Talk:Suggestions/19th-Feb-2007
Fire!!
| Timestamp: | Rolo Tomasi 19:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC) |
| Type: | Improvement |
| Scope: | Buildings |
| Description: | Malton has an abundence of Firemen, and fire stations, but no fire trucks or running water. Trash is most likely piled up, papers from abandoned and ransacked buildings blow through the streets. Survivors are often syphoning gasoline to run their generators, and those same gennys are running 24/7 until they get destroyed. Also,as no taxes are being collected from the dead the infrastructure is probably the worse for wear. I propose that each week in each suburb a building at random 'catches fire'. This is done in every suburb each week. A building is 'on fire' for 24 hours, and 'burned out' buildings stay that way until repaired.
After a building catches fire is is temporarily uninhabitable, un-barricadable, and unsearchable. To 'repair' a 'burned out' building is like repairing and Ransacked building, but a bit harder. Instead of 1 AP to fix, a building that has burnt requires 10 AP. Any number of survivors can use AP to repair a burned building. 10 peeps can use 1 AP each, 2 people can use 5 each, or 10 folks 1 AP each. All people repairing a building must have the Construction skill. Wastelands can not burn, but parks can (wildfire). Multiple block buildings(malls, churches, forts) can only have 1 square affected. The other locations function normally. Buildings that are 'on fire' or 'burned out' may not be entered or exited with Free Running. Only 1 building per suburb each week can burn. A building's chance to to burn each week starts with a base percentage of 1% The chance of catching 'on fire' goes up by the following factors:* Unpopulated(No active survivors) + 0%; *Occupied +1% (for every 10 survivors or zombies inside); *Ransacked +4% (Zombies might have damaged wiring); *Active Generator +2% (Re-fueling accident maybe?); Anyone (human or zombie) may stay in an 'on fire' building if the desire, but each action costs 1 additional AP than usual. (Most actions 2 AP, combat 2AP, reviving 11AP, standing from Headshot 16 AP w/o Ankle Grab)and any action other than leaving a burning building will do 2 HP damage (FAK CAN heal this damage). When a building catches fire, the first time a character logs on or refreshes a page they see a message like "You see smoke drifting though the air 4 blocks north and 2 blocks east"...or the like or "The building you are trying to enter is on fire, it is too hot to enter or pass through, you must go around". Any barricades or equipment (generators, Christmas trees, lights, or radios) would be destroyed during the fire, but could be replaced after the building is repaired. |
Discussion
- I re-submitted on today's suggestions with some wording changes, but no action/AP changes.Rolo Tomasi 01:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- 10 buildings each week doesn't seem all that significant and, unless said buildings are malls/ Ts (or, possibly, PD/hospital), a burning building won't make any difference. What about the possibility of the fire spreading? And I would drop the "stand up" penalty. It's bad enough that standing causes 2 points of damage.--Pesatyel 01:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Re I really don't see a 'stand-up' penalty. Seldom are survivors dead bodies kept in buildings. Zombies aren't all that affected by losing 2HP on stand-up, really. It gives some potential variety to the game, and that is a positive in my book. Its just one day anyhow,so its for fun, not a game breaker.Rolo Tomasi 01:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
How about instead of it being a random fire, instead every time the fire is put out, the new building set on fire is one of the 8 surrounding it, using the above random chance method to determine which one. You could have 20 wildfires randomly wandering around malton --Gene Splicer 01:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Better: If a building is left burning for too long, when it goes out, the new burning building is randomly chosen from the 8 surrounding blocks. If it is put out, the new fire starts in a different suburb. Gives incentive to put them out --Gene Splicer 01:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
You know, this is in the discussion area for a reason. To discuss. I think you moved it back to soon.--Pesatyel 05:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I know this is in discussion because I changed 1 point and a non-mod deleted in after just 1 non-author vote. By the wiki rules it is required to go here. There is no other choice/'reason' in the matter. Also, it is probably 30-40 buildings per week, not every building will be a 1% chance. Let's pick a NT for example 1% + 2% for generator + 3% for 27 survivors hiding inside = 6% chance. Rolo Tomasi 07:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think Pesatyel is saying that you should have kept this here and not have put it back on the Suggestions page for a while, so people could discuss it more before it went back for a vote. I think...am I right, Pesatyel?--Lachryma☭ 23:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly. What, TWO people made comment before he put this back up (with a "wording" change as his change). He didn't even make comment about anything I added. In fact, his response to my vote was to suggest ideas...I did. He didn't even bother reading them (as far as I could tell).--Pesatyel 03:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
