Talk:Suggestions/11th-Dec-2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki
< Talk:Suggestions
Revision as of 15:04, 27 December 2006 by Funt Solo (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Register Group

Timestamp: Matt Scott 9 15:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Type: New Interface
Scope: Groups
Description: Right now, to join a group, you simply type in the group's name. I'd like to see a new system in place to allow for "open" and "registered" groups. Let's leave the current system in place for "open" groups, but let's create a new system whereby user's can create a group using a similar interface to creating a character. On the UD homepage, underneath the Create A Character button would be a Register A Group button. The interface would function very similar to Creating a Character -- It would not allow the registration of any Group names that are duplicates of existing names, the group would have a password, and a series of option buttons to designate the group type: Human Group, Zombie Group, and so on (just like designating your character class).

Let me make this clear: Players could still join un-registered groups as they do now -- simply by typing the group name in the text box on their character description screen. All existing groups would by default become un-register-able, or "open" groups. So all existing groups and their members would be unaffected by this addition.

Once the group name has been registered, anyone with the group password would be able to sign in to that group from the homepage. Here they would have the option to change the Group Type and also to add or ban members. This would create a list of allowed members for that group. Adding a member in this interface does not add the member to the group, it simply says that the member is allowed to join.

With this system in place, all members would still join a group by entering the group name into the text box on their character description page. The only change is that "registered" groups could only be joined by people that have officially been added to the group's allowed members. Each registered group would have a profile page similar to a character's profile page with public information about that group.

Again, this would not affect existing groups. It would allow new groups to become more selective in their rosters if desired, while also allowing the current system to continue (players could still create or join "open" groups on the fly by typing the name into the textbox on their character description page.

In summary, there would be 2 ways to create a group:

  1. Simply type in the name on your character description page. These groups become "open" groups, open to all characters.
  2. Register the group officially. These groups are only available to members added from the group's interface.

Discussion So what do you think? I tried to design this in such a way that it would not trump existing groups, while still allowing some added functionality moving forward. --Matt Scott 9 15:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Introducing this after such a long period is going to do nothing but cause problems. Exactly how many people are going to register groups like 'Creedy Defense Force' or 'Malton Marshals' and squat on the group's name for the rest of eternity? –Xoid M•T•FU! 15:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Xoid... it's a fine idea, but one that should've been implemented at the start of the game. Sorry. Cyberbob  Talk  15:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Damn, there goes my chance to make the de facto leader of a certain well-known zombie horde have an apoplectic fit by stealing their group name and sitting on it from now till the end of time. Yup, Xoid is right - this would be the uber-grief to end all uber-griefs. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 16:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that's why I said, "existing groups would by default become un-register-able". Read, people, read. No one would be able to "steal" a group name. I understand the concern, but I just don't think registering a group name and sitting on it is any different than registering character names and sitting on them. --Matt Scott 9 16:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah. CNR. How do you propose to implement the existing groups as being registered before any others can be? Cyberbob  Talk  16:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I suppose attempting to register a group name would first check the name against the existing database of names -- officially registered or not. ALL currently existing groups become "open" groups, i.e., they can not be "registered" or limited in any way. People can continue to create or join "open" groups exactly as they do now. "Registered" groups (again, you can't steal an existing group name) would only be necessary if you intend to limit the members that can join your group. I agree this is probably too late to implement, but I just wanted to hear the feedback. --Matt Scott 9 16:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea. I really do. Cyberbob  Talk  16:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Does that mean that out of all names currently in use, they can never can be registered? Or does it mean if they suddenly became unused they could be registered? The latter happens more often that you think, and the former would be oppressive. The fact that this would screw over a lot of older groups, many of which are the heart of the game, is a touch more than disconcerting. I like the idea, in principle, but I'd be voting Spam on it purely because there is no way to overcome the problems mentioned without serious expenditure of man-hours from Kevan. –Xoid M•T•FU! 17:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I see what you are saying about certain historical groups that are now devoid of members. This would become problematic if the group decided to reform, only to find that some schmuck had reserved their lapsed group. Thanks for the feedback all. --Matt Scott 9 18:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Rend Barricade/Metal Grip

Timestamp: ShadowScope 04:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zeds
Description: This is inspired by Syringe Manufracture. You spend 20 AP to make a syrigne, when you could just search and save some AP...if the RNG loves you. If you make the RNG mad, it could make you use up more AP. So Syringe Manufracture sometimes is good.

