| Description: There are always certain folks you just don't want messing with the radio/generator/safehouse/revive line. Currently you can't do much to stop them if you are not online so I am suggesting a new Skill that would be co-ordinated through the settings page. If implemented this Skill would allow you to designate a single action that you wish to protect against; once set it would remain until you came back to change it (like descriptions) "Patrol" would be an addition to the existing Military list while Prowl would be a free zombie skill requiring MoL and "Patrol". Prowl effectively just makes Patrol a crossover skill but i suggest adding it as a freebie to make it appear on a zeds profile)
Actions you may select (via a dropdown) would include:
- Attacking Generators
- Attacking Barricades
- Building/adding to Barricades
- Attacking Radio's
- Broadcasting
- Setting up decorations (Why you would I can't imagine but what the hey?)
- Creating Revive Syringes
- Necrotech scanning
- Reviving
- Ruining (dubious about this one but its probably only fair)
- Repairing
- Free Running
- Any others that people think might be worthwhile?
Once an action is selected you then choose a target:
- "colour" contacts
- all contacts
- all survivor
- all zombies
What Happens:
Once set up, a new action will appear in the normal game panel, For a cost of 2AP you can begin a prowl/patrol of the area. Once anyone at a location is defending the area the description will include "One", "Several" (up to 10) or "Lots" (10+) "of survivors/zombies are patrolling/prowling this area"... it will not say what part of the area they are defending though. Should anyone from your target list attempt the action you are currently patrolling for you will attempt to prevent their action. The chance to prevent the action is 10% + 1% per character defending against the same action, no more than 10 characters can defend the same target and attempts to stop freerunning are at half chance due to the number of potential entry points.
- For example; If Burt, Ernie and Kermit are trying to stop Cookie Monster attacking the generator they have a 13% chance of success. If they are trying to prevent him freerunning this would be 6% (6.5 rounded for simplicity)
Should an action be prevented by the patrol appropriate notification will be given, "Prowling Zombies (list) drove you away as you tried to revive 'survivor x'" etc....
The patrol/prowl will end as soon as AP regeneration takes you back to a positive number or you are damaged by any attack. As soon as the patrol/prowl ends the character will lose 4AP (taking the total cost to 6) This reflects the idea that your character has been awake and active (in a limited fashion) and is now very tired. Final note on this point is should any survivor who is infected take damage everytime their patrol is triggered? I can see reasons both ways so would appreciate ideas.
Discussion (Patrol/Prowl)
To a large extent this is the heavily reworked Defend skill i put forwards last week.--Honestmistake 15:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I honestly think the idea just won't work, period, but for the sake of discussion, let's talk about a few of the larger flaws. Actions that can't normally be observed by other characters should not be able to be protected against (e.g. necronet scanning, making syringes, free running, etc.), since that just doesn't make sense. The idea is also severely underpowered, both in terms of AP spent and the chance of success. Essentially, you're saying that for 6AP, I have a 10% chance to stop someone from engaging in a 1AP activity (which may or may not even take place), which they can attempt to do as many times as they like. I.e. it's a useless skill. And speaking of skills, requiring a human skill in order to use a zombie skill is a definite no. Either make them stand-alone skills that can be used independently of each other, or choose one side for the skill. —Aichon— 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, I will try to answer those points in some sort of order...
- I think one of the main reasons that you don't see those actions is because it would be pointless screen SPAM... I mean its not like you could do anything with the info? With this however you are actively choosing to look out for such actions and try to prevent them.
- As for underpowered, I was rather worried that it may be the opposite. Sure you pay 6AP to patrol for 1 hour and have a small chance of stopping your chosen nemisis, but its potentially possible to trigger this a million times in that hour which is why i set the chance so low. With team work that chance would soon build up to a pretty reasonable level.
