Suggestion:20080806 Urban Dead Travel Mode

	Closed
	This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Peer Rejected.

20080806 Urban Dead Travel Mode

Jon Pyre 19:03, 6 August 2008 (BST)

Suggestion type
New city

Suggestion scope
Survivors, Zombies

Suggestion description
This is a revision of my Urban Dead Adventures suggestion a month or two ago, changed to address voter concerns, especially the scrolling map which they didn't prefer..

I think it would be fun to have a game mode where the game location changes periodically, allowing survivors and zombies to explore and conquer new and unique terrain. Each city in Urban Dead adventures would last for three months, after which all characters would be moved to a new city.

MOVING TO THE NEW CITY

Zombies would be moved to the new city automatically, the in game reasoning being that they just follow the survivors when they move. Where they appear is random, however all players in a neighborhood would be moved into one neighborhood in the new city. That would let groups stay together. Bodies would be moved in the same manner.

Survivors could either move to the new city as survivors, or arrive as zombies. To stay a survivor they would have to be in an evacuation zone when the city closes. Evacuation zones would be numerous random but scattered buildings around the city, announced repeatedly over the radio on military frequencies during the third month. All survivors in one evacuation point would appear inside the same random building somewhere in the new city. Survivors not in the evacuation point would appear randomly in the same neighborhood, but as a zombie.

Evacuation points would not be common, but not super rare either, about the same as Necrotechs in Malton. Other than being randomly picked as an evac point they'd just be normal buildings.

ADVANTAGES OF CHANGING CITIES

Every city would be a fresh challenge. Survivors would have to scout out new resource points and safehouses. Also, the third month would become a struggle for survivors to find and hold one of the buildings selected as an evacuation point.

Also, this would give a chance for Kevan to make some cities wildly different than Malton. Perhaps one could have few hospitals. Another could have many malls but no necrotechs, requiring survivors to use whatever syringes they stockpiled in previous cities. Another might have many woodland areas separating buildings. One could have an impassible river cutting the city in segments with only a few bridges. Players would not only need to get used to cities with different layouts, they'd need to get used to cities requiring different tactics.

Three months should be just long enough to get to know a lot of the city before having to move, but this suggestion would work just as well if Kevan preferred to make it two months or four months. Since each city would be randomly and automatically generated he could make the creation of each as automatic or hands on as he prefers.

And of course, this wouldn't affect Malton in any way.

I've tried to make my explanation as comprehensive as possible, but if you have any questions please ask and I'll try to answer them.

• Note: To clarify, the military transmissions might be something along these lines: "The Harsdale Arms in Mapleville will be an evacuation point. Please report there before midnight on March 1st"

Voting Section

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped. # justification ~~~~ 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

1. Keep Variety is the spice of life. --Jon Pyre 19:06, 6 August 2008 (BST)
2. Keep Maybe one a year to keep things going differently. --LucasBlack 01:51, 7 August 2008 (BST)
3. Keep Soooo. Awesome. --BoboTalkClown 00:29, 11 August 2008 (BST)
4. Keep - I like it, but the killer down there fear change.--Jamie Cantwel3 ^TalkAll glory to the Hypnotoad! 18:05, 17 August 2008 (BST)

Kill Votes

1. Kill -- No thanks, I like the game as it is -- Necrodeus ^{T M!} 19:06, 6 August 2008 (BST)

   Re Fair enough. Just for the record though, this wouldn't affect your game in Malton at all. It'd be separate, the same as Monroeville.--Jon Pyre 19:08, 6 August 2008 (BST)

   Re I just think it's a hole new game. I would, however, support something along the lines of being able to travel between cities. Maybe a map that's already out there. Maybe Monroeville.. Necrodeus ^{T M!} 19:11, 6 August 2008 (BST)

