Suggestion:20100404 No Binocular Use In Ruins

20100404 Binocular/Ruin Nerf

--

 

 

 

 

07:32, 4 April 2010 (BST)

Suggestion type
Balance

Suggestion scope
Survivors

Suggestion description

summary

Being alone in UD most of the time, Binoculars are always a helpful thing.

In the current system, a survivor can enter a ruined building and look outwards with binoculars. This is regardless of how many zombies are inside/outside.

In my proposed mechanic change, towers/buildings/hotels/motels that have been ruined should be unusable as binocular surveillance posts during the period in which they are ruined. At the point where they are repaired, they can be usable again with binoculars.

Trying to use binoculars in said ruined building type would just display a message explaining that the tool doesn't work in ruined buildings.

extraneous: flavour/fail cost/dupe?

Regarding flavour (for those concerned by it), it's already established that buildings take on huge physical metamorphosis when they become ruined. This is used to accommodate certain game mechanics already employed in the game, eg. free-running into ruined buildings. Obviously the roof is too unstable for someone to access to use binoculars, or pillars cover the stairwells to higher floors of the building, whatever. Kevan is a man who historically prefers the actual works of a gameplay change rather than how it fits into the game (thank god), so I'm not too fussed about the flavour.

Using the Binoculars on a ruined building will fail, but not cost 1AP. Seriously, I don't deem this aspect of the suggestion enough of a problem to vote kill, even if you disagree and think it should cost 1AP anyway. The actual balance is my concern, not trivial things like this which Kevan could easily decide himself, but either ways, vote at will.

I have searched this in the files of Suggestions on UDWiki and have not found it to be a dupe. On DS no one noted to have heard of it before or produced any sort of suggestion that is dupish, though if someone knows of one, obviously it should be brought here, don't hesitate.

Discussion from DS is here. Whilst I summarised a large amount of it above, it's worth a read if you want to get into the nitty-gritty of what was also suggested and left out of the final product.

Voting Section

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped. # justification ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above may be struck by any user.

The only valid votes are Keep, Kill, Spam or Dupe. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

Keep Votes

1. Author Voting --
    
    
    
    
   07:34, 4 April 2010 (BST)
2. I like it. 07:38, 4 April 2010 (BST)
3. Isn't there a thing that says, "Don't say, 'We'll let Kevan decide'"? Other than that, I do have some gripes noted in the text from DS, but still would support the idea anyway, since it has merit worth implementing. —Aichon— 07:47, 4 April 2010 (BST)

   There are conflicting articles/points arguing both views. On one hand, there are parts in "suggestion tips" that say "Don't say you are leaving important bits for Kevan to decide on, it's your job to do it", but on the other hand, there are tips I've read around which also advise "Statistical numbers can be rough, don't take a suggestions' maths at absolute value, because obviously Kevan can tweak them if the inherent suggestion is good". I like to take both philosophy under advisement and aim for a rather large line between the two: which offers a good core suggestion, but not bog down Kevan with codified annoyances such as 1AP cost/no 1AP cost. I see where you are coming from, as I did when the original author coined the term. But I also believe the principle needs to be the strongest, most focussed on part. Obviously, I don't mind if people vote against me for disagreeing with my outlook/presentation though. --

    

    

    

    

   12:11, 4 April 2010 (BST)

4. Ruins are far too useful. If every building in Malton suddenly turned to ruin, survivors could HIPS and find enough items for a comeback. This is one of the best things that can be done about it; It's realistic, works with the current mechanics, and fits into the guideline of Keep It Simple, Stupid (KISS). --VVV ^RPMBG 07:52, 4 April 2010 (BST)
5. Keep That's a ridiculous amount of words to say. "You can't use binoculars in ruins". --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:08, 4 April 2010 (BST)
6. Keep. While I honestly don't see that doing much, as a zombie player I'm in favour of everything that gives a bit more sting to ruins for the hassle of creating and maintaining them. --Spiderzed 11:41, 4 April 2010 (BST)
7. Keep - I'm a chunky monkey from funky town. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 15:46, 4 April 2010 (BST)
8. Keep - Justification. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:30, 4 April 2010 (BST)
9. Keep - I thought this was already in the game... D: -- Rahrah is not too happy about another dead lexicon. 16:55, 4 April 2010 (BST)
10. Peek -As Ross --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 17:19, 4 April 2010 (BST)
11. Keep - Another one of those things that should have already been implemented. -Devorac 16:46, 6 April 2010 (BST)
12. Keep - Heh. --Skin 00:57, 8 April 2010 (BST)
13. Keep - A no-brainer. Mikhos 03:58, 9 April 2010 (BST)
14. Keep - I agree with Rorybob and Devorac; Something like this should already have been in the game. But I also agree with Giles_Sednik; no unrealistic/ectoplasmic metamorphosis should happen to the building. The solution? I propose the flavor text: "The upper-level windows are too obscured with splashes of blood to see anything useful." This suggestion would also mimic the in-game flavor text seen from outside buildings. TripleU and Author's suggestions about unusable stairways also sound good. If the stairway is blocked or otherwise unusable, I could tell that at-a-glance, and shouldn't have to waste an AP. If I have to go up the stairs before I see the windows are smeared with bloodstains, 1 AP sounds reasonable. --Dr Heward 19:49, 15 April 2010 (BST)

