Suggestions/8th-Jan-2007

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Revision as of 23:38, 11 March 2007 by Darth Sensitive (talk | contribs) (Protected "Suggestions/8th-Jan-2007": Requested protection [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Closed Suggestions

  1. These suggestions are now closed. No more voting or editing is to be done to them.
  2. Suggestions with a rational Vote tally of 2/3 Keeps over total of Keeps, Kills, and Spams will be moved to the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page by a moderator, unless the original author has re-suggested the Suggestion.
  3. Suggestions under the 2/3 proportion but with more or equal Keeps to Kills ration will be moved to the Undecided Suggestions page.
  4. All other Suggestions will be moved to either the Peer Rejected Suggestions page or the Humorous Suggestions page.
  5. Some suggestions may not be moved in a timely manner; moving Suggestions to Peer Reviewed Suggestions page will take higest priority.
  6. Again, DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. It will be used as a historical record and will eventually be locked.
Suggestion Navigation
Suggestion Portal
Current Suggestions • Suggestions up for Voting • Clothes Suggestions
Cycling Suggestions • Peer Reviewed • Undecided • Peer Rejected • Humorous
Suggestion Advice • Topics to Avoid and Why • Help, Developing and Editing

Infected Death XP

Suggestion removed pending revision by author.

Headshot/Ankle Grab Changes

Timestamp: Labine50 MH|ME|P 01:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Type: Balance change
Scope: Dead people?
Description: This addresses three different issues. 1)Headshot is hard on new zombies 2)Headshot has next to no effect on older zombies 3)Survivors spending next to no AP to stand up and head to a revive point. I propose that ankle grab doesn't work for survivors, (Survivor --> Dead body) and that headshot has no effect on zombies without ankle grab, but it costs the normal 10 AP for zombies with Ankle Grab. You didn't waste your XP, there are 8000 survivors without Headshot, and many of them are probably more concerned with things like reviving, or healing.

