Suggestion:20071123 Mob Maul, or Zombie Feeding Frenzy

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

20071123 Mob Maul, or Zombie Feeding Frenzy

WanYao 07:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion type
new skill and attack mechanic

Suggestion scope
this is just for zombies, barhahahah!

Suggestion description

This skill is meant to simulate the classic zombie movie scene where several zombies simultaneously tear apart a victim from all sides, devouring them in a very short space of time. I give full credit to Jon Pyre the inspiration and idea behind this.

Zombies would be able purchase a new skill called Mob Maul. Like Headshot, the zombie must be Level 10 to purchase it, and it requires Tangling Grasp as a prerequisite. A zombie with the Mob Maul skill gains a special type of attack called, go figure, Mob Maul.

A zombie possessing Mob Maul will not break another zombie's Tangling Grasp. Instead, after a succesful hands attack (which of course sets up a Tangling Grasp), Mob Maul will come into effect. The game would offer some appropriately gruesome flavour text to indicate when this happens.

After Mob Maul comes into effect (i.e. on the next attack) the attacker gains +1 HP damage on any successful attack.

It is possible for more than one zombie to have a Tangling Grasp on a single victim -- if every new attacker possess Mob Maul. Thus, it is possible for multiple zombies to attack one target with Mob Maul -- gaining both the damage bonus and the usual +10% for Tangling Grasp. That's the whole point!

However, you may still lose your Tangling Grasp if you miss any attack, as per normal -- which makes you lose all benefits of the Mob Maul effect.

If a zombie without this skill gets a Tangling Grasp on a Mob Maulled victim, combat works normally for him but does not effect other zombies using Mob Maul. Other zombies using Mob Maul will still not pull away his Tangling Grasp -- but those without Mob Maul still could do so, and vice versa.

Notes: This is NOT an auto-attack, please re-read it if you think it is. It is also zerg-proof, because zerg alts can't attack the same target, no? Is this a major zombie buff? Hell, yeah! It will speed up kills and building clearance, that is the point. But it does not touch barricades -- it only helps once zombies are inside. And it would take large numbers of coordinated zombies, or luck, to be at its most effective. I think it is actually a balanced zombie buff... But best of all, it is an effen cool, FUN idea, and may well (we hope) inspire more players to take up the zombie side, and/or coordinate more with their zethren, just to use this ability :) Win-win, no?

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. Author Keep - BRA!NZ! --WanYao 07:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Weak Keep - seems a bit complicated, or it might just be me at 11 PM, but i still think it is a good idea Anti Gorefest5--anti gorefest5 08:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

   a bit complicated, yes... for sake of completeness and to avoid holes... people love to tear into holes here! ;) --WanYao 09:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

3. Keep - I like it. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 09:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Keep - Not too bad, think about how often only one or two zeds get by the cades - most of the time. Once the hoard gets in, it's all over. This give it that doom effect! --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 09:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Keep - Sounds good.--Insomniac By Choice 11:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Keep - for anyone who thinks it overcomplicated heres my simplified breakdown: "Mob Maul means you will not break others grasp and others will not break yours. In addition, if any other zeds have a grasp all your successful attacks do an additional 1 damage. You may still lose your tangling grasp if you miss!" As Wan says above... he had to cover all the loopholes or it would have been torn apart! --Honestmistake 11:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Keep - I really only got grabbed a couple times since the past three or four months so i don't see it as a massive effect.--Zach016 12:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
8. keep - i like the idea but it should be limted to a small group of zombie like 10--Androo the 2 14:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
9. Keep - Might work. To those talking about unrealistic situation of 100 zombies grabbing hold of one person: it would take 30 zombies at most to kill a survivor (60 HP / 2 HP = 30). (This is true, of course, if the survivor is not healed in the process. But then I doubt that each and every zombie will claw the survivor only once. And we assume that none of them has Rend Flesh) -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 15:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
10. Keep - If there's already a hundred zeds attacking you, you're fucked, mob maul or not. BoboTalkClown 16:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
11. Keep BRAINZ!!!!!!!!!!! CharonX 17:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
12. Keep - -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 18:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
13. Keep- I like classic zombie movie scenes. --Darth Lumis^{T! A! E!} 18:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
14. Keep - Zombies are supposed to be dangerous in groups, not individually. This helps 'em work together. Glenstone 22:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
15. Keep - I'm pretty sure this suggestion is the point of a Zombie apocalypse. --O'Sheehy 23:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
16. Small Change - You should maybe make it do +1 or so damage too. Or perhaps +1 damage per extra zombie, up to a max of 10.... --Poopman9 23:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

    It does do +1 damage! But, +1 per extra zombie, while very sweet-smelling, like fresh bra!nz, would just be too much, I am afraid. --WanYao 04:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

17. Keep - I may not have been dead much, but I try to avoid it. Death by zombie-induced dismemberment? PRICELESS!!! -- ZEDU medic ^{T MEMS} 05:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
18. Keep - Another brilliant idea from the think tank. - David Malfisto 14:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
19. Keep – I like it. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
20. Keep/Change-O - I like it, but like I said before. Put a cap on it, like 8 zeds or something... --]/~WOOT~\ 16:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
21. Keep - Killing Survivors is what zombies do, so it is neither too powerful or out of character. --Karlsbad 19:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
22. Keep - Cause I think Tangling Grasp sucks.--Karek^maps?! 20:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
23. Keep - Makes the game more interesting for out rotting friends Michael ruppe 06:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
24. lololololololol In the instrest of gory violence, I cant kill this, great idea!

