Suggestions/10th-Dec-2005

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Closed Suggestions

  1. These suggestions are now closed. No more voting or editing is to be done to them.
  2. Suggestions with a rational Vote tally of 2/3 Keeps over total of Keeps, Kills, and Spams will be moved to the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page by a moderator, unless the original author has re-suggested the Suggestion.
  3. Suggestions under the 2/3 proportion but with more or equal Keeps to Kills ration will be moved to the Undecided Suggestions page.
  4. All other Suggestions will be moved to either the Peer Rejected Suggestions page or the Humorous Suggestions page.
  5. Some suggestions may not be moved in a timely manner; moving Suggestions to Peer Reviewed Suggestions page will take higest priority.
  6. Again, DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. It will be used as a historical record and will eventually be locked.
Suggestion Navigation
Suggestion Portal
Current SuggestionsSuggestions up for VotingClothes Suggestions
Cycling SuggestionsPeer ReviewedUndecidedPeer RejectedHumorous
Suggestion AdviceTopics to Avoid and WhyHelp, Developing and Editing

10th December, 2005

VOTING ENDS: 24th-Dec-2005

Ankle Bite

Timestamp: 01:22, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: This skill will reside as a subskill of Ankle Grab, costing a total of 300XP to learn. While the Zombie is dead they can choose to Ankle Bite any other player who is in the same block. There would be a button next to 'Stand Up' called 'Ankle Bite' with a drop down menu just like any other attack with a list of players. Ankle Bite would cost 1AP and have a 50% chance of success. If successful, Ankle Bite would do 2 damage, and would cause the victim to use 2AP instead of 1AP when moving (Zombies with 'Lurching Gait' are unaffected). Ankle Bite can be cured with a First Aid Kit just like 'Infectious Bite'. If the Victim also has an Infection the effects will stack, however one FAK will cure both ailments. The attempting Zombie would now be standing with full health as if they stood up. This skill is only available while the Zombie is dead and there are available targets.
  • Edit - This does NOT cost 300 to buy, it is merely a sub-skill of Ankle Grab, or an improvement as such. It costs 100XP to buy but you have to get Lurching Gait, and Ankle Grab first, thus making it cost a 'total' of 300XP. Sorry for the lack of clarity. It only costs 1AP to stand up, this skill adds an attack into the mix. Also, why is it so bad that humans would have to spend 2AP to walk? Ferals have to do so until they get 100XP or more depending on when they purchase Lurching Gait. At least you'd be able to cure it! You would limp too if a zombie just tore out your ankle with it's teeth! Boy, you survivors love to keep us zeds underpowered.