- To all intents and purpose I have made this a human skill, its a crossover if zombies also have MoL but the fact that they get prowl as a freebie is just to show it in their profile if scanned and to make it easier for the server to assign the right flavour text (ie "lots of zombies are prowling")
I do see where you are coming from when you say you don't like this but i really think the game needs a bit more complexity to keep it from stagnating and I think options like this might be the way forwards. --Honestmistake 08:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
As Aichon. --Maverick Talk - OBR  404 06:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Find Injured Zombies
| Timestamp: Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
|
| Type: Gameplay Change or Skill
|
| Scope: Zombie/Survivor combat
|
| Description: I propose that scanning a zombie now reveal whether it is injured (30-HP) or dying (12-HP), with a possible further addition of allowing people to see infection status. This way, people can more easily attack heavily wounded zombies in a way that doesn't just give them up for free. I also propose that scans now move up through the stack even if all zombies in the area have been scanned, though this is not a necessary part of my idea. What do you guys think?
|
Discussion (Find Injured Zombies)
If it was only the "dying" ones that showed up I might agree.... Add in that rotters have a 25% chance for a false result and flesh rotters a 50% (75%?) and I would probably come down on the yes side. --Honestmistake 00:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- There's already a something like 80% chance of the scan failing, do we really need to skew the odds even further? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Don't see why not. My suggestion would not reduce the current success rate it would just give you a chance of gaining false information... information that you don't currently get anyway. --Honestmistake 08:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the current version of the suggestion (DNA scan reveals a zombie as Injured if it has </=30 hp and Dying if it has </=12 hp), and shows infection status), it's closer to the mark but I still don't like it. Regarding scans moving through the stack even if all zombies in the area have been scanned, that should be disconnected and proposed separately. As long as you're not gaining any XP from scanning already-scanned zombies, it's fine. You are spending AP and encumbrance on gaining this information, after all, it's kind of lame that you can't do it just because someone else got there first. --Mold 04:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Discussion (Attack Injured Zombies)
Please go to your local morgue. Look at 10 corpses. Tell me which has the least amount of hit points. --  .  . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Trick question. They're all at 0HP. —Aichon— 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- They might have 50 AP though. Better watch out.--Trevor Wrist 23:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- luLz, funny :) --
 Thadeous Oakley 09:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm guessing that guns leave big holes in zombies, and anyone at 7 HP is probably missing some body parts. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 23:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- If that's the case, shouldn't near-death survivors be penalized for doing certain things? Like, y'know, freerunning, aimed attacks, installing gennies, all that stuff that usually requires you to have your body parts where they belong unless you want to fail/suck at it? I'm also very excited about your narrative justification of how those body parts and bullet holes magically grow back after reviving/standing back up/feeding.--Trevor Wrist 00:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
How would this be displayed? We can't see individual zombies, so where would the low-HP indicator be shown? —Aichon— 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- There would be no indicator. He's saying that you would just attack the one with the lowest HP.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Then what was he talking about with seeing the 30- and 12- HP zombies? —Aichon— 22:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- There's an "or" in there guys ;) - User:Whitehouse 23:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks WH, and I was thinking either a catagorization (unjured/dying zombies) or colors. Colors on what? I guess I'll stick with catagorization. You are inside the balls building, a powered balls sign glows dimly over the front testicle. There are two zombies and a dying zombie here (Attack: A Zombie, A Dying Zombie). Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 23:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, let's mindlessly buff those poor, poor zombie hunters. And how do you spot a "heavily injured" zombie exactly? Do you compare the amount of limbs still attached? Count the number of bullet holes? And while we're at it, what makes zombie hunters so more special that they would be able to spot "injured" zombies while zombies, who can actually smell each other, can not? Also, I'm pretty sure that this would extremely hurt newbie zombies, y'know, those who can't heal themselves unless they get killed or commit suicide and trenchie zombie hunters love to shoot at for no good reason.--Trevor Wrist 22:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
This isn't going to work I'm afraid, see above , and eventually, below. --Thadeous Oakley 22:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
