Talk:Suggestions/6th-Jan-2007
Using tall buildings without binoculars
| Timestamp: | Protomorph 20:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC) |
| Type: | Building use improvement |
| Scope: | Survivors. |
| Description: | Survivors(those without binoculars too) can get on top of the tall building(3AP - 1 to get up, 1 to look around and 1 to get down) and get a number of zombies in their area(3x3 square), the same way as they would get by exiting the building. This is useful when the tower is EH barricaded and there is no way to get back in, except by doing a long run. This option is not available if the building is ransacked, as the staircases are filled with debris.
UPDATE
Sorry, I meant 3x3 square, not 9x9 square. Damn. Jon Pyre, and the rest, sorry about that. |
Keep Votes
- Author - Gives more usability for the tall buildings and doesn't really affect binoculars, since this feature provides the info only about very small area, which we would get anyway if we'd pressed "Leave building". Protomorph 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Kill Votes
- Kill Don't negate the purpose of a useful item. --Jon Pyre 20:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Kill - As Jon Pyre above. Also, Kevan purposefully made that you CAN'T look at the quantity of zombies in the square you are on, and you're negating that too. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 20:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Kill - As above, it ruins the point of the useful binoculars, no need for it. --TheDavibob 20:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Kill - Less efficient than what we already have. Your idea takes too many AP (going upstairs and then back down), nerfs binoculars, and doesn't address whether you're making the upstairs a separate location or not. (If it's not, no need to spend AP going there.) --Uncle Bill 03:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Kill - Yeah, I like binoculars, mostly because they are an implemented change that breaks the rules of the suggestion page. (No Xray.) And that's good for humility. lol--Nosimplehiway 12:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here
Buying stuff
| Timestamp: | --c138 RR 00:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC) |
| Type: | New feature |
| Scope: | Everyone with more XP than brain cells |
| Description: | Everyone who maxes out their skills ends up collecting XP with nothing to do but wait for new skills to be released. Why not make items available for sale? Special items, that can't be obtained otherwise. Like, a stink flare (makes the suburb smell of patchouli), or a Holy Boomstick (single-use item that converts people to Pastafarianism when it's used against them), or a Snack-size Bag Of Maltesers (heals 1HP per malteser)... you get the idea. Just some items to spice up the game for everyone who's spamming the radio bragging about how many thousands of XP points they have. I have no idea if this has been suggested before, so if it has, stuff your testosterone-loaded screams back in your pants and let me know this civilly. Or my PKer will stab you in the face. |
Keep Votes
- Keep - I like this, but somethings gone horribly wrong in the coding of the suggestions page at some point today- can someone with a decent understanding of the wiki code stuff (simple as it is...) come and help? --Karloth Vois RR 03:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Make it all useless items and you'll have my keep. Also how about giving the zombies "looks" kind of like in Nexus War? --Deras 17:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Kill Votes
Against Votes here
- Meh. - Good idea, but, 1-What about zombies? 2-Wouldn't this give PKers and survivors a huge edge over zombies? and 3-You used the wrong template.--Labine50 MH|ME|P 01:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- RE 1) Zombies can have... outfits. Like floppy hats and stuff. And special gestures, or even dances... (see Stubbs the Zombie for ideas) But none of it is actually useful, just toys. 2) The items aren't actually any use. They're just for shits and giggles. I mean what would a patchouli-stink-flare do to zombies? Make them smell even worse? 3) Oopsie, sorry. :( --c138 RR 01:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Kill - Yeah, and besides, there is supposed to be no economy. -Mark 01:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- RE I guess... though if this falls under your definition of 'economy', please let me know when you run for president/prime minister, so I can move somewhere else. XD --c138 RR 01:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Re: - An economy is where you trade something (in this case XP) for something else. This is Urban Dead, an apocalyptic game. You're supposed to go out and search and find stuff laying around, not trade for them. Besides, where would these items come from? NPC trade? Instant helicopter drop? Magic carpet? Pan-dimensional wormhole? -Mark 18:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- RE Do they need to come from anywhere? I mean, I can use 20AP to heal 20 people, then instantly buy the ability to free run as skilfully as David Belle, without obtaining that ability the normal way through years of practise. That, IMO, is exactly equivalent to trading 100XP for an amusing