Votes

  • Keep - Author's Vote - This is a great idea. --ScottyBones 01:22, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - They're standing up right after, so it's not a bad idea after all. (My original thought was that it's like sniping from a building, which is bad, but it's not.) --Shadowstar 01:46, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The name is just too silly. Rhialto 01:56, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • - Ok... How about Achilles Anguish, Ankle Aggro, Feast of Feet, Calf Connoisseur, Heel Havok, Scent Feet, or Foot Fetish? --ScottyBones 07:43, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It's fitting, and not over-powered. — g026r 02:57, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - and so the Black Knight will finally have his chance to bite Arthur's leg off --Hagnat 03:07, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - It's only a flesh-wound! -- Andrew McM 17:39, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Lost me at the "2 AP to move" part. Up until then I thought it was cool. -- Amazing 03:14, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • - Oh, you mean the cool part about only doing 2 damage, making the skill virtually useless?
  • Keep Kill - I like the basic idea, but yeah, the 2 AP to move is excessive. Just make it the attack, and make it eligible for the Vigor Mortis 10% bonus. --Dickie Fux 04:12, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT) Changed my vote after the editted note, and when I realized how rare a successful attack would be. --Dickie Fux 18:09, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - While I have visions of constant ZKing to make players hobble, I like this one. But it might need to just function like a regular bite, I think, and regardless, 2AP until cured is overpowered. Maybe if it took 2AP for a certain number of turns? I dunno. Either way, it would be an interesting edition to the game... and it would make survivors wary of sticking around next to a dead body... --PatrickDark 04:47, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't like things that negatively-effect another player's movement abilities. And plus, what happens if you Ankle Bite a zombie who normally takes 2AP to move? --Drakkenmaw 07:45, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good idea. And Drakkenmaw, in case you didnt read this: "would cause the victim to use 2AP instead of 1AP when moving". That means it sets movement to 2ap per move, so non lurchers would be unaffected. All this skill does is encourage the dumping of bodies, and people not to hang around corpses. I would suggest lowering the exp cost to a cost zombies can actually reach. --Grim s 08:52, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Piles of dead bodies should be scarier in a zombie apocalypse. Also this is very in touch with genre themes. --Matthew-Stewart 09:14, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep kick dem zombies up a notch -- P0p0 11:59, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I'm a bit reluctant about 2AP moving, but keep anyway --Brizth 13:35, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I like it. The zombies need some better skills anyway. --Phaserlight 15:24, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Sounds good to me. I don't see anything wrong with surivivors having to spend 2AP to move. Carry a FAK with you or go to a hospital! --Antrobus178 15:52, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep It's a good idea, but it should be not 300 XP but 100 XP and as a Headshot should be like 5+ lvl. --GreatEmerald 17:53, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Headshot is much more powerful, and does not cost 300 XP. Having temporary AP hinderment is no worse than zombies without lurching gait. This skill should be 100 XP with a level requirement, but otherwise an excellent suggestion. --Firemanstan 21:25, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it, basically anything that I want to say has been said :). --Ailmaza 02:48, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - 50% base accuracy is too high. Claws don't get 50% accuracy until after the purchase of Vigour Mortis and Death Grip, and even with all upgrades Bite maxes out at 30%. --VoidDragon 03:01, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • - You Fail to realize that you can only do this while you are DEAD, ie. you would rarely get the opportunity. In the seige on Caiger, I was killed many times... Even still, I rarely logged on to find a harman standing atop my corpse. I think 50% is too low. --ScottyBones 04:57, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It's neat. The accuracy might need tweaking a little, but it definitely doesn't need to be on a par with regular bite attacks. Let's face it, 30% is stupidly low for a maxed-out attack. --Katthew 03:46, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sounds good. --Signal9 05:00, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I second a few of the opinions above, the AP hit would need discussing, but keep. --RitchieB 09:51, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - This skill is trying to alter game mechanics. Zombies need a buff, but not like this --phungus420
    • - How does this alter game mechanics?? The mechanic is already in the game! Curing of temporary infections with Infectious Bite, and altering people's movement via Lurching Gait. You don't like it? Fine, vote Kill.
  • Kill - Waking with an infection provides enough hassle for an unprepared Survivor, faced with getting into a building and finding a First Aid kit with a steadily decling health. Adding a movement penalty to the infection means you have an even harder time getting some help before death returns you to Zombie-ville. Way too harsh. --Costin 16:15, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • - If you are in a safehouse 'sleeping', and a zombie horde breaks in... One of 3 things would happen. 1) You would be eaten in your sleep and you would die. 2) You would be infected by a regular bite - deal with it. 3) All your comrades would be killed and you are left to tell the tale. Now assuming your comrades are not Zombie spys, Your ankle is NOT bitten. The only way this skill would affect a sleeping survivor is if the cades are broken, an attacking Zombie is killed by one of your comrades before it kills you all, AND it uses this skill on YOU instead of the person attacking it, AND does this before his body is dumped out the window. --ScottyBones 09:23, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - For most of the reasons Costin mentioned in his 'Kill' vote. Don't go wandering around zombie-town without your FAK. Like a boyscout, Be prepared! --WibbleBRAINS 16:22, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I always thought bodies weren't as scary as they should be. --Dashiva 17:53, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it. Good idea. --Falk 18:02, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Genious... I guess genious. --ALIENwolve 21:14, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - won't happen often, but will be a big surprise when it does. Keeps the humans from standing around a pile of bodies anyway. --Dogbarian 03:54, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nice idea. --Marianne Wells
  • Keep - Changed my vote after discussion with suggestion author. --Seagull Flock 12:00, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It's a good idea. One question, though. Would the zombie only get one shot at an Ankle Bite or could they keep going until they hit? --Herbalbert 17:20, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • - Please see my last comment comment under Seagull Flock's vote (i.e. only one shot as he stands up at the same time.) --ScottyBones 23:18, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Taking away my reservations and givin a resounding keep do to re: below. --Thelabrat 10:42, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • - Zeds without lurching gait have to spend 2AP to walk anyway, so it really wouldn't effect them except for the damage. --ScottyBones 00:21, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Don't mess with other people's AP...straight off of the "Suggestions Dos and Don'ts" section...--Declan 03:40, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: Honestly, with the new headshot, you can't say that any more... imho --Shadowstar 03:43, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Reminds me of Resident Evil. Which is a good thing! --Omega2 17:51, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • KEEP - YES! This is what I thought ankle grab was gonna do at first! --Tereseth 00:07, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Surround Prey

