Suggestion:20090421 Overgrown Parks

	Closed
	This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Peer Rejected.

20090421 Overgrown Parks

A Big F'ing Dog 14:58, 21 April 2009 (BST)

Suggestion type
Improvement

Suggestion scope
Parks

Suggestion description
Humanity may be dying but the parks are still alive. I suggest that as time goes on parks becomes more and more overgrown with weeds and wild bushes. The practical effect of this is that when a park is heavily overgrown, it would be impossible to see if anyone is in the park from outside (nor for people in the park to see those in adjacent squares).

Every 3 days left unattended a park would become one level more overgrown. A park would have three possible levels, marked by location descriptions commenting on the amount of growth, and the color of the square as seen on the 3x3 map. The colors in order of increasing weeds would be light green, normal green, and dark green. The effect:

Light green: Has no effect. Allows people to see in and out of the park.

Normal green: Blocks views in and out, but still allows binoculars to view into the park from tall buildings.

Dark green: Blocks views in and out, and also blocks binoculars.

Survivors would be able to clear the overgrowth if they have a fire axe or a knife. It would cost 1AP to trim the growth by one level.

Overgrown parks would have uses for both survivors and zombies and shouldn't overwhelmingly help or hurt one side. Zombies could use them to hide, but so could stranded survivors. And while maintaining parks would serve as a small AP drain on survivors, that's balanced by the fact they can control them to allow binocular scouting. In the end, everyone is helped, everyone is hurt, and parks become more interesting. They become alive.

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. Hell why not, who dosent like gardening? --Pvt human 15:12, 21 April 2009 (BST)
2. This sounds like fun. Wish I thought of it myself. --A Big F'ing Dog 15:17, 21 April 2009 (BST)
3. Keep/Change - Increase the AP cost to trim growth to 10 AP or so, and no knives; only the Axe can be used (or a Machete if those were introduced...)--Zombie Lord 17:53, 21 April 2009 (BST)
4. Keep - Zombies may not need a place to hide, but a hiding place isn't as valuable when it's maintained by the very people you're hiding from. In other words, more strategy gets thrown into the game. In other words, I like it. --LaosOman 20:15, 21 April 2009 (BST)
5. Keep - As zombie lord --OrangeGaf ^Talk! 22:44, 21 April 2009 (BST)
6. Keep- As OrangeGaf. Sorakairi 22:51, 21 April 2009 (BST)
7. Keep - As zombie lord. But this will help new zombies from shotgun wielding headhunters. Mail2345 05:46, 22 April 2009 (BST)
8. Keep - Something of value to both sides, with flavour to boot. Let's see it happen. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:28, 22 April 2009 (BST)
9. Hell yes - the dead take back the city from the living, and the plants take back the city from the dead. -CaptainVideo 06:49, 22 April 2009 (BST)
10. Keep- I like it, and though the ramifications wouldn't be apparent until after it were implemented, I doubt it would be anything game-changing. And it adds flavor of course.--S1leNt RIP 22:19, 22 April 2009 (BST)
11. Keep- I think this would be a great idea with one small change: allow the survivors to use a fuel can and flare gun to take the park back down to level one. Apart from that it has a ton of flavour, and would add alot to the game without drastically changing it..--Oldharry101 17:00, 26 April 2009 (BST)
12. Keep- I like it! It adds a little something to the game, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. There's no way this'll throw the balance rediculously off, the killers just don't like change.--Parakirby 7:18, 27 April 2009 (BST)
13. Keep/Change - more tactical options are always nice, BUT i do think zombies should be allowed to trim them in some way or another as well. And it should/will take longer before they are that "Highly" overgrown.WarlockVI 15:50, 27 April 2009 (BST)
14. Keep/Change - I think there should be an increase in cost of AP to trim a park, maybe 5ap, but otherwise great idea. ChainReaction01 02:02, 28 April 2009 (BST)
15. Keep - This would make Urban Dead more tatical and gives another place for low level players to hide.--Joseph Temple 02:33, 2 May 2009 (BST)