2. Kill/Change - Just do it like it's done with Monroeville. Close the borders after a certain time and run the scenarios to the end (either zombies win or survivors win or there's too little population to make it interesting). No transportation to a new city, that's just dumb. Perhaps allow a character reset instead of permadeath, but everyone should start at level 1 in the new city. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 12:40, 4 April 2008 (BST) 19:14, 6 August 2008 (BST)
3. Kill - given the finite amount of players (going by current numbers), and therefore the desire not to spread them too thinly (in my opinion, Malton almost died a death during the Monroeville start-up), I'd only be for finite additional location games, where one can't transfer a character from place to place. In other words, I prefer my own UD Competition Mini-Maps suggestion to this one. --Funt Solo ^QT 20:28, 6 August
4. Kill - I wouldn't mind a new city every once in a while for special occasions, like Monroeville, but transport to a new one every three months is way too complicated, not to mention all the work Kevan would have to do creating the new cities. And besides, the epic fail of Monroeville has biased me against new city suggestions, at least for the time being. --Jared^{Talk Aces C-Kids} 20:32, 6 August 2008 (BST)
   • Re The new cities can be automatically generated, so kevan wouldn't actually need to do anything to keep it running once set up. And Monroeville died first because of permanent headshot, and then because of permanent survivor death. This mode would have neither. --Jon Pyre 20:35, 6 August 2008 (BST)
5. Kill - I don't see an advantage to constantly changing cities. Since each survivor would go to the same suburb as the zombies in the current suburb it seems like it would only hurt coordination, leave certain members of groups stranded without a friendly face, and kill some characters each city change. Even without permanent death or permanent zombie, that last part is rather daunting and frustrating newer players and dedicated survivors alike.--Janine 02:35, 7 August 2008 (BST)
6. Kill/change - In response to Funt's objection, the idea of transportable alts actually makes this workable. No new alts in the new cities, but you can evac from Malton... Maybe always have the same alts in the mini-games, a permenant band of rovers... Also, Moronville failed because the combination of no revives and permenant death was just too unbalanced. The idea of a new city to play in once in a while, in and of itself, isn't necessarily bad. Also, it's really not an issue for Kevan to plug some numbers into the RNG and plunk out a new map... I believe this is how malton was created... --WanYao 02:55, 7 August 2008 (BST)
7. Kill/Change - Don't make the evacuation spots buildings, make them suburbs, cause if someone decided to spy for the zombies and told them where the evacuation points were, those points could be ruined/camped by zombies so no survivours are in the new map.--Rorybob 09:21, 7 August 2008 (BST)
8. Kill/ChangeSmaller Map, Seperate IP counter (Perhaps at only 110) But around a theme. Monroevilles design is so much better than maltons. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:18, 7 August 2008 (BST)
9. Kill/Change - So once every month, a big helicopter descends upon the city and uses a giant hoover to scoop up all its inhabitants and goes to another city and vomits them all out and somehow the survivors automatically home into buildings while the less dexterous zombies get thrown out into the street? ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 16:29, 7 August 2008 (BST)
10. Kill No, thanks, but the minimap idea is more fun. I like Malton a lot, and I agree with you a challenge would be fun, but minimaps (as Funt Solo suggested) are better. Not bad, though. Ioncannon11 20:04, 7 August 2008 (BST)
11. Kill/Change - mainly as Wan. --Sir Bob Fortune ^RR 21:25, 7 August 2008 (BST)
12. Above. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 15:58, 8 August 2008 (BST)
13. kill Install new game: Problem solved. -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 08:52, 11 August 2008 (BST)
14. Change - I really want to see something like this happen. But I think 3 months is too temporary. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:23, 12 August 2008 (BST)
15. Kill I just believe that Urban Dead should remain a persistent world RPG and not one that resets every so often.--TheLazySamurai 00:24, 14 August 2008 (BST)
16. Kill You could spend an entire month just traveling around Malton and never see the same thing twice, so why change it? --Johnny Fate 16:16, 15 August 2008 (BST)
17. Kill - I understand the desire for a new game if you don't like this one, but this would just be bad for pretty much everybody involved. It's really the community that makes the game, anyway, and this new one would have basically the same community. --Vandurn 16:31, 20 August 2008 (BST)

    Kill This is a horrible idea--Airborne88^T|Z.Quiz|PSS 19:41, 20 August 2008 (BST) Late vote struck. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 13:05, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

Neither Spam or Dupe - I'm just wondering, how exactly does this NOT effect Malton? Does it allow the choice of whether to travel or not? Can you go back to Malton after travelling? Answer these and get a vote! --Medico 09:07, 7 August 2008 (BST) Non-vote struck. Use the talkpage. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 10:56, 11 August 2008 (BST)