Timestamp: 01:39, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: This skill would allow in flavor terms for zombies to surround a human being by being more agressive in their attempt to reach them. We've all seen this in movies, dozens of undead pushing against each other trying to reach their prey. Here's what the practical effect would be: When a suvivor attacks a zombie without Surround Prey they have a 10% chance of hitting the first zombie on the attack queue with Surround Prey instead. A suvivor would get a message like this when that occurs: "You fire your shotgun but accidentally attack a different zombie that moves in the way. It drops to 50hp." That's right, this is a skill to cause attacks to be diverted to yourself. Why would anyone want this, you ask? This is a good skill for fully maxed out zombies to take in order to help protect newer ones from headshot. It would also make it harder to kill zombies and dump them outside a safehouse they've entered because it'd be spreading out some of the damage between them, and thus giving them more opportunity to attack suvivors inside. If the zombie with Surround Prey is killed because of this skill they die and become a corpse just like normal and then the next zombie with Surround Prey takes 10% of all hits. If there are no more zombies with this skill left standing attacks work as usual. It's a way of higher level zombies helping the cause of zombiekind as a whole in a way that doesn't make the zombie out to be caring or compassionate. It stays in flavor because it's just the zombie being hungry enough to push through the competition.

Votes

  • Kill - I AM tempted to vote keep, don't get me wrong, but... This'd end up really painful for zombies who took it the next time a skill is added... If others think it would be useful, okay, but in that case... I think it should be a higher level skill, so as to ensure we don't have zerg shields that just absorb the hits. --Shadowstar 01:50, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Point taken. However this could be for a zombie player that doesn't care about how powerful they are personally and cares more about the well being of the horde. It'd be their decision. Perhaps the skill could require level 10 as to not have people mistakenly take it right away but I think that people would be responsible enough to make this choice with your thoughts in mind. --Jon Pyre 01:58, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • kill sounds nice but one of the ways we are able to fight zombies is the ability to all kill one and dump them outside. --Deathnut 06:21, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Everyone wants hordes to be stronger, not individual zombies. When a good suggestion comes along you all change your minds? Meh. Keep up the good work stomping on the downtrodden zombie. Jirtan 06:35, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it! It gives the zombie a skill the humans don't have and it encourages hordes.--Roscar 07:27, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Doesn't seem overpowering, promotes the "movie style" mode of zombie play. Plus, it adds some much-needed tactical strategy to the zombie side. I like it! --Drakkenmaw 07:42, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sepurb idea. All this does is make it more harder to kill a specific zombie without actualy making any of them more powerfull. - Jedaz 08:06, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Self-sacrifice is good. --Matthew-Stewart 09:09, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm going to go with kill because active zombies (those that spend AP) move to the top of the stack anyway...At least that's been my experience. Inactive zombies should be standing fairly still, in my opinion, and therefore make it easy enough to single one out. Bentley Foss 11:10, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Just my humble opinion but I don't think this skill would serve much of a real practical purpose. --Phaserlight 15:03, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It's a great idea, but I think it would add quite a bit onto the server load. --Sknig 16:32, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It's a bad idea, because zombies often go lone, so it would be a 100 XP waste! --GreatEmerald 18:27, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - hurray for horde skillz...--Ringseed2 21:26, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Nice idea, but in practice it would be a nightmare. Every time another zed in the horde does something, the server would have to keep track of which zeds in the immediate area have this skill and bump them to the top of the stack. In other words, it would make the server create then process phantom action hits. --VoidDragon 02:53, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This sounds good, I suggest having a warning screen when buying the skill. --Signal9 05:24, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I suggest that ALL zombies have this trait, and a skill (co-ordination) combats it. --Adrian 19:12, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I agree with Shadowstar. Make it a Zombie Elite (level 10+) skill and I'll be happy to vote keep. --Seagull Flock 12:05, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good way to encourage hordes and distribute damage in a reasonable way. Zombie hordes aren't groups of individuals, they're practically (un)living beings on their own. --Omega2 17:58, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Awesome! But maybe make it required level 10? or 5?--Tereseth 00:12, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I find it fairly usefull, but maybe not a 100% chance that an attack goes at someone with Surrounding Prey, but a lowered percentage, like, 60-70%? --Father_Gregoriy 16:07, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Move Free Running to Civilian/Misc Skills