Kill Votes

1. Kill - This is a straight up survivor buff. Zombies don't hide (they're zombies for fucks sake) and survivors don't really need any extra places to hide, especially one that is created by them sitting around and doing nothing at all. It gets repeated enough on dev sug and on voting sections, so I'm sure a few more times wouldn't hurt here. ZOMBIES DON'T NEED A FUCKING PLACE TO HIDE. ZOMBIES DON'T NEED A FUCKING PLACE TO HIDE. ZOMBIES DON'T NEED A FUCKING PLACE TO HIDE. ZOMBIES DON'T NEED A FUCKING PLACE TO HIDE. ZOMBIES DON'T NEED A FUCKING PLACE TO HIDE. ZOMBIES DON'T NEED A FUCKING PLACE TO HIDE. Ah, I feel better. Oh, alright, one more time. ZOMBIES DON'T NEED A FUCKING PLACE TO HIDE. --Johnny Bass 16:43, 21 April 2009 (BST)
   • Re You can't see any value in a newbie zombie without ankle grab avoiding a headshot? And that hordes would find no value in hiding it's presence so survivors don't know to run from the 10 zombies next door? Also, zombies have a tool to reveal hiding survivors to those in adjacent squares: feeding groan. If a survivor can survive a night outside in a park that's more a stroke of luck than an imbalanced victory. --A Big F'ing Dog 17:13, 21 April 2009 (BST)
     • Re No, I can't see the value of that for a horde because hordes don't encompass the majority of the zambahz in the game. Personally, I want other zambahz to be able to see a shit ton of us gathered somewhere. It serves as an indicator that something is going on. Hell, I don't mind the survivors knowing that there's a group of 30 gathered nearby because I doubt that the survivors would last long enough to organize a proper ZOMG RUN AWAYZ in the time it would take for the zambahz to recover the AP from their travels. Would it help the newer zambahz? They're told to hide amongst a large group of zambahz right when they sign up, so I don't think it would be all that helpful when a better option is already available. --Johnny Bass 17:49, 21 April 2009 (BST)
       • I like the idea of having to be afraid of the stealthy undead. While zombies are not renowned for their stealth, it's pretty common for at least one in a film to sneak up on a survivor. -CaptainVideo 07:03, 22 April 2009 (BST) Non-author reply struck. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 11:34, 22 April 2009 (BST)
2. Kill - The trees are zombified and do not grow anymore. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 17:06, 21 April 2009 (BST)
3. Kill - We don't need any more hidey-holes. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:07, 21 April 2009 (BST)
4. strong kill you are suggesting that a once neat bit of parkland which almost certainly would consist of grass for sporty types to run about on could turn into the densest of amazonian jungle in a little over a week... do you have tree's where you live? If this was gradual (say 1 buff per week with 10 levels to go between stages) then I might be convinced to change my mind but even that would be akin to the army watering the fucking places with baby bio!--Honestmistake 18:07, 21 April 2009 (BST)
   • Re This is assuming time in real life isn't 1 for 1 with Malton time. I mean, a click that takes one second can repair a rotted weed infested building that's been decaying for weeks. Or a person can walk across two suburbs in a matter of seconds. So what counts as three days in the real world isn't necessarily 3 days in the game - the game has no days, just AP. --A Big F'ing Dog 21:51, 21 April 2009 (BST)
   • Re but that 1 click probably uses up 2 or more days of AP while you are condensing months or even years of growth into 3 days which just seems silly. I have no real problem with the concept but the timescale doesn't work for me. Oh, and in any event, if zeds started congregating in dense vegetation i suspect the airforce would start dropping napalm and agent orange on them anyway! --Honestmistake 09:32, 23 April 2009 (BST)
5. Kill - I find it nice in Shartak, but not in UD :/ --Janus ^talk 23:09, 21 April 2009 (BST)
6. Kill - As above, zombies don't need a place to hide. Making parks hide people is just silly. --ScaredPlayer 23:14, 21 April 2009 (BST)
7. Let's stay with a city-based apocalypse, rather then a jungle based one. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} (status:‎Mudkip!) 01:11, 22 April 2009 (BST)
8. Kill - If survivors can't maintain barricade levels that will allow others to get inside, I don't want an additional place available for them to hide. An issue is how difficult it is to be a feral zombie; this will hurt ferals looking for prey. --Winton 05:47, 22 April 2009 (BST)
9. Kill - I'm not opposed to hiding spots for zombies, however, allowing survivors to have total control of how effective a hiding spot a Park is is a step too far. It needs to be an area where zombies can prevent survivors from "tidying up" if they feel that the safe haven is worth maintaining -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:06 23 April 2009 (BST)
10. Kill - I don't dislike the idea, but it just provides more cover for survivors and has an implausible growth rate. I'd go for it if zombies could actually knock down buildings so that survivors couldn't hide in them, balancing this out, but not as is. Oh, and I vote Iscariot's spam vote hilarious.--Necrofeelinya 15:24, 23 April 2009 (BST)
11. Kill - This gives survivors yet another place to hide, turning an empty lot into what could be a possible safehouse. I vote kill.--Obamacain 17:33, 1 May 2009 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - Tonight on Urban Ground Force: Alan Titface goes on about flowers, that builder bloke puts in yet more unneeded decking to retain his money from garden centres and Charlie shows us her Dimmocks. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:06, 21 April 2009 (BST)

   Are you drunk? -CaptainVideo 00:48, 23 April 2009 (BST) Non-author reply struck. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 07:46, 23 April 2009 (BST)

2. Spam - Anything that can be used for a hiding spot other than a safehouse is spam in my eyes, regardless of whether you can cut the grass down or not. --Fujiko Mine 16:58, 21 April 2009 (BST)
   • ReThis is no worse than any random ruined building gameplay wise, except all you have to do is move into the square instead of wasting an AP "entering" the park. Non-author reply struck. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 07:46, 23 April 2009 (BST)
3. Spam THIS IS NOT SHARTAK. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:25, 26 April 2009 (BST)
4. SPAM - A park in a large city, probably with no plants more exotic than dandelions, turns into the freaking Amazon in 3 days? Not likely. --Pestolence^(talk) 02:09, 28 April 2009 (BST)