just need to put {{removed}} at the top of the suggestion and it will be protected and moved from current suggestions. You can then resubmit later. However, in this case I would advise just keeping as is. A vote of Keep/Change counts as a Keep vote. If you win a majority vote and it goes to peer reviewed, the change comments will be moved as well. If Kevan implements your suggestion, the hope is that he will read the comments and adjust the addition accordingly. ~ 17:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)