Timestamp: 01:46, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Reclassification of skill
Scope: Those who wish to buy Free Running
Description: Move Free Running from the Military skill tree to the Misc (or "Civilian") skills tree, so that it costs 100 XP for all characters. 1) Many will agree that Scientists are weak as-is, and reducing the cost for a basic survival skill will help them. 2) Most basic (non-XP earning) survival skills are in the Civilian tree already (Construction, for example), and Free Running is out of place in Military Skills with all the weapons skills. 3) No one really understands what Free Running represents - leaping from roof to roof? Hiding in the sewers? Falling through holes in walls? As such, in-character-wise, it makes as much sense as anything to have it in the Civilian tree.

Votes

  • Keep Author. --LouisB3 01:46, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Might have to reimburse current Scientist class characters 50XP, and charge current Military classe characters 25XP. --Kryten 02:46, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Free Running is scaling drain pipes, leaping from rooftops, crawling along window ledges and swinging from power cables (among other things). It's the kind of skill you might learn in special forces training. It is in no way a civilian skill. It's also not a basic survival skill. It's a highly specialized skill for military scouts and black-ops folk. Heavily barricaded buildings are not supposed to be easy to get into. If you want to help scientists survive, then keep your barricades a little lower. --Jstoller 03:01, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Re: It's "basic survival" because many agree that it's nearly necessary for all characters who want to get into useful/heavily-populated buildings/safehouses such as malls. --LouisB3 03:54, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Yup, no way free running could ever be a civilian thing. Especially since its inspired by an urban youth sport. Military has an unforgivably large tree. --Zaruthustra 03:06, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Re: Hey, cool - I didn't even know that. --LouisB3 04:01, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Not a huge issue, but makes sense. --Dickie Fux 04:18, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill same reason as Jstoller. --Deathnut 06:14, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, the military tree is too powerful. Jirtan 06:37, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Do we refund the 50XP every science class has spent on it to date? How about pulling 25XP from those Military people who already have it? Making decisions like this after the class has already been active ingame for functionally it's near-entire existence is ALWAYS a problem, and frankly I think it's better to just not do it. --Drakkenmaw 07:40, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Re: I don't see why you think it's a problem - just because something was unfair/wrong/unbalanced in the past doesn't mean we should cry "precedent" and keep it unfair/wrong/unbalanced because we wouldn't necessarily give new cost to old buyers. --LouisB3 19:05, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Re: "been active ingame for functionally it's near-entire existence"??? Since July 2005?! We need to allow UD to develop and grow, so making theings permanent just 'cause they've been that way for a few months seems a tad extreme and short-sighted. --Costin 16:23, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I was 50/50 on this one until I saw the link from Zaruthustra. - Jedaz 08:12, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - ok, so there7s an urban sport. But what percent of normal civilians have this skil in real life, and what percent of military people? These numbers speak volumes. Rhialto 14:20, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re As Bentley Foss said, "Go read the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots. See that bit about arguing realism? Yeah. Or, in other words: what percent of people have 10 pistols and 8 shotguns in real life? What percent of people fight THE LIVING DEAD on a daily basis in real life? Bentley Foss 15:24, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)" --LouisB3 19:07, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Agreed --Phaserlight 15:01, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Considering Zar's link, and the pure mechanics of moving a skill from Military to Civilian, this is a no-brainer.