WHY??? --Honestmistake 23:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Why should survivors have to kill a 60 HP zombie to remove a 5 HP zombie? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 23:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Because they have that fucking huge advantage called barricades. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Because it's one of the core advantages of being a (feral) zombie in a larger group. Ever wondered why most newbie zombie guides have "Find a horde" in them? Among other reasons, they "offer" protection by becoming a target among many, regardless wether you're on full health or one attack shy of dying. With your idea, this becomes redundant, if not even dangerous. You're a newbie zombie low on hp thanks to random trenchies (or the occasional fellow newbie zed), but hey, lucky you, you found a fresh break-in nearby and the amount of zeds there seem big enough to give you cover. Oh wait, guess not cause now you're among the first to hit the fan. Enjoy your -15AP. And let's not even start about the idea of automatically getting targetted by every zombie hunter in the building because you've got 1HP less than the other zeds around.--Trevor Wrist 00:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I know this suggestion is influenced by mine but I still don't like it at all. It has all the griefing potential but none of the possible benefits for zombies. Trenchcoaters will now target the weakest zombies (probably newbies too) so they can go into the mall and brag about how many they've killed, add more notches to their shotgun barrel etc. Combat revivers would get a buff too because they can kill the weaker zombies and combat-revive the stronger ones, improving their HP ratio. But it's no use at all if you want to heal a specific zombie. And worst of all it's a new skill and new skills almost always nerf newbies. --Explodey 01:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'm hearing some pretty big worries about newbies being abused, and I don't want that to happen. Would just having survivors attack the weakest zombie around fix this issue, or do you think that would still be a problem? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- The issue would still be there. Maybe if you changed it so it only affected zombies that are already in your contacts list, and keep it vague by giving the zombies who are at less than full health a * next to their name. This way the survivor doesn't know if the zombie in question has 59 HP, 48 HP, or 1 HP. --Maverick Talk - OBR 404 08:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Current proposal: Against, for all the reasons above. But how about: Scanning a zombie with a DNA scanner will also give you his current HP and infection status? I see several advantages:
- DNA scanner becomes more useful
- Trenchcoaters might actually start using scanners, helping NecroWatch
- Revivers will know if they have to slab a FAK on you before hitting you with a needle.
On the whole, I don't think this entire thing is very necessary (if a horde of zombies shambles towards you, you shoot the nearest, not the one with the least limbs. Besides, zombies get up, and they don't really wash their clothes each time they do so, so what exactly is the criterium for a `near-dead corpse'?) but if you want something like this, that's how I'd do it. --Itsacon (Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton) 12:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Yet another attempt at ruining zombie anonymity. The lack of HP displayed is a very important part of that in game function of zombies. Don't nerf one of our more important advantages that actually discourage retarded survivors from shooting zambahz on the streets. --Papa Johnny 17:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Also, if you want an RP reason for this: considering the state of decay of a zambah, you should only be able to tell when they are in 1 of 2 states. State 1 being standing and zombified and state 2 being on the ground. See? Simple. --Papa Johnny 17:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, what if I went with Itsacon's idea and made HP be displayed upon DNA extraction? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 23:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it is a false assumption that this will hurt newbie zombies specifically. Because of zombie anonymity, there is no guarantee that the "lowest HP zombie" will be a newbie. With digestion it is a little more likely, but no guarantee. Unless you kill the zombie or it interacts with you, you won't KNOW if it is a level 1 or a level 41. I like the second option better. I think, at best, it should only work on zombies with, say 9 HP or less. If there are none such in the stack, the attacker would get a message saying "you cannot differentiate the zombies well enough to note severe damage". Maybe it could be called "Aim" or something, which lead me to this for a comparison.--Pesatyel 06:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Newbie zombies have about 17% lower max hp than the more experienced ones, fewer easy options to get missing hp back, and likely don't even have flak jackets or flesh rot to help hold onto what they do have. Any new thing that aims attacks at the zombies with the lowest hp is going to fall hardest on the newbies' shoulders. --Mold 04:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The DNA scan revealing infection is an excellent idea (but almost sure it is an old dupe) Revealing HP is just not a good idea though. At best a scan should reveal a zombie as "wounded" but only if all flesh rotters showed up as wounded on a successful scan. --Honestmistake 09:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
DEFEND
| Timestamp: --Honestmistake 12:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
|
| Type: new action
|
| Scope: survivors and Zombies with MoL
|
| Description: There are always certain folks you just don't want messing with the radio/generator/safehouse/revive line. Currently you can't do much to stop them if you are not online so I am suggesting a new option that would be available through the settings page. If implemented this would allow you to designate a single action that you wish to protect against; once set it would remain until you came back to change it.
Actions you may select (via a dropdown) would include:
- Free-running into the location.
- Attacking Generators
- Setting up/fueling Generators
- Attacking Barricades
- Building/adding to Barricades
- Attacking Radio's
- Broadcasting
- Setting up decorations (Why you would I can't imagine but what the hey?)
- Creating Revive Syringes
- Necrotech scanning
- Reviving
- Ruining (dubious about this one but its probably only fair)
- Repairing
- Others that people think might be worthwhile.....
Once an action is selected you then choose a target:
- "colour" contacts
- all contacts
- all survivor
- all zombies
- all.