Kill Votes

1. Kill - I'm not generally in favor of pointless nerfs that reduce functionality of existing items where the flavor doesn't make any sense. Seriously, a tower gets so ruined that you can't look out a freaking window or stand on the roof? What kind of "physical metamorphosis" are we talking about here? Does the building transform like that gozer building in ghost busters? I hate it. Binoculars are the cool low-tech alternative to NT scans, don't mess them up please.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 19:00, 4 April 2010 (BST)

   You're going to have to define "pointless nerf" to me, because at the moment I don't think any nerf to survivors is "pointless" since they've had quite a strangehold on the game for over a year. No, this doesn't solve that problem. But in the greater scheme of things it's probably more appealing to ease into many small nerfs than few massive ones. As for flavour, ugh. If you take a look at something like [1] and think of the amount of those which have flavour so flimsily explained that if it were suggested through this system it would inherently be rejected: ones like "Hungry for convenience food, zombies have begun to distinguish feeding groans made inside secured buildings from those echoing through open doors." Zombies eat convenience food instead of harmans? Awha? Furthermore; What does this mean? It means Kevan cares less about flavour than the actual UDWiki community do, and we "filter" the suggestions for him. And when we are actively rejecting suggestions on grounds that Kevan doesn't care about, then we have a problem. I'm not particularly targeting you about this, but I also think suggestions shouldn't be shot down because the flavour doesn't fit the voter's idea of realistic explanation. In a zombie apocalypse. This is a game, not a movie. --

    

    

    

    

   01:47, 5 April 2010 (BST)

   n. Pointless Nerf 1. A nerf that makes the game less fun under the guise of "adding balance", while in practice only removes functionality or causes annoyance. Balance should be achieved by making the game more fun for the "losing" side, not less fun for the "winning" side.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:52, 11 April 2010 (BST)

   author replied on talk page

2. Kill - It's just bad shift in game balance.--Girobu 11:35, 6 April 2010 (BST)
3. Kill - Why? Doesn't seem like the game needs this. -- BoboTalkClown 19:12, 8 April 2010 (BST)
4. kill I still think it should be possible but risky... at the end of the day though its such a minor alteration that it hardly seems worthwhile. --Honestmistake 14:12, 11 April 2010 (BST)
5. kill Few enough people use binocs (or enter ruined buildings) as it is- why discourage both. And Statistics gives lie to the claim that survivors have "had quite a strangehold on the game for over a year"; zombies outnumbered survivors as little at 5 months ago. Though I'd agree that cross-over swings did occur less in 2009 and 2010 than previously, I think its a sign of lower populations and more stable rules than inherent imbalance.  Swiers 02:08, 13 April 2010 (BST)
6. Kill - I agree that it's kind of silly that you can't just look out of a window with the binoculars, and barely anybody uses them. Quentin Julius ^talk/ask 01:59, 14 April 2010 (BST)
7. Kill - if a building's too ruined to look out of, then it's probably too ruined to enter in the first place. Seeing as we can all enter a ruined building, this doesn't seem logical to me at all. Chief Seagull squawk ^{don't mess with the Seagull!} 09:47, 15 April 2010 (BST)
8. Kill, I like it the way it is. - User:Whitehouse 13:44, 16 April 2010 (BST)
9. Kill - I don't like nerfing solo survivors, self dependency is very in-genre. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:09, 19 April 2010 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