flare that appears in your pocket out of nowhere. --c138 RR 19:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Re: - You know, we're going above the comment limit. Well, this is the discussion page, and it doesn't matter. You're approaching this in a different way. In the skills, remember that these are experience points we're talking about. It's like, "After using your pistol so often, you find that you can shoot more accurately." Or "Due to constant physical excercise, you try to jump from building to building, and find you easily can." Or that kind of thing. I do agree that it is a little fast, but that can't be avoided. You're talking about magically-appearing items. -Mark 19:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- RE - That would make sense if you could only get skills by doing specific tasks related to each skill, eg. healing lots of people to learn First Aid then Surgery, or beating lots of people up to learn how to aim accurately with an axe. As it is, your point's moot, because you can do anything you like to earn XP and spend it on whatever you like. You're complaining that there's no logic in the mechanics of my suggestion, whilst referring to an already-existing nearly-identical game feature with an equal lack of logic. I'm just suggesting adding more than just skills to the list of things you can get with that XP. Do you like the idea of XP-wasting toy objects, or don't you? --c138 RR 19:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- RE - That would make sense if you could only get skills by doing specific tasks related to each skill, eg. healing lots of people to learn First Aid then Surgery, or beating lots of people up to learn how to aim accurately with an axe. As it is, your point's moot, because you can do anything you like to earn XP and spend it on whatever you like. You're complaining that there's no logic in the mechanics of my suggestion, whilst referring to an already-existing nearly-identical game feature with an equal lack of logic. I'm just suggesting adding more than just skills to the list of things you can get with that XP. Do you like the idea of XP-wasting toy objects, or don't you? --c138 RR 19:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Re: - You know, we're going above the comment limit. Well, this is the discussion page, and it doesn't matter. You're approaching this in a different way. In the skills, remember that these are experience points we're talking about. It's like, "After using your pistol so often, you find that you can shoot more accurately." Or "Due to constant physical excercise, you try to jump from building to building, and find you easily can." Or that kind of thing. I do agree that it is a little fast, but that can't be avoided. You're talking about magically-appearing items. -Mark 19:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- RE Do they need to come from anywhere? I mean, I can use 20AP to heal 20 people, then instantly buy the ability to free run as skilfully as David Belle, without obtaining that ability the normal way through years of practise. That, IMO, is exactly equivalent to trading 100XP for an amusing flare that appears in your pocket out of nowhere. --c138 RR 19:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Re: - An economy is where you trade something (in this case XP) for something else. This is Urban Dead, an apocalyptic game. You're supposed to go out and search and find stuff laying around, not trade for them. Besides, where would these items come from? NPC trade? Instant helicopter drop? Magic carpet? Pan-dimensional wormhole? -Mark 18:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- RE I guess... though if this falls under your definition of 'economy', please let me know when you run for president/prime minister, so I can move somewhere else. XD --c138 RR 01:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Spam/Dupe Votes
- spammy - yes, and that's the point, right? --Swiers 19:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Pacifism
| Timestamp: | Swiers 21:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC) |
| Type: | Skill |
| Scope: | survivor skill, science skill, Anti-PK efforts |
| Description: | Pacifism- science skill; like "headshot", this would also only available for characters level 10 and higher. A survivor with the pacifism skill is so moral that they have trouble attacking other survivors; their chance of scoring a hit with any weapon or attack on a survivor is half what it would normally be given the weapon and skills they are using. This has no impact when attacking zombies. (note- this is NOT current chance -50%, but rather current chance x .5)
--Swiers 21:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC) |
Discussion
Strangely enough, I came up with this skill idea BEFORE reading the above discussion. The main operative difference with this skill idea, however, is simply that it is OPTIONAL. PKers can still choose to play exactly as they would wish, but everybody would KNOW (by looking at their profile and seeing that they chose not to buy the skill) that the player wants that character to have the option of being good at PKing. Conversely, people who were against PKing could buy the skill, and nobody could debate the fact that, yes indeed, that character was NOT a PKer (or at least not a very good one).