Keep Votes
For Votes here

  1. Author --Labine50 MH|ME|P 01:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. 'Keep - Looking at the history of headshot and ankle grab, this makes sense. Headshot used to work better against mid-level zombies than new ones, and that's not a bad thing- they are zombie hunters, they should know how to recognize the REAL threats. Also, survivors get plenty of use out of other zombie skills; have you ever seen a ransacked building cleared out by dead survivors? I have! They don't need to use "ankle grab" to get revived, the need to do something other than stand around while waiting to be revived! Overall I think this version is just more interesting than the current version. --Swiers 06:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill I have no problem with the part that makes it easier on new zombies (15AP is a heck of a lot). But survivors shouldn't have one of the only two or three crossover skills they have nixed. Also, what if someone jumps out a window to become a zombie? --Jon Pyre 02:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    Re - How about because zombies only get one cross-over skill?--Labine50 MH|ME|P 03:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. No - I fail to see how this adresses your second point. Youronlyfriend 02:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    Re - It increases the AP loss by 4.--Labine50 MH|ME|P 03:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill Yup. Only the Newbie Zombie part. --Deras 02:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Edit: Reading again your suggestion, why didn't you suggested to remove Ankle Grab and Headshot, it's pretty much what you're suggesting. --Deras 03:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    Re - Not really, it still affects zombies with ankle grab, and removes it for survivors.--Labine50 MH|ME|P 03:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - It's not a bad idea, but I rather not see my survivor standing up for 10 AP again... I mean, it COULD be balanced and fair, but still... --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 02:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill -I don't see whats wrong with that. acctually, headshot has equal effect regerdless of ankle grab, and survivor ap and time costs for revive are already to high. --AlexanderRM 9:21 PM, 7 january 2007 (EST)
  6. Kill - When you say "normal 10 AP for zombies with Ankle Grab", don't you mean 5AP? That's the cost of a headshot, 10AP is what it cost for a newbie zomb to stand up without a headshot. But anyway, I kill this because if survivors bought Ankle Grab, they should get the benefit of it, and if you want to help newbie zombs, tell them to get Ankle Grab. Headshots are one of the few ways to actually make a zombie death worth something... those 5AP ain't much for a death really. It's finely balanced as it is, and works pretty well -- boxy T L ZS PA DA 02:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    Re - How much of a threat is a zombie that hasn't even leveled up enough to get ankle grab...?--Labine50 MH|ME|P 03:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill - If it ain't broke, don't fix it. --Uncle Bill 03:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    Re - It is broke IMHO--Labine50 MH|ME|P 03:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill - As above. I see no problem to be fixed here.--J Muller 03:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Kill - I agree, headshot is very hard on newbie zombies. Revise your suggestion is my advice. --Aeneid 05:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    Re - It's looking like it'll be on the talk page for quite a while...--Labine50 MH|ME|P 03:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Kill - As Youronlyfriend has already mentioned, this doesn't address your second point. --Wikidead 07:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. kill As Certified=Insane said Asheets 16:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Change - I agree that the headshot vs ankle grab conflict hurts newbies tremendously because they don't have either, but it's already hard enough for survivors to get revived (18 AP by the scientist+time waiting for revive). Let the survivors have their ankle grab and I'd vote keep. --Reaper with no name TJ! 17:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    Re - I think I will get rid of that last bit...--Labine50 MH|ME|P 03:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. No, no, and no? nerfing ankle grab, sortof nerfing headshot, assuming totally wrong about survivors without headshot and... did I say you are nerfing my ankle grab? -Certified=Insane☭Québécois 04:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    Re - Your lossing ONE AP of effect.--Labine50 MH|ME|P 03:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. spamarama - for lots of reasons, but the main one is saying something as stupid as Headshot has next to no effect on older zombies. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    Re - Six AP. Wow!--Labine50 MH|ME|P 03:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    Re - well, 1 is next to nothing. 6 isn't. And are you trying to say that having to spend 6AP to stand up instead of 1AP isn't a major difference? 2% isn't different from 12%? Please. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 10:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Spam - This can be said simply in 6 words: Don't nerf my ankle grab!!! --MarieThe Grove 16:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Spam - Retroactively punishes my zed for purchasing Ankle Grab. Punishes survivors who have purcahsed Ankle Grab. --Sgt. Expendable JG 23:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    Re - yes, it does punish survivors with ankle grab, but not zombies. How carefully did you read the suggestion?--Labine50 MH|ME|P 03:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    Re - I read it four or five times. It specifically says zombies without ankle grab will not be affected by headshot. So tell me why I want to buy it? BTW how closely did YOU read the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots? I like the part about retroactive punishments....--Sgt. Expendable JG 05:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    Re - Were you referring to the fact that it does alter a skill? Might I point out that Ankle grab is still fully effective if you get killed by on the 8000 survivors that don't have headshot? That translates to an 8 in 18 chance that your skill will still be effective, which, if you fell asleep in Grade Six math, is almost 50%.--Labine50 MH|ME|P 23:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Spaminator - Now this is just stupid. So I am affected by headshot when I have a skill, and not affected when I don't?? --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 13:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    Re - The flavour behind headshot has something to do with active grey cells, assume that every time you get headshot, it hits the part connected to ankle grab.--Labine50 MH|ME|P 23:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Firstly, your suggestion isn't factually accurate. It infers that headshot costs 10AP, when it costs 5AP. I assume this is a typo or something, so go ahead and edit it. Original standing up cost: 10. Ankle grab removes 9, headshot adds 5. Anyhow, looking at the actual suggestion. The Suggestions Dos and Do Nots page states (and I agree) that you shouldn't mess with people's bought skills. The first part of your suggestion (which is actually fairly reasonable, even though it does nerf headshot) doesn't even begin to balance the other part. It helps starting zombies, but on the other hand slightly reduces the effectiveness of ankle grab (it only saves you 4AP instead of 9AP when you get headshot). The survivor-nerfing part of this suggestion basically adds 9AP to the cost of dying to every survivor with level high enough to have ankle grab (i.e. most of them). Just to clarify, it changes the cost from 1AP to 10AP. It's a 900% increase (say 200% including walking to the revive point etc.). This is too big of an unbalancing change for one, and will annoy the survivors who wasted their XP on ankle grab (one of only two zombie skills useful for survivors). --ExplodingFerret 16:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Burn XP To Battle Gloriously For Longer

Changed due to valid criticism from Matthew Farenheit. Please see revision below. The changes are towards the end of the second paragraph. --Jon Pyre 07:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Burn XP To Battle Gloriously For Longer (revised)

Withdrawn by author, yet again. Revision pending. --Jon Pyre 08:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper, Stack

Timestamp: MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 10:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Type: Flavour Item Improvement
Scope: Your Newspapers, Stack
Description: Newspapers, being mainly a flavour item.. are still fun to read. But, they do take up inventory space, and this can be a bit annoying especially for new people who usually search first.. discard later.

Here is a proposal that should make newspapers more fun and make life a bit easier for newbies (especially ones locked out of important resource buildings due to overbarricading.)

Newspapers now stack. All newspapers in your inventory will be grouped together in packs of up to 3 newspapers for 1 inventory space per stack. If you pick up any new newspapers, they will be added to your "most full" stack 1st, then the next, and so on. Each time you click on a stack of newspapers to read, after reading them 1 will be removed from that stack's total.

Simple enough, it's like a pistol clip, but it holds 3 newspapers instead of 5 bullets. If nothing else, you'll find you have some more inventory space after it's implimented.