Finally you would choose a weapon... any weapon including newspapers.
What Happens:
Once set up, a new action will appear in the normal game panel, For a cost of 5AP (more/less?) you can activate your selected "defend" criteria. Should anyone from your target list attempt the action you are currently defending against you will then make a single attack with the chosen weapon.
If this attack causes damage the action defended against will fail (1AP/IP hit no item loss, free running fails should be subject to potential falling damage as if falling from a ruin though!) the target will receive a message saying something like "Arson Lover tries to prevent you damaging the radio by attacking you with an axe, they hit you for 3HP and foil your action" or "Arson Lover tries to prevent you damaging the generator by attacking you with an axe, they miss and seem winded by the attempt!"
While "Defending" you may not regenerate to above 45AP. "Defense" will end when it is triggered, when you spend AP on any other action or if you are injured. All players defending a given action will be triggered by it but regardless of actual numbers no player will be reduced to less than 1HP and it is only the action that triggered the defense that will be prevented.
Discussion (Defend)
A heavily reworked take on a previous discussion.... I take all the blame though :) --Honestmistake 12:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Wouldn't this be a huge pain to code and program? Also if I multiply by say...50..50 people will "defend" a genny, if one player would try destroy the genny, well that would be quite fucked. Also if you defend a barricade, and a zombie attacks it from the outside, you somehow manage to defend it by attacking through the barricade, or wa?--Thadeous Oakley 12:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- In order:
- coding is not really an issue for us... I think it even says that in the guidelines? However setting it up should be very easy as its just going to put a few more boxes in the settings page and a flag on the character when active. How that flag links to the action is (i would think) going to be the more problematic but it can't be that hard to do can it?
- multiplied by a million (or even 50) and this could easily get very messy but remember it just cost 250AP to do (or 5,000,000!) and cannot kill the target no matter how many people do it!
- The action would have to be one done in your sight. Attacking the barricade from your side of it, free running into your location etc...
I suppose it might be advisable to put a limit on how many folk can be defending at a time though as 50+ folks watching a generator might be a bit OTT :) --Honestmistake 13:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't this effectively give people more knowledge than they normally have? For instance, normally, people can weaken the barricades without others in the building knowing who weakened them, so long as the barricades aren't actually broken through. Or they can attack the generator in the same way. As for ruining, people already stop that simply by being in the building, so I don't see a reason to have it as an action you can defend against. —Aichon— 15:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- The thing about not noticing barricade/generator attacks is that you really should have the option to notice. Of course there are often very good reasons to attack the barricades as a survivor so perhaps the option to make this only apply to dropping below VS might be a good idea. As for the blocking ruin, I include that purely because some zombies may wish to try to prevent it... They may be rotters in a revive clinic or just Mhr cows waiting somewhere convenient for their group to find them or even just survivors who die defending their mall and stand up as a zed with only a few AP left. --Honestmistake 16:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's a big boost for life culting when again, multiplied by a billion. 30 undead mallrats "defending", while one zombie tries to ruin the corner. Vice versa for repairs. --Thadeous Oakley 16:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- So the ruining zombie gets mauled to 1HP and fails his 1AP action. Hardly upsetting as all it cost him is 1 click while each of those billion cultists just spent 5AP each to slow his effort. Remember this only works for the next action so as soon as triggered it needs an active player to re-click defend for another 5AP.... Just not going to find this chain reacting very often in my opinion. --Honestmistake 18:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- You know how they say opinions are never wrong? That doesn't apply here, your opinion is wrong. Everyone will use this, mostly for the same kinds of targets, and the only times you won't get a chain reaction like this is when you're in a mostly-deserted block, or when everyone's auto-attack has already been burnt up. --Mold 21:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Most players are too selfish to even barricade so how many do you think will be willing to spend AP defending against a single action for 10% of their daily AP? The only real problem would be zergers, but as it would require them to log on lots more than i suspect is normal it would be of little real use to them so i can't see it being a huge problem! On the whole i think this would mostly result in G'kers and Pker's and Combat Reviver's getting a nasty shock every now and again. --Honestmistake 23:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe most players are too selfish to even barricade shared buildings, but hear them scream for blood if someone even gives a genny a dirty look, let alone actually wipes them out. Oh noes, we can't search up shotguns and shells as easily now, KOS KOS zomby spys PKers traitors blah blah! Or watch them blatantly ignore other players' needs for gear and shelter, and build their own little EHB fortresses of doom to protect their own asses (rather than, say, cade an NT or the corner of the mall they're leeching from), and then freak out when somebody brings the cades down to VSB++ so other people can actually come inside. This would still get a lot of use from those idiots, just not on anything constructive for the rest of the survivors. --Mold 04:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Auto attacks are bad mmmkay? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- cari is right; this suggestion sucks. Basic D&DN violations going on here. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- 1st; you cannot "violate" D&DN as they are only recommendations and they are pretty broadly expressed guidelines at that! 2nd. How is it an auto attack? You have selected a pretty specific target and payed 5AP for the privilege... should no relevant target present itself then you have burnt those AP for no reason. Sure the attack you make is triggered automatically if/when the criteria are met but so is every other attack (it fails if the target has moved!) --Honestmistake 23:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- How is it an auto-attack? Hmmmm, I walk into the location, you aren't online, your character automatically attacks me. Would you like a diagram? Yeah, only if the criteria are met, because no-one free runs into malls.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Free running is the biggest problem I see with this as its the only action that carries any real penalty for the victim, in that it could easily leave them stranded outside! However, I personally think that free running is waay overpowered and could use a serious nerf anyway which is why I put it on the list. As for it being an auto action is it really such a huge problem? Manufacturing syringes is (in effect) an auto search for a very high cost, placing a generator affects other players and provides an automatic bonus on things even after you log off, Infection is an auto attack triggered by anotherplayers actions and feeding groans result in effects after you have logged out too. OK so none of those is exactly the same as my suggestion but they are all things that add to gameplay and have effects which are not immediate, do not necissarily benefit the actual player and cause harm (or inconvienience) to the opposition. Put simply.... what is wrong with the concept? --Honestmistake 09:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Infact... exactly which of the various D&DN guides does this even contradict? --Honestmistake 23:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't contradict d&dn, however it is mentioned on frequently suggested. Also, I think it's just overly complicated for a simple game. - User:Whitehouse 23:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Multiply it by a billion, and you can violate D&DN by stupidly ignoring blatant warnings telling you that these kinds of ideas are fundamentally flawed. Would you prefer I called them "blatant ignorances of freely and obviously given common sense that's been tested over many years"? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 23:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Multiplied by a billion zombies are unstoppable.... perhaps we should ban them? Almost everything in game has the potential to be overwhelming in mass use so that guideline makes very little sense. What this suggestion aims to do is give new options to both sides, those options are expensive in terms of cost to use and have little real effect (as you need to be active to reset your defense) The only one of the actions which are ever likely to cause any real grief is free-running because as presented it can leave the victim outside, in the case of just about every other action the worst possible outcome is that you are injured and waste 1 AP! --Honestmistake 08:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Multiplied by a quarter billion, barricades shut out the billion zombies completely. Stop being stupid on purpose. This is a bad idea, and no amount of snark on your part will change that. --Mold 12:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not actually trying to be 'SNARKY' just replying to the normal shit folk throw about it failing because of some randomly invented guideline. You can't multiply this by a billion because it inherently stops doing anything useful after a certain point. It's a bad idea you say.... justify don't just complain! --Honestmistake 20:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- okay, that reads back as pretty damn snarky. So i ask without malice, what exactly do you think is so obviously bad about bending those suggested guidelines? --Honestmistake 00:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- You've got a clearly overpowered suggestion that can only be justified with a "Just not going to find [the massively overpowered bit] very often in my opinion." But you will -- useful things get used when they're noticed, everything that can be abused will be, and there are a lot of players in UD, which tend to gather in herds. Multiply it by a billion is an attempt to get you to stop and think about what a suggested change will actually do in play. It's an exaggeration, sure, some people can't take a hint unless it's applied with a 2x4, they need the obvious to be grossly exaggerated to notice it. Remember that assumed rarity doesn't balance an overpowered implementation. Either a large portion of players go out of their way to get it and it's not rare anymore, or you arbitrarily limit how many can do that and wind up setting up an elite class and discriminating against everyone else. --Mold 04:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I see you've addressed some of the common problems with auto attacks (AP spent while logged off etc.) but the result is that it's too complicated. --Explodey 01:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that setting it up is complicated (well as complicated as choosing a new set of clothes anyway) but once set it hardly changes the actual interface at all. Can you think of anything to make it less complex or is it just the uncertaintly that it would add to certain gameplay styles that is the problem? --Honestmistake 09:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Rather than having the drop-downs on the settings page and an activation button on the map page, maybe you could use the same format as the "attack" button, with two drop-downs beside it (if it would require more than two drop-downs then reduce