---

Voting Rules

Current Suggestions Advice to Suggesters Adding options to your suggestion is not good practice. Others will not vote on the options, only the main body; please don't ask them to do so. Once you have posted your suggestion, it is considered complete. Altering the suggestion mechanics after voting has begun nullifies existing votes, and is considered an abuse of the suggestions system. Doing so will result in your suggestion being removed from the voting system to removed suggestions, where you can work out the details and resubmit later if you desire. It is preferred that you remove your own suggestion and resubmit a new version with changes, if changes are needed. "Notes" added for clarification purposes, and correcting spelling/typos are permitted. When considering adding a clarification note, it is often better for all parties involved, for the author to remove the suggestion and resubmit it with the clarification included for the voters who have already placed their votes. Advice to Voters You are voting on Suggestions, not Users. The text of your vote should not personally attack or denigrate the user who has submitted it... no matter how ridiculous the idea. Flaming and/or Trolling will not be tolerated. Before voting please read the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots and Frequently Suggested Ideas Page to read about concepts that have been generally considered unworkable in the past. You do not need to follow the guidelines on these pages but they are worth consideration before casting a vote. One vote per user. No exceptions. You cannot use multiple wiki accounts to vote on a suggestion. To Vote, use the [edit] button at the top of the voting section, then enter your vote in the the proper format to the end of the relevant section (keep/kill/spam). It is strongly recommended that voters (especially in the kill/spam sections) justify their vote to help others understand the reason they disagree. Feedback helps new suggesters get a feel for what the community does and does not want included in Urban Dead, and a deeper understanding of the balance needed for a workable suggestion. Votes must include a signature in order to be considered valid votes. To sign a vote, use --~~~~. Please remember to sign your votes! Unsigned votes will be deleted after 30 minutes or when found. Each Suggestion will be open to voting for two (2) weeks, measured from the suggestion's Timestamp, unless it is a Dupe or Spam. If, at the end of that time, there are two thirds (2/3) more Keep votes than Kill votes, the Suggestion will be moved to the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page. Otherwise, the Suggestion will be moved to the Peer Rejected Suggestions page.

Rules for Discussions Votes are NOT the place to discuss Suggestions. This page and archived suggestion pages only to be used for the Suggesting and subsequent Voting of these suggestions. If you wish to discuss the suggestion or vote here, please use this page's Talk page (Suggestion talk:20100404 No Binocular Use In Ruins). Suggestions do not have to be submitted in order to discuss them. Developing Suggestions can be used to workshop possible suggestions before they are submitted.

Valid Votes Keep, for Suggestions that you believe have merit. Kill, for Suggestions that you believe do not have merit. If you need to discuss a rule fix, use the discussion page. Spam, for the most ridiculous suggestions. Suggestions can be removed with Spam votes as described on the cycling suggestions page. If the criterion described there are not fulfilled, the suggestion must remain for the whole two weeks. Spam votes are not a "strong kill", they are simply here to prevent the utterly ridiculous from clogging up the system. If you do not like the idea, and it's not some crazy uber power or something else ridiculous, VOTE KILL, NOT SPAM. Spam votes will be counted as Kill when votes are tallied. Dupe, for Suggestions that are exact or very close duplicates of previous suggestions. For a Dupe vote to be valid, a link must be provided to the original suggestion. Dupe votes can be used to remove suggestions as described on the cycling suggestions page. Dupe votes will not be counted when votes are tallied. Humourous, for suggestions that are obviously intended to be satirical, or of comedic value only.}} Suggestions can be removed with Humourous votes as described on the cycling suggestions page. If the criterion described there are not fulfilled, the suggestion must remain for the whole two weeks.

Invalid Votes Server Load and Programming Complexity are NOT very good Kill reasons. You are voting on the merit of the suggestion and whether or not you think it belongs in the game. Server load/complexity issues are up to Kevan to decide. X should be implemented first is not a valid reason for a vote. You are voting on the merit of THIS suggestion, not how it compares to others. Votes that do not have reasoning behind them are invalid. You MUST justify your vote.

Comments Re may be used to comment on a vote. Only the original author and the person being REd can comment. Comments are restricted to a single comment per vote, and it is expected that Re comments be as short as possible. Reing every kill vote is considered abuse of the Re comment. A Re does not count as a vote, and any subsequent discussion not part of the Re comment should be held on the discussion page if there is any extended commenting. Note is used by System Operators to invalidate trolling-based votes. Only Sysops may remove troll-based votes and they do so with a strikeout <s></s> in order to preserve the trolling removal for posterity. The voter may contest the strikeout with the Sysop that struck their vote out on the discussion page. Only a System Operator may remove a strikeout.

All Caps Try to avoid YELLING, writing in bold, or using italics, except when emphasizing a point which has escaped other voters.

VOTING EXAMPLES Keep Votes Keep - I am the author and I am allowed to vote once on my own suggestions. --MrSuggester 05:01, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT) Keep - Best. Suggestion. Evar. --Bob_Zombie 04:01, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT) Keep - Good sugestion. no signature --FakeSuggester 07:39, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT) Kill Votes Kill - This is a terrible idea, but you can totally fix it up. --NegativeGal 06:01, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT) Re - Please be more specific about how to fix it on the discussion page. --MrSuggester 14:01, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT) Re - Sure, I have detailed my proposed fixes here. --NegativeGal 23:38, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT) Kill - You will eat my poopie and love it! --PooEater 11:12, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT) Note - Inane vote removed. Defend in discussion. --DaModerator 11:13, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT) Spam/Dupe Votes Spam - Kung Fu CB Mama on Wheels is an inappropriate Survivor Class. --NoFunAtAll 09:01, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT) Dupe - Duplicate Suggestion --AnotherSuggester 05:01, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)