Suggestion talk:20101227 Move restriction based on encumberance
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)