the number of options to make it fit.) Having it on the settings page takes too many clicks (Go to settings page; Select target to defend; Select weapon; Select group to defend against; Back to the city; Press defend button: 9 clicks total.) --Explodey 18:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- I did think of that but figured that it would clutter the main page a little too much. Also the ability to select all 3 items separately is pretty important to functionality and would easily work in a similar way to clothing selection (at least to set up). Remember too that once set the selection is stored it only needs to be changed if you want to change your options. --Honestmistake 22:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- You don't need all combinations. Why would you let some characters GK or RK but not others? The same applies to most of those actions (with the exception of Free Running.) Reviving, scanning and syringe manufacture should not be in there at all. Adding features just for death cultists seems wrong. And defending against broadcasting would mostly be used for trenchie in-fighting and would be a distraction from the human-vs-zombie war. Remove all that and you're left with: Stop red contacts free running, stop blue contacts free running, stop everyone free running, stop everyone barricading/de-barricading, etc. You could get it down to fewer than 15 options and combine the group & action selection into one drop-down box. --Explodey 12:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that its unlikely that you would want to defend your radio/generator from only some folk but the same cannot be said for most of the other actions. Reviving, scanning and manufacture are all very important things from a zombie point of view and this suggestion aims to include them... anyway deathcultists et al are already part of the game and suggestions should not be unreasonably tailored just to prevent them gaining any use. Reducing the number of drop downs but increasing the options in each would work well though.--Honestmistake 14:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
As Honestmistake said, they are GUIDELINES, not set in stone rules. That is what these discussions are for. I don't think the "attack" should do damage. Your just stopping the person from performing the action. Thus no "weapon selection" would be needed exactly. Or, at best it could require a melee weapons (maybe it could be a "special" ability of the hockey stick ala the pipe or crowbar?). The only problem is Free Running which, I agree, is overpowered. If the point is to impede the action, either the person falls outside or doesn't make the "run" at all. In that case, maybe the person attempting the free running gets the message "someone is blocking the window, you cannot see a way past them at the moment".--Pesatyel 05:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- It couldn't use that exact message as it would make people think the "defender" was still blocking the way in when in fact they will not be (it only works for 1 action once). But Free running is certainly the biggest problem i see with this even with any tweaks i can think of??? --Honestmistake 09:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, that's not ENTIRELY true. It would be quickly learned that the free run attempted could only be blocked, technically, that one time. In this instance, it is more of a matter of how many people are allowed to "block" in the first place. Something else to consider (with Free Running in particular) is that one person can't exactly block EVERY means of ingress. That is to say, instead of blocking entirely, I'd imagine it would be a chance of success percentage.--Pesatyel 08:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey HM; your suggestion sucks zombie balls, and everyone here knows it. Either take your frills down and listen to us or take this turd to voting, but don't pretend like you're actually using DS. This suggestion is fundamentally flawed, and deep down, you know it. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 04:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Your right about this having flaws however, its only been here 3 days and when I am good and ready I will post a reworked version to see if I can make use of the criticism to get something that is workable. Now either come back with some useful criticism or fuck off back to trollville and stroke your templates! --Honestmistake 09:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see the "fundamental flaw" (or the tasit implication that this suggestion has no merit and/or cannot be "made good" in any way).--Pesatyel 08:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have no constructive criticism to offer this. Because nothing constructive can possibly be added to a suggestion which essentially forces players (by way of AP-nerfs to certain actions) to align themselves with one 'side' of the game. So I have this to say: Fuck. Off.--DT
 PK 03:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Align themselves with one 'side' of the game? What does THAT mean?--Pesatyel 04:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Virulent Blood
Timestamp:  22:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
|
| Type: Zombie skill
|
| Scope: Zombies
|
| Description: The new skill "Virulent Blood" would be a new addition under the Digestion tree, requiring Infectious Bite and Digestion to be purchased. The effects of the skill are to override the effect of Infectious Bite with a new type of infection, which will not stack with a regular infection, instead always taking preference. This new variant infection will not be flagged any differently in-game after it has been delivered, but is cured with a First Aid Kit in exactly the same manner. The only difference will be that 1HP is lost per AP the survivor spends, not per action. Although narrow in its use, high level zombies will be able to make all the difference in siege situations with this, as combat revives will now cost 10HP; and maintaining ruins will become somewhat easier, as large repairs can be deterred even more strongly by resident zombies. It'll also aid zombies seeking to hold a position, for the same reasons.