So if you found a brand new newspaper (if you didn't have any) you'd read:

Newspaper (1) in your inventory

It's, just gonna be that much easier to carry, read, and hell, even discard (because now you'd be able to toss stacks of up to 3 newspapers at a time.) And, of course, for those of you who love newspapers, well now you can carry dozens of them for a good sit & read while zombie moans outside add to the ambiance.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep I was thinking of also doing this for books, but they grant XP.. so, no. Not unless there was a book skill (or book bag) that let them stack like newspapers.. oi, another day. Not even I give a crap about that.. but I do like the papers, so what the hell. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 10:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep - Because this seems like fun, is practical, and is not game breaking in any way shape or form. --Fullemtaled 14:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep - Simply a quality of life fix, nothing that interesting. --Karloth Vois RR 15:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep - --Deras 16:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. keep Asheets 16:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Keep - I can't find anything wrong with this, and I can easily see what is good. The fact that current game logic would seemingly require this to take up two inventory spaces (which isn't necessarily true; spray cans have ammo and yet only take up one inventory slot) is a technical issue and therefore isn't a good kill reason (heck, the problem could be fixed simply by doubling players' inventory space and the amount of space that other items take up). And just because other items in this game aren't stacked doesn't mean this one shouldn't be. --Reaper with no name TJ! 17:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Keep - This could easily be modified to have newspaper stacks take up 2 slots but hold 6 (or even up to 9?) papers. I'd also like a "read paper" action to automatically give you the text for ALL your newspapers in the selected stack; why read them one at a time? Reaper- Spraycans don't have ammo, they have a random % chance of running out with any use, depending on the use (tag vs billboard) and your skill (tagger vs unskilled). And doubling the inventory space... isn't that simple, and would needlessly increase server load. --Swiers 18:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Keep I hate having twelve newspapers and 3 IP hits left. --Cap'n Silly 17:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Keep - Sure, why not? --Uncle Bill 00:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - If you can stack newspapers, then why don't stack some other useless items? Also, I'm the only one here to note that, the way UD is coded, an item with an "ammo" count like the stack will have to necessarily take 2 inventory spaces, almost negating the pros of this suggestion? --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 19:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill I agree with Fahrenheit... Stacking newspapers will make them take up 2 inventory slots... Not much of a fix if you dont pick up a lot of them... --GhostStalker 04:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. spam - by all means, get rid of newspapers entirely, or make them interesting - but no to stacking them. Why not then stack wirecutters? Or GPS units? Or DNA extractors? Or poetry books? Or the length of pipe? Or... --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 11:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC) An additional point - for this to work, the way the game is coded at the moment, newspapers would have to take up 2 inventory slots (as pistols and shotguns do, or as radios take up 5, because of the data held). --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 16:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Funt laid down some major reality based pwnage with this one.--Gage 16:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. OMG HE'S GIVING A USE FOR NEWSPAPERS: STACKING!!! Is this abusing the spam vote? Probably. But meh, I just want all newspapers, GPS, wirecutters, etc. to be nuked from orbit. Twice. -Certified=Insane☭Québécois 17:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Spam - Above spam reasons are true --Aeneid 23:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Spam - The specific "use" of newspapers IS to take up space. If you have so many newspapers that you ACTUALLY have to bundle them, then well, what the hell do you have so many newspapers that you ACTUALLY need to bundle them?--Pesatyel 02:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Spam - As above. Needing to stack newspapers implies that you have so much of them that you don't want to get rid of that they're clogging your inventory. Seriously, why would you even keep them? They serve no purpose, just like this suggestion. This is wholly unnecessary.--J Muller 06:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Spam - Leave the poor newspapers alone. Oh, and once you make an exception, the floodgates will open for others to follow. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 13:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Well, I know this isn't a particularly popular opinion, but I happen to feel that finding, disarding, cursing, maybe even using useless items is all part of the game. I don't feel that it's an issue that needs to be addressed. Next, I don't see how this is going to be make newspapers more fun. Oh look, I'm automatically stacking -- what fun! Thirdly, I agree that you need to be consistent to get anywhere -- if you want to deal with the real issue of useless items, suggest some stacking system that works with all of them in some way. I'd still vote against it, of course, because of my first reason; but oh well. Fourthly, even though 'implementation-problem' votes suck, in this case you'd need to make serious changes to the whole inventory storage database system to get this to work, and for what benefit? It's not a large enough change for the effort required to implement it, and that's why this is a Spam vote. Here's an idea: a 'drop all' button that lets you drop all of a certain type of thing, like newspaper or FAK or empty-pistols? --ExplodingFerret 16:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Daily Death Toll (by type)

Removed as a Dupe with 5 Dupe votes, 1 Kill and 6 Keeps. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 14:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/8th-Jan-2007&oldid=590362"