Suggestion:20070527 Supply Cache v.2
|
Closed |
| This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Peer Rejected. |
20070527 Supply Cache v.2
Culsa 03:51, 27 May 2007 (BST)
Suggestion type
Improvement.
Suggestion scope
Survivors.
Suggestion description
A previous version of this idea was posted, and rightly shot down for various reasons. This is a changed and (hopefully) balanced version.
Ahem.
Survivors may cache items, in much the same way as dropping them. Each item cached adds a "point" for that category in that building's cache. All melee weapons are in one category, all firearms, all NecroTech equipment, etc. When a cache has 10 points in any category, it adds +1% chance to find an item from that category. Each 10 additional points add another +1% to searches, to a maximum of +10%. If there is a cache of more than one category in a building, one bonus is chosen randomly and applied. Characters from the same IP using the same cache would be flagged and penalised in the same way as zergers currently are. Caches are mentioned in the description of the building, e.g. "You are in the Holman Building. There is a very small (10 points) cache of medicine and NecroTech equipment here (FAKs, extractors, syringes).
Zombies can destroy a cache for 1 AP, much like ransacking. If a building has a cache, it must be destroyed before the building can be ransacked. The zombie that destroys the cache gains 2XP per 10 points in the highest category of the cache.
This suggestion does not make the game more mall-centric, not does it help out trenchies - with the randomisation, they could find FAKs instead of ammo. All it does is increase the chacnes of finding something useful, make unused items slightly important, and add incentive to holding certain buildings.
Voting Section
| Voting Rules |
Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped.
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
- Keep i like the idea of someone helping out other people by donating thier items. group dynamic, FTW. --Kaminobob 08:02, 27 May 2007 (BST)
- Keep Same here, makes it much easier to call a HQ a HQ. -Koryr 13:11, 27 May 2007 (BST)
Kill Votes
- Kill - A while back there was a suggestion that didn't include raising search odds, but simply made it a personal storage place. I think that fits the game better.--Vista +1 14:53, 27 May 2007 (BST)
- Kill - Generators already achieve much the same effect, with a built in drawback that makes them more balanced. I'd also rather not encourage survivors to cluster in buildings to create / use caches, as I wouldn't enjoy an (even more) siege-centered game. --Seb_Wiers VeM 15:58, 27 May 2007 (BST)
- Kill -I'd rather have the personal storage space idea. The game already revolves around only a few key buildings as it is, why make a bigger gravitation towards the supply points?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 16:05, 27 May 2007 (BST)
- Kill - the same reasons as previous time (btw, link anyone?). I just don't like this idea. There were better ideas, like this peer reviewed one (That's what Vista's mentioning). This one is just throwing items away instead of using (what is more efficient) to make better chances for other players --Duke GarlandTLCD SSZ 18:35, 27 May 2007 (BST)
- Kill This would allow for cooperation between zergs even further. Kill. --Secruss 04:07, 28 May 2007 (BST)
- Kill - I really don't care for this idea to much. As Seb_Wiers said, generators have the same affect and are well balanced. --Sonofagun18 06:25, 28 May 2007 (BST)
- Kill - Zergers could easily benefit off of this. --
T 16:51, 29 May 2007 (BST) - As those above. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 13:34, 31 May 2007 (BST)
- Kill - Too many cons for an uninteresting pro that isn't aimed at making the game fun. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 01:59, 2 June 2007 (BST)
Spam/Dupe Votes