Unlike all the anti-PK suggestions so far, this one does not make any attempt to buff bounty hunters or survivor abilities vs PKers or death from PKers- quite the opposite. But it does positively allow survivors to organize into groups that exclude PKers, and to act against those who do not wish to organize into such a group.
I actually derived the idea for this skill from thinking about the skill "Brain Rot", which in the current game environment really only serves to identify a zombie as one who wishes to play as a zombie (which usually means not engaging in ZK's). It seemed only fair that survivors should get a similarly useful, role-play oriented skill...
Note that I made it a science skill mostly for RP reasons, figuring that military members would be less inclined to Pacifism, and doctors / lab dweebs would be more so inclined. I'd also strongly consider adding a 5% bump to search rates in hospitals and drug stores, and perhaps changing the skills name to "humnitarianism" to reflect the fact that the user buys it to improve thier ability to help other survivors.
I also made it an "elite" skill (like Headshot) so that nobody would say I was forcing newbs to "prove" they are not PKers by expecting them to buy the skill before they had a chance to pick up skills needed to survive / fight against zombies.
As a "solution" to PK issues, I think this is very "realistic". Social pressure (not police enforcement) is the main real-world deterance to crime. By providing this skill, the game would allow people to apply social pressure (pressure to buy the skill). People who did not buy the skill might be good to avoid sharing a safe house with, the could get be denied permission to join groups, denied revives and heals, etc. People who show obnoxious / violent tendencies in real life are in fact avoided, ostracized, and denied assistance, so that seems quite a realistic situation. --Swiers 21:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
A sort of opt-out system if you want to play as a PKer. I do fear the discrimination aspect, and, well...Bounty Hunters, who are Pkers, will not take this skill, if at all. It could work, and I'd be a fan of it, but it could also cause people to needlessly discrimnate between one another. And the fact remains...the only way to stop PKers to be a PKer. This skill will prevent you from PKing, meaning that PKers might graviate towards killing Pacifists.--ShadowScope 03:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- It IS...interesting. But I gotta agree with you there. This just makes "pacifists" greater targets for PKers.--Pesatyel 04:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Shadowscope- "Opt out" is a good way to look at it. If a large majority of players (especially those who have the skills to be good at it) "opt out" from PKing, then the ones who don't will stick out, and would be subject to whatever role-play consequences there were. In the long run, a PKer WILL need help from other survivors. As for discrimination- yes, people do discriminate. That's life. This just gives them a meaningful, accessible, accurate basis to do it on. Bounty Hunters could deal with that via role play, or folks could just enact some "mob justice" on anybody they wanted to kill; two pacifists would still be just as deadly as any one PKer, and PKer's are a HUGE minority. --Swiers 04:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Pesatyel- I don't think PKer's would target folks who had this skill. What's the point? Its not like it would change the situation- a PKer can't make you un-buy the skill, or even prevent you from being revived. I went to Red Rum's message board to ask thier opinions on that, and Sirens said she really didn't see any reason to attack people who took this skill- because they wouldn't pose any threat of retaliation! Hopefully other PKers will chime in; I would guess a lot of survivors would worry about being attacked as "easy targets" or for pure griefing if they have this skill, but I just don't see PKers taking the bait. I've done a fair whack of PKing myself, and have to say that there are other criteria I would look for; high level, low HP's, no witnesses, etc. --Swiers 04:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest they get about 3-5 more XP out of healing someone (not zombies) for being a big PKer target. I'd rename this 'Empathy' or something. --Cap'n Silly 13:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The reason PKers might target pacifists is that the pacifisits won't be able to strike back. Funt Solo talked about how he was PKed by a group, and that, in revenge, Funt Solo PKed them back. Now, let suppose Funt Solo had the Pacifist skill, and then get PKed by this same group. Now, Funt Solo will be very mad, but since he's a pacifist, he would be unable to PK them back. This is why they can get targeted. For Red Rum, they don't have to worry about Funt Solo (with no Pacifism)...everyone hates them equally. But for smaller PK groups, killing off a Pacifisist can ensure they won't get targeted back.