Kill Votes

1. Kill/Change - there's no limits on this - so multiply it by a million - or, more likely, a hundred. Is it likely that 100 zombies could grab hold of one person? There needs to be a limit on this, of, say 10 zombies max. mauling one target. And there, you shouldn't be able to join in, or attack, that target, because they're being mauled by too many zombies already. It needs some limits. --Funt Solo ^QT 12:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Kill/Change - I'm with Funt on this one. It isn't logical to have 100+ zombies all grabbing a hold of one person. There needs to be some limitations set out. -Ryiis 14:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Kill/Change - Limitations must be set.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

   Reasonable objection... But I am not allowed to edit it now, am I? You damn hole ripper-uppers, you! I bet you're all the type who pulls a thread on someone's sweater when you see it! I bet you ARE! ;) --WanYao 16:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

   Hehe. i r haet dis surggeston! i haet all dai srggestoN!--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

   But as JohnRubin and Bobo have said, the other logical point you can conclude is that if you have even only 10 zombies all munching on you at once, you are probably toast anyway in a few turns. So, I wonder if a limitation really DOES balance the mechanic as you desire. Seriously... This will only work well if a lot of zombies are working together, and then it is SUPPOSED to work fast... But, I am not really arguing, well okay sorta... but you have a good point -- but I can't edit it now, CAN I?? ;P --WanYao 16:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

   Not necessarily. I've escaped a horde of 20 zombies because I log in every 5 seconds. You're not always 100% toast if you're being munched on.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

4. Kill As funt. Omega 16:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Pulling at threads You've hit on something here WY. Limits needed though. I realy hope you re-post this if it doesn't get through, because I like it.--Seventythree^Talk 16:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Kill/Change - As with Funt, it needs a limit. Waterspark2 12:16 23, November 2007 (EST)
7. Kill - As per Funt. --Lh778 04:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Kill - Not really interested in skills that make lone zeds lag even further behind the orgainised groups. After all, the majority of zombies are ferals. --Toejam 22:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Kill - I believe there was a better suggestion somewhere that had to do with the zombies-ripping-guy-to-shreds image. Plus, the need for limitations and the need for advantages to having more than two zombies mauling one survivor doesn't really give this suggestion much kick. Ariedartin ^Talk 13:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Kill - Not a bad idea for when it was suggested, but with current barricade mechanics, this is more than overkill. It's the zombie equivalent for that uzi the trenchies keep asking for. Please ignore. Didn't notice the closed label. Sorry. --Soloman Frisbee 20:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Dupe The effect does not match the name, as this really has little to do with mobs. A lone zombie facing a lone survivor gets the full benefit of the +1 damage on a "grasped" target, which is really the meat of the effect. It may be that such an effect is a worthy suggestion, but naming it "Mob Maul" is misleading. Hence, this is a dupe of assorted zombie attack boosts. Shame, I;d like a reason to vote keep, but hey, I'm not voting kill or giving a link to any specific item this might be a dupe of, so its essentially a comment vote.  Swiers 19:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

   No he doesn't get this effect if he alone. unless i have missed something entirely, this can't work unless there is more than one zombie present: the first zombie meeds to have a Tangling grasp in effect before the second zombie can use this ability. and if just one sole zombie gets the benefit of the skill, its pragmatic effect will be negligable -- it will have an effect, but a small one. it is most ruthless when several zombies are using it. also, there is a suggestion with the same idea re: tangling grasp not being negated, but IMO this suggestion adds significant things that make it different, like a skill and the damage/maul effect, so i contest the (unlinked) dupe vote, sorry. --WanYao 01:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

   I'll provide it myself. This is the closet thing... is it a dupe? i don't think so, but not my call, ultimately... --WanYao 01:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

   I guess the suggestion wording is just to confused for me to make out the exact mechanic. Which might be reason to vote kill or spam, except so many others voted keep, I have to assume its clear to them. If it works as HonestMistake says, I could vote keep or at least not kill; its a potent damage boost that isn't to hard to get, but its not gonna apply on a whole lot of attacks, as you can still loose your grasp, etc.  Swiers 20:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

   See the talk page... --WanYao 22:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

2. Dupe Here's a much closer suggestion. And wha-da-ya-know? It's still in circulation! ~A`Blue`Jelly^TME*V*I*L*_? 06:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

   That is the suggestion that this one is based on -- this is a re-working of it. However, my suggestion is quite different. Mine is not a sign-off attack, it is not automatic, it is zerg-proof, etc. etc. Same theme, yes, but very different mechanics. While I disagree with Sweir's dupe vote, it has validity. But mine and Jon's are only superficially similar. Now, as for the other one still being in voting... I was under the impression that Jon was pulling that suggestion!!? That is what happens when people make a suggestion a day, siiiiiigh... --WanYao 10:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

3. spupe -The number of dupes makes up for the fact that this isn't an exact clone. I also vote spam for some of the same reasons I voted spam on that- zombies already have enough horde power. --AlexanderRM 22:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Dupe. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 11:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)