A few ideas: Allow the Fireman class to put out the fires. Characters have, say a 5% chance of putting out a burning building (costs 3 AP) but a fireman has that +5% per 3 levels (or +1% per level). Have a % chance of the fire spreading to 1 additional building or have multiple buildings per suburb burn (10% may seem like a lot, but consider it is the WHOLE map). I had another, but it slipped my mind at the moment.--Pesatyel 08:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't quite get how multiple survivors in a building increase the percentage. I can understand as far as having makeshift fires for heat, or possibly knocking over flammable materials, but that seems somewhat unlikely...but I'd say keep. I've been thinking about this for a while, and natural effects would need to be made. -Last Ranger
Advanced Communications
| Timestamp: | 15:20 19 February 2007 Blackie Chan |
| Type: | Skill |
| Scope: | All |
| Description: | Advanced Communications
As of right now, survivors cannot transmit more than about I think maybe 60 characters max on the radio (I tested and max is really 60). I propose a new skill called advanced communications that allows a survivor to use up to 120 characters on the radio and will be a sub skill under radio operation. It also lets radios broadcast on two frequencies. ZOMBIE When a zombie player owns this skill however it allows them to use the letters e, i, t, u, and o when using death rattle. Just for a quick fact, I believe the letters currently useable in death rattle are a, b, g, h, m, n, r, and z, so in total zombies with this skill could use about half of the alphabet which is 12/26 letters I think. This is a sub skill under the death rattle tree when playing as a zombie. For the survivor description when purchasing the skill it reads, Doubles your communication skills. The zombie version reads, allows you to use more letters in death rattle. This skill is purchasable as a universal skill for both survivors and zombies so no syringe required to purchase this skill, just 100 xp. |
Discussion
I'd be in favour of this - a few longer messages take up less space than lots of short ones. But check exact length bfore submitting and make it part of Radio Operation, it's too small a change to have it's own skill. Check your spelling and grammar too - paste into a word processor and use the spellchecker if you're not sure. --Preasure 20:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I like it. At the same time, though, you'd have to get the zeds something too. Survivors don't particularly need this, although it would be cool to have.--Grigori 22:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- After changes, I can say it looks pretty nice. The fact you can buy it as either a zed or human is particularly interesting, and I think it'll do well in voting. However, twice the groan range doesn't really help zombies, just creates more spam. I think the extra letters will be enough incentive (by far) to get this skill.--Grigori 23:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
One word: spam. All this would do would double the amount of spam. I guarantee if people can do it, they will.--Pesatyel 06:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
If they want to transmit more, they can spend more AP. And zombies should be limited in speaking; after all, they arn't supposed to be able to speak very well. It would also cause a lot of spam. --Saluton 23:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The write up is a bit confusing... it really seems like it should be two skills, maybe even two separate suggestions. I'd really like to have more death rattle letters, but it almost seems like its a bit to good. --S.Wiers X:00 02:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Its a lot clearer now, cool. Still mighty good for the zeds, and not a big boost for the humans. Not a flaw, but... --S.Wiers X:00 19:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well the first part would just create spam. The second part, I think, is a dupe.--Pesatyel 02:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Re:Link please.Blackie Chan 6:48, 23 February 2007
- Well not intrinsically a dupe, but take a look at the Death Rattle section in Peer Review. Most people, I think, will say your adding too many letters.--Pesatyel 04:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
This would allow zombies to swear, which would be odd, to say the least. The swear/sexual words it would allow that I could find are: nigger, shag, shit, arse and bugger. Since word filters are pretty easy to get around, I'd recommend not adding the 's'. That should beat the most of it. --Toejam 00:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