It might work however, and I'll just abastain until I see it on the voting page, read the comments they raise, and then vote. I say rename it Empathy, and just have it boost search rates for FAKs and pills as well (no XP bonus...if you could afford the skill, there is no need for an XP Bonus). It gives players a reason to buy the skill (like, Brain Rot is a nerf to Zombies, but it protects you from combat revives). I also wonder about making it a Zombie Hunter skill...your haterd of zombies, strangely enough, causes you to sympathize and work together with other Suriviors to fight zombies in this endless war. Humans stop killing each other...because they have a common enemy.--ShadowScope 19:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly. As a PKer, who would I rather attack: The maxed out guy that can hunt me down as effectively as I can hit them? Or the pansy who halved his hit chances against me? Personally, I don't think this idea will make it/work, but then that kinda depends on the "benefits" of taking it, as you suggested. As it currently it, it just paints a big target on the backs saying "PK me!"--Pesatyel 20:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's a novel idea. But if you were a pacifist and someone refuses to be a pacifist what can you really do to hurt them/exclude them? Not heal or revive a significant portion of the survivor population that will refuse to weaken themselves in any way. I personally wouldn't take this simply because I want the option of defending myself if need arise. --Jon Pyre 03:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, how about some new possible benefits? Like say, if every eligible (10+ level) survivor in the room is a pacifist, then all the survivors present get +5% to certain actions (searches, barricading, maybe even attacks on zombies) because they aren't so worried about watching their backs for sneak attacks from survivors? That would create a strong incentive for pacifists to "mob up", and potentially makes them very good at defending against zombies. Another benefit would maybe be that pacifists gain double HP every time the are treated with a FAK, because they sleep more soundly and trust others to do medical procedures on them. This would maybe help offset PK attacks, as pacifists would be really easy to heal. --Swiers 06:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I do like that basic idea. How about pacifists gain a bonus when healing other pacafists? Individuals dedicated to helping out other humans work together better than murderus psychopaths! Maybe an extra 2 hp per FAK? Or perhaps the ability to share wine with each other. When doing so the two pacifist relax without having to worry about murdering each other, and both of them regain 1 hp from one bottle of wine. The recipiant, most likely off line, would get a message saying "X shared a bottle of wine with you. You gained 1 hp." The Mad Axeman 14:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think the benefit needs to be more powerful than that. Nobody (afaik) stocks up on wine currently, and using FAK's would be more effective for DPs (declared pacifists) and PKs alike. I'd also prefer a benefit that applies when non-DPs act towards DPs, because that way newbs (who can't buy the skill) can still help out the DPs. --Swiers 17:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
It'd be convenient if there was an easy way to check who has got this skill without opening up a whole load of profiles. --Toejam 17:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe so. It would also be convenient to zombies if they could tell who the zombie hunters or lab techs were without opening profiles. However, its true that a large part of the point of this skill would be people knowing you have the skill. Maybe in the room descriptions, people with this skill could get a symbol next to thier name? A "+" seems appropriate. And perhaps the only people who see this symbol would be OTHER people who have the Pacifist skill, so that they aren't so obvious to PKers. --Swiers 18:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a great idea. The game is fairly skewed against low-level scientists...what with free-running being a military skill and first-aid, surgery and necrotech skills being big spangly notices to any zombies and zombie spies around, particularly on a concerted attack on a target such as a Necrotech building or mall. It would be excellent, after having struggled that far up the skills tree as a scientist, to have a 'don't kill me' sign which, granted though it isn't going to change the above truths, could save a chap from paranoid pking,. If a player starts off as a medic or such the chances are they lean towards pacisifism anyway. Absolutely they should be able to state it and also get a bit of a search boost. The search boost idea is the most consistent, on say syringes and FAKS, rather than extra XP for heals (which would make more sense as an amendment to the First Aid and Surgery skills)--GrownUpSurvivor 19:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
What if attacking pacifists gave the offender "remorse" or something, translated as a penalty to accuracy? Anyhow, I like this suggestion. I wouldn't take it, but I know a few who would. -Certified=Insane☭
02:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, it certainly would not reduce other people's attacks on you. Nosimplhiway has (below) is right on the money- a direct penalty of any sort to PK's is against the whole point. It would be very bad if one persons skill could FORCE another to be remorseful- unless the skill in question is "brainwashing" or some such! If a PKer had remorse, they either would not attack, or would buy this skill. --Swiers 00:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I really, really like this idea. I am not sure a further benefit is even necessary, but am not against it. I think the remorse thing strays into penalizing PKers directly, which is sort of against the spirit of the suggestion. I would very much like to hear from some PK and zombie supporters before this goes to vote. It is too good of an idea to post it before all the complaints and problems which arise are ironed out. Unfortunately, under the wiki vote system if a suggestion goes down once for whatever reason, it basically never comes up again because of duplicate rules.--Nosimplehiway 04:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Usually incorrect. If you just "revise" your suggestion, making the necessary changes, then it won't be duped. However, usually, things get killed not on the details but on the main idea. For example, people may see the Pacisism skill as a Pk Sign, and nothing can change that. Hence, they will Kill and Spam it to obivlion. For example, Jon Prye made a "revision" of his PK Revive cost 5 AP, revising it from its orginal cost of 1 AP, but the people who spammed it before spammed it, and the people who kept it before kept it...because it did not matter of the cost, but of the implications of the change. If an idea is considered broken, then it does not matter of how good and balanced the details are.--ShadowScope 03:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Your partly right. It actually DOES matter to KEVAN. Look how many "Peer Rejected" ideas got implemented. Look how many Peer Reviewed haven't. Just because the wiki community doesn't like doesn't mean Kevan won't either, ESPECIALLY if it "good and well balanced."--Pesatyel 03:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you look at the peer rejected pages and look at "what not to suggest" page, it starts to look like Kevan makes his decisions by looking at what we decide then doing the opposite! LOL Gotta trust his judgment, though, his changes have resulted in a game I really enjoy.--Nosimplehiway 18:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Some may not, as his judgements has been called into question many times, especially with the Scent Death debalace, where he was forced to revert a change of rearranging the skills. And, Peasteyl, all I said was that it's about ideas, not the details, that matter. Kevan liked the main ideas of several Peer-Rejected ideas, and adopted them. Simple. If Kevan hated the idea, then he would never consider it, even if the details matter. Kevan is the most powerful wiki voter out there, and the strange thing is, we do not even know what are his votes. If, for example, Kevan hates a Peer Reviewed Skill, then that skills would NEVER be implemented, regardless of how many people vote Yes for them. But we are getting off the track here Swiers, send Pacisim over to the Wiki's main page, and see if they will accept or decline.--ShadowScope 03:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm planning on that, but I put it off this weekend, and may not have time during the work week. It seems sort of busy work at this point- I'm not looking forward to seeing all the kill votes, and spam would be really annoying after this discussion. I know it shouldn't matter, but it always does, a bit. --Swiers 04:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Some may not, as his judgements has been called into question many times, especially with the Scent Death debalace, where he was forced to revert a change of rearranging the skills. And, Peasteyl, all I said was that it's about ideas, not the details, that matter. Kevan liked the main ideas of several Peer-Rejected ideas, and adopted them. Simple. If Kevan hated the idea, then he would never consider it, even if the details matter. Kevan is the most powerful wiki voter out there, and the strange thing is, we do not even know what are his votes. If, for example, Kevan hates a Peer Reviewed Skill, then that skills would NEVER be implemented, regardless of how many people vote Yes for them. But we are getting off the track here Swiers, send Pacisim over to the Wiki's main page, and see if they will accept or decline.--ShadowScope 03:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you look at the peer rejected pages and look at "what not to suggest" page, it starts to look like Kevan makes his decisions by looking at what we decide then doing the opposite! LOL Gotta trust his judgment, though, his changes have resulted in a game I really enjoy.--Nosimplehiway 18:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Consider this discussion safe to cycle. --Swiers 04:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