Necessary flavour jazz:
You bite your ma for 4 damage. They drop to 56 HP. They become virulently infected.
Your ma bit into you for 4 damage. (23 hours and 20 minutes ago)
The zombie's bite was virulently infected! (You'll now take 1HP damage for every action point you expend. Infection can be cured with a first aid kit.) (23 hours and 20 minutes ago)
No other mentions of the infection will use different text, for handiness' sake.
|
Discussion (Virulent Blood)
Kind of screws over infectious bite, doesn't it? I mean, who would use normal infections but newbies, who don't buy bite until late in the game due to its lack of EXP-gain? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Imagine it more like Pistol Training/Advanced Pistol Training. You use the earlier one until you get the later one, which is an improvement of the earlier one. 22:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't like it. It's dramatically excessive.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
This would be very bad news for The Big Prick. They would have to choose between carrying just as many FAKs as needles, or getting only 3 revives per day instead of 5. I won't go into whether that's a good or bad thing :-) --Explodey 22:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's a very bad thing. The BP are the closest survivors have had to a mega-horde, and what they're doing is just damn good work. Nerfing them won't get us anywhere.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- You're forgetting that survivors are sorta vastly advantaged. Zombie mega-hordes are the only edge the undead have which survivors can't really counter. A survivor nerf, or zombie boost, is needed badly, so that's not really a viable excuse. 22:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- You're joking? The sides are balanced. My zombie character can break down the barricades of a NT in one day, with plenty of AP left. I'm not kidding, I've done it before. It was The Hazeldine Building in South Blythville.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, and one of my rotters can open Creedy's gatehouse every day. That doesn't equal balance. Balance is when both sides are equally capable of making experience and playing the game well, and currently zombies are dicked until they scrape enough for a few skills so they can start to maybe find the occaisional treat. Survivors make mucho xp from day one, and don't have to contend with combat- and random-revives, or headshots. Also, game numbers show vastly imbalanced ratios. There is no balance between the sides, and a small measure to dissuade combat revives is the kind of subtle help that could shift things slightly. 22:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Scuze' me? Survivors easy? I've been playing a scientist for about five months and he still doesn't have all the skills I want him to have; not everyone whack-and-FAKs, you know. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Neither do I. If you've had a scientist for five months, with 10xp a revive, 4xp a scan, and countless xp for clearing rotter from revive queues, healing the actual wounded, clearing bodies, etc, you'd have what you needed by now. Took me no time at all over in Gibsonton, with no punch-healing involved. XP for survivors is like gold coins to Scrooge McDuck. 22:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- You don't really seem to understand how the game works. 50/50 is NOT an equal balance in urbandead. The only time that it got to 50/50 in recent history, almost every suburb on the map was red. Was that even? Not remotely. a 55/45 balance IS a balance in urbandead. And zombies don't have to deal with PKers. Or death at all, actually. These are all basic axioms, and I assure you that the game is balanced.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Balance isn't about being 'even', it's about being fair. Death for survivors is a hassle, yes. But it's one that any survivor can overcome very quickly. No needle gives you your 10-15 headshot AP back, or coddles your new players to a level where they can do anything worthwhile. A survivor with 2-3 skills can fend for themselves right away, without needing to huddle in numbers. Zombies can't, without a streak of luck, do shit all on their own except stumble on someone sleeping outside, or bash cades til they get inside with about 7 or 8 AP to spend until they're headshot again. Also if you're arguing the 55/45, remember to factor in the huge amount of mrh cows that're reflected in the zombie population. I'd make a stab at 55/40/5 survivor/actual zed/revive queue. 22:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Factor in PKers. 40/15/40/5. And, if you include PKers as zombie sympathisers, which effectively, they are: 40/55/5, in favour of zombies. Survivors by no means have an easier time, because they need all of their skills to be effective, whilst zombies need just a couple. Also, frankly, I have more fun as a zombie than as a human, and, I find it easier.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- We're getting off-topic. Balance, whatever your meaning, is a good thing to have. I think we all agree on that. What's being debated here are the merits of this suggestion, not necessarily it's justification. Personally, I think that Infectious Bite could use a buff, but I'm not sure that this is it. The fact that this suggestion hits combat reviving specifically, which I do not feel needs to be nerfed, is difficult to get around. —Aichon— 23:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- The problem with infection is that it does nothing until the character logs in, and if it does something before then, it'll stack and becoem overbearing. This wouldn't really change that in the slightest.