Currently, a maxed-out Zombie has a 30% chance to hit a barricade. This means that it will take a little more than 3 AP to take a barricade down one level. However, zombies do complain that hitting barricades all day is boring and that they are not being compesnated enough. This skill acts as a way to counter it without making zombies more powerful.

Rend Barricade/Metal Grip will go under Rend Flesh or Death Grip (I do not know which one to put under. Rend Barricade is a cooler name and would fit under Rend Flesh, but this skill depends primarly on barircade hitting, which is affected by claw accuracy, which should go under Metal Grip). What it does is create a new Button "Metal Grip/Rend Barricade (5 AP)". When you click on it, you automatically knocks down the Barricade by one level but use up 5 AP. You cannot click on this button if you have less than 5 AP (to prevent zombies from using this as a last-ditch 'free attack').

This can help out a zombie to knock down barricades at a faster rate, therefore allowing him to have fun (as well as assisting the zombie in sometimes dangerous seige situations), but at the same time, using up more energy and AP in the process, hurting the zombie. It would be more effective to just claw at the Barricade than to just Metal Grip it, but if you really am afraid of the RNG, or if you just want to brust through and eat the tasty meatbags inside, the skill is pretty useful. It would, in some ways, help out barricaders, since it could increase the possible amount of "AP Damage" (from 3 to 5) being wasted by Zombies on barricades, which is why they are put up in the first place.

I need discussion on the name, the AP cost, and if the idea is a good one or not. Since I realize that it would take 4 AP to actually tear down a barricade (since half Ap don't count), I fear the 5 AP cost may be too low, as a zombie would only waste 1 AP to use this. So, I wonder if I should change the AP cost.

Discussion

  • Good enough. A 5 AP cost means 20% more AP would be needed, which is enough of a penalty. This does sound like a good idea...but there could be problems regarding real-time situations like mall seiges. Personally though, I would prefer the name "Iron Grip" for this skill - it's punnier XD. --Ashnazg 0631, 11 December 2006 (GMT)

Actually zombies have a max of 25% to hit barricades. I believe I've seen this before (I'll look). The man problem is that this would be easily zergible. If I understand the suggestion, it would only take one zombie 30 AP to fully knock down a barricade. This would leave up to 19 AP to get in. Not to mention how this would affect sieges since zombies are more apt to help each other get in. Yes, it IS boring to hit barricades, but there ARE better ways. Take a look at this and, more specifically, this. The only real way to affect barricades would be a SLIGHT improvement of the zombie's ability to hit, but even then there is always the "multiply it by a billion."--Pesatyel 07:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd spam this - it's overpowered. You'll note that syringe manufacture is (probably, which is the key) far more costly than just searching. It's the randomness that makes the game, frankly. If everything could be done at a set cost (ie all attacks, all searching), then the game would be too predictable. Man, it sucks when I unload 8 shotgun shells into a Zed and EVERY SINGLE ONE MISSES, but then it feels good when I barricade up from VS to EHB without once hitting a "but you can't find anything". Both occurences rarely happen, but they remind me I can't take the RNG for granted. Luck. Not arithmetic. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Open to abuse by zergers, as there'd be no hit % penalty on it. (Which is why syringe manufacture ought to be done away with.) -- boxy T L PA DA 13:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at it from the survivors' point of view, I ask: would you support survivors having a skill called "Repair Metal", which allows them to raise the level of the barricades by one with the expenditutre of 5 AP, have no chance of failure and use up only one of the IP limit moves? If not, it might imply that this suggestion is over-powered.--Nosimplehiway 16:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC) From the zombie side, I absolutely WOULD support survivors using that ability. Currently it only costs them 1 AP to raise a barricade level with a 100% chance of success (with the exceptions at the high end, when the danger has already passed) so by all means up it to 5 AP! I guess its not at all overpowered --Swiers 23:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

' excellent this is superb, if only people could be relied upon not to cheat... Zergers would love this and no 'safe-house' would be safe again which unfortunatly means i would have to vote kill on what something i would like to see implemented!--Honestmistake 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Pestayal, I would like to correct your math. According to the Wiki Page on Barricades, an EHB building has 17 levels of Barricading. It cost on average 68 AP to destroy such a barricade for one zombie. However, if you spend 5 AP to automatically take down one level, you will spend a totla of 85 AP to destroy such a barricade. Therefore, it is less effective to use that method than it is to attack normally. Still, the problem of zerging is very, very bad.

My zombie QUITE FREQUENTLY can rip a full EHB barricade to nothing in less than 50 AP. I do it all the time. And, apparently I misread your idea. I was reading "barricade levels" as barricade strength (ie. lightly, loosely, etc.). Given that, I was seeing it as being able to knock a barricade from, say VS to QS in ONE hit rather than the 3 or 4 it would normally take.--Pesatyel 05:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me the comments. I think I know what to do as a solution to the problem. Have the button knows as Rend Metal, but instead of having it cost 5 AP and do an autodestroy of the Barricade...but rather, allow a zombie to hit the Barricade at 50% rather than at 25%, costing 3 AP in the process. This way, the anti-zerg protection can kick in, with 0% hit ratio for the Zerger. It cost 6 AP to take down a Barricade Level, compared to 4 AP that would be expended on smashing the Barricade normally, allowing for the Barricader to do an possible extra 2AP damage to the Zombie (that's 2 attacks that was prevented because of the Rend Metal). It is more still more effective to attack the normal way, but the RNG is still there, and in a seige situation, this may help out a Zombie. [It will now cost 102 AP to actually take down an EHB barricade, instead of the 68 AP it takes before.]

As for Nosimplehiway's idea, I'm not sure if that would be good or not. I do not know of the error rate that it cost to repair a barricade, and it may, in fact, not be that high enough to get people to actually use such a skill. Plus, I wouldn't want both zombies and humans to be too similar to each other,. I think it would be good to state that this change be bundled in along with a human buff as well.--ShadowScope 19:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, a 50% chance at 1AP is NOT THE SAME as paying for it for 2AP. IT IS NOT THE SAME. (It might be the same.) Computer games thrive on the RNG. See Tetris for details. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 23:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand what Nosimplehiway was saying. Basically, it would REALLY suck if survivors could build barricades that easily, so why would it be okay for zombies to do the same in reverse?--Pesatyel 05:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This would eliminate any chance survivors have of standing up to hordes. 17 zombies do this at once, and then everyone could get in. Plus, it would give them the ability to take down barricades as fast as survivors can put them up (albeit for a higher AP cost). Either way, the survivors would not be able to stop the zombies from pouring in and killing them. --Reaper with no name TJ! 00:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically speaking, attacking barricades does NOT really need to be altered. What needs to be altered are the peripherals to it (like getting XP).--Pesatyel 05:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Rare/Holiday Items

Timestamp: Matt Scott 9 21:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Type: Items
Scope: All players
Description: Many MMO's incorporate special limited run items especially around certain holidays. I think this could be cool in UD to have certain limited run items (kind of like the Mk. 1 Syringe). These items would appear for a limited time, a few days or weeks, and would be statistically identical to other items in the game. If the item is used, it gets noted in the flavor text. These items should not be silly (no attacking Zombies with Candy Canes). For instance, how about this Christmahanukahkwanzikas, we see a limited run of Snow Shovels that can be found at schools, hardware stores, etc., and have stats that are the same as a fire ax. Flavor text could say, "Matt Scott just hit you with a snow shovel for 3 damage."