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think I follow this. If you mean that this would affect players while they aren't logged in, then perhaps I worded something wrong. It's per AP actively spent, so an action worth 3AP nets a 3HP loss, for example. It won't stack or even come into play until the player is logged in and doing things. 23:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- No, I'm saying that the improvement that infection needs is to be able to do something to offline survivors. This does not. Hence, it doesn't solve the problem with infection.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ahhhh, thought you meant that's what it did do. My bad. I can't really see a fair way that it would affect offline players, without unfairly penalising the "weekend warrior" types. 23:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly, which is why I don't see the problem with infection being fixed any time soon.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 07:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I personally don't think this is a very good idea. It is both unnecessary and slightly overpowered. I say to just make infectious bite take 2-3 FAK's to heal or 1 with the first aid skill.--Winman1 01:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- But that would be a dupe. --Explodey 01:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- If Winman hates it, it can't be that bad, can it? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
oh, I didn't look it up. disregard the last statement.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Winman1 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.
Think about whom this will hurt.
- Humans standing after getting revived without Ankle Grab (10 AP).
- Reviving (10 AP).
- Spraypainting Billboards (10 AP).
- Manufacturing Syringes (20 AP).
- Repairers (1+ AP).
The first group will get hit the hardest. It would be newbies. Your basically telling all "virulently" infected survivors they will stand with 15 HP AND be infected. That hurts too much. And repairing could be a death sentence.--Pesatyel 04:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
One issue: if it doesn't display any differently after the initial message, and it doesn't behave any differently except in case of multi-AP actions, this could be very bad. Someone might not remember if they have a regular infection or virulent infection, and there'd be no indicator for them to determine which it is. They could very easily CR themselves to death, or, even easier, repair themselves to death especially in the case of extreme repairs. I'd say that you definitely need some text that alerts the player to which type of infection they have. —Aichon— 04:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's meant to serve as a combat-revive deterrent, so CRing yourself to death is part of the intention. I'll admit that no one's going to get caught doing repairs with it, but that's a feature, not a redundancy, as it can be used as a deterrent to aid in holding zombie areas. 09:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, deterrent is one thing, but this is like having a speed limit along a road, but not posting it, then pulling people over for exceeding the unposted speed limit. People need a reminder that they are virulently infected, otherwise it doesn't act like a deterrent and it catches them by surprise. It is definitely not fun to die for avoidable reasons, just like it's not fun to get pulled over. It becomes a nuisance. —Aichon— 14:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well revives and repairs are one thing. Your STILL screwing newbies pretty hard.--Pesatyel 05:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who goes on a repairing spree while infected is clearly taking the piss anyway, pretty much the same could be said of revive runners. Infection is supposed to be scary instead its "Ooh, i think i ate something a bit funny... well let me just finish what i am doing before i wander off and look for an asprin!" The only good criticism I see of this is Pesatyel's point about newbs awaiting revive. Easily solved though as it would be best to just make this drop to a normal infection upon death! --Honestmistake 08:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- That or simply say it doesn't affect a revived survivor standing up as they still have the revive serum still in their body to counter that particular effect.--Pesatyel 08:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
This suggestion would once have left me on -301hp. That is all. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- That would actually tempt me to go out and suicide repair just to see if i could better that number :)--Honestmistake 09:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I like this, it's a reasonable response to the 100% hit ratio that syringes get. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
As Aichon above, there really needs to be some way for the infected individual to differentiate between having a regular infection and the virulent infection. That aside, I like the idea and would look forward to the applications. --Maverick Talk - OBR 404 06:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Alt Proximity Warning
Moved to userspace for further development. Probably will be put up within the week. —Aichon— 05:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Collapse Barricades II
Moved to user space for further development -- boxy talk • teh rulz 07:02 26 November 2009 (BST)
Suggestions up for voting
There are no suggestions previously discussed here up for voting
|
|
22:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