Discussion

Comments as well as other item recommendations are welcome here. --Matt Scott 9 21:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I like the idea. Perhaps, when outside, you could make a snowman for 1 AP, and zombies could attack and knock them down. We could create the term SKer! Or make snowball for 1 AP, and throw them. 1 damage, 40% hit with basic firearm, 10% without. -Mark 02:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't these items end up being PERMANENT? It would kinda suck to pick up some neat new item just have it suddenly "disappear". What might work better would be limited use items. Basically, whatever it is would be used up in the process (the Mark 1 Syringe you mentioned is a perfect example). The other problem is ZOMBIES. Since items are primarily survivor oriented, what do zombies get?--Pesatyel 04:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

When I said "disappear", I meant they would no longer be searchable items. Of course they would not disappear from your inventory. Permanent items like this would have to be duplicates of other existing items (so as not to offset the balance for new players that arrive after the item has been discontinued). This means long-time players could have certain items in their inventories that newbies can't get. More experienced players get to show off their items in combat, and newbie players are encouraged to participate in future events to receive similar items. As to solving the zombie side of this, I'm at a loss. Maybe that's one reason for letting this occur over a couple weeks, allowing zombies to revive and get the item if they want it that much (I realize this'd be harder for rotters), or you could just make an alt to get the item. And I welcome any kind of middle ground suggestion that makes this available for both zombies and survivors. --Matt Scott 9 13:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, that clarifies things. However, it doesn't change a whole lot. Part of it, of course, depends on just what the items are/what they do. That is part of the reason why I suggested doing limited use items. As for zombies, well, they CAN use blunt weapons. So that might be an area to explore.--Pesatyel 03:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps over christmas we could replace newspapers with santa hats. These should be usable by zombies, of course. Seriously, though, periodically replacing usless items with such novelties could make them a little less unpopular, as long term players might hold onto them as odd status symbols. The Mad Axeman 13:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I love it, Definitely try to elaborate on these ideas and definitely suggest it man! --Mnbvcx 16:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Search For...

Timestamp: Matt Scott 9 15:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Type: Search feature
Scope: Survivors
Description: A search button with a drop-down for all the available items in the area. You could go to the hospital and click Search for First Aid Kit or to the Police Dept and Search for Flak Jacket. You search for a specific item and take a minor deduction to your chances of finding that item. The deduction would account for having to bypass all of the other objects you find instead. This would be better than searching for and finding a ton of other objects that you might have to drop later.

Discussion Urm - this would nerf useless items such as newspapers. Nobody would ever search for them, thus they might as well be removed from the game, and simply reduce the overall chance of finding a useful item - it would amount to the same thing. And if you make a suggestion called "Get Rid of Newspapers in Hospitals but reduce the chance of finding a FAK", it'll get heavily spammed by the "useless flavour items are an integral part of the game" crowd, not to mention those who don't want the find chance for a FAK reduced. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 16:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been suggested LOTS of times. "Useless" items are a necessary part of searching (which the main reason malls are so important) because they are an AP sink for survivors. Take a look through Peer REJECTED.--Pesatyel 04:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think what he means is that, for instance, you have a 20% chance to find something, and normally a 15% chance to find something useful and 5% chance to find something useless. By using this skill, you will have a slightly under 15% chance to find something useful, hence saving you the IP hits of dropping the item. I like this idea, as long as the search penalty is appropriate... -- Ashnazg 1718, 12 December 2006 (GMT)

Close (as I read it). To use your example, normally you have a 15% chance of finding something useful and 5% for useless. With this skill you would have, say a 13% chance of finding something useful and a 0% chance for useless. And, if that is correct, THAT is spammable part of the idea.--Pesatyel 03:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see why that makes it spammable. Dropping useless items does not take up AP but does take up IP hits. With this skill, you will still need the same amount of AP (in fact a little more) to find a useful item, since the percentage is slightly lower. Hence, this suggestion does not save AP but does save IP hits and time, which in my opinion is a good thing. -- Ashnazg 0651, 13 December 2006 (GMT)
Actually, unless I'm incorrect on how searching works, your chances of getting "good" stuff would improve relative to normal searching.--Pesatyel 04:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, I don't see how...normally, you would have a 15% chance to find something good and 5% chance to find something useless. With this, you have say a 13% chance to find something good. So how does this reduce the AP needed to find something good? -- Ashnazg 0913, 14 December 2006 (GMT)
Your NOT spending AP picking up crap you don't want. Say you make 20 succesful searches. 15 are "good stuff" and 5 are "crap." Whether or not you have to spend an IP to drop those 5 crap items is not relevant (in this instance). With this skill you don't have to worry about the crap items at all, thus if you make 20 successful searches ALL of them would be "good" and you wouldn't waste the IP dropping them. Your guranteeing that EVERY succesful AP is NOT wasted. I mean take the reverse. 20 succesful searches instead nets you 5 "good" items and 15 "crap" items. You wasted 15 AP picking up crap you didn't want/need. With the suggestion, picking up items is either hit or miss. Nothing intrinsically bad.--Pesatyel 05:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh! I see what you mean now. But I believe the logic is flawed - you fail to see that the number of successful searches you make with a certain number of AP will decrease correspondingly. You can't say "take a certain number of successful searches", you must take a certain number of searches. For instance, say you spend 50AP searching. Without this skill, you'd get 7.5 useful items and 2.5 useless ones (based on 15% and 5% rates respectively). With this skill, you'd get 7 useful items (say if the percentage decreased to 14%), and 0 useless items. So this doesn't save AP in any way (in fact it slightly increases the AP you need to find a useful item), but it saves IP hits. -- Ashnazg 0800, 15 December 2006 (GMT)

This reduces the time it would take to find useful items. In a siege, one could find FAKs much faster than normally because they won't have to waste the time of dropping useless items that are clogging up their inventory. Also, the fact that this prevents clogging of one's nventory also makes survivors more powerful. --Reaper with no name TJ! 21:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, see the clogging of the inventory was something I was trying to figure out how to say whilst getting sidetracked by the searching part.--Pesatyel 04:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a more valid reason. But are you sure that you will really be searching so fast and so frequently that you will get 40+ (or maybe 30+) useless items? All you would need to do to avoid that is to do everything as per normal until you have 1 AP left, drop all your useless items, then use up your last AP and log out. This wouldn't have a significant effect - all that happens is you've delayed 1 AP's worth of actions. -- Ashnazg 0944, 17 December 2006 (GMT)

It can make a big difference when someone attacks you.--Pesatyel 03:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
So with one AP, you can stop them attacking you? And if it's really an emergency, then just use that last AP and dump your items tomorrow. I'm sure you won't get it clogged up so fast...Ashnazg 0737, 18 December 2006 (GMT)
No, I mean a person is more likely to not wait until they are down to 1 AP to drop items. If I have 49 items and I pick up a crap item, I'm going to drop it immediately so that I can keep searching. With the suggestion, I don't have to worry about that. I suppose I was wrong in saying it made a "big" difference. Just that a person is more aware when something happens in game if they have to stop and drop. I pick up an item and decide if I want to keep it and I notice if I'm being attacked or whatever. With the suggestion, a player would be less likely to notice [during searches].--Pesatyel 05:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

But that's my point - you shouldn't drop useless items the instant you get them, and you shouldn't search for new items when your inventory is nearly full. Instead, only search when there's some space in your inventory (say 20 items of space at least) so you can wait until you have 1 AP before dumping all your items at once. The effect of the time spent to dump the items is hence minimal. -- Ashnazg 0419, 21 December 2006 (GMT)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Talk:Suggestions/11th-Dec-2006&oldid=505806"