--'STER-Talk-Mod 16:07, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Definitely more civilian than military. --Sknig 16:29, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -I think the only reason free running is a military skill is because scout is a military class. --Matthew-Stewart 17:33, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - More military than civilian. --Athos710 17:36, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam Free Running is a civilian sport. I mean, there are free running clubs set up across the USA and the UK, and a couple in Canada too. It basically is an art, sport, and exercise. I voted Spam on this because I think I remember a very old suggestion where this was suggested as well. Check the suggestion archives around the date of the Hunting Shotgun idea. AllStarZ 17:38, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam Already suggested. CthulhuFhtagn 20:51, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Free Running. Already suggested. --ScottyBones 22:13, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Yes, survivors need more help, and this idea has never been suggested before. --phungus420
  • Re Not survivors - scientists. This won't really affect the strength of survivors in general, but it will reduce the "suckiness" of scientists in particular. If you want, think of it this way: which would you rather have - more/stronger military (who exist to hunt dwindling zombies), or more/stronger scientists? --LouisB3 20:33, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Having played the Scientist, I can appreciate the need to make Free Running at least marginally more accessible. A DNA Extractor just doesn't cut it to make advancement enjoyable for a Scientist... it actually makes more sense to spend time dead to get the experience and then revive to buy all those decent high cost Military skills. --Costin 16:23, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Re: spam, undecided suggestions are supposed to "be reworked, refined, and resubmitted". This suggestion does that by providing better arguments. --Dashiva 17:58, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Scientists benefit from this, it has become an essential skill with the overbarricading, and as pointed out above, it's a civvy sport. --Dogbarian 04:18, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Removed my vote due to dupe suggestion . I am in support of the idea but the author responding "Scientist not survivors" in Re: has me feeling a little weird. I'm just saying. --Thelabrat 11:03, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Re: Feel free to explain further (on my talk page if you want). --LouisB3 02:11, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Makes sense, since it's one of those fundamental skills every survivor MUST have, alongside Construction --Father_Gregoriy 16:08, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Unbuy Headshot

Timestamp: 02:25, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Humans with Headshot
Description: Simple. Allow humans to unbuy headshot. I got it before I thought about how unfair it was, and I for one would like to get rid of it. If I kill a zombie, I have no choice but to headshot them at this point. I'd rather unbuy it and not have to feel bad every time I kill a zombie, and there might be others who'd like to do that too.

Votes

  • Keep - Author vote. --Shadowstar 02:25, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep We should do the same for the equally griefing skill of Brain Rot. None of my survivors have Headshot, and none ever will! The skill does nothing beneficial, unless you count griefing, which I do not! --Volke 02:31, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - As long as you don't get xp back for it and are able to buy it again. --Jon Pyre 02:46, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Maybe 50 xp back as a little incentive? I'm not going to buy it, period, anyway. --TheTeeHeeMonster 02:48, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'd support being able to turn Headshot OFF and ON at will, but I don't think 'Unbuying' is reasonable. -- Amazing 03:16, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I would support the ability to enable or disable Headshot on the fly. I also might support altering headshot to take AP instead of XP, or something along those lines. But once you buy a skill there's no going back. You can't unlearn something. Besides, I'm beginning to think that Headshot isn't as bad as people make it out to be. If I headshot a zombie then maybe I slow their skill progression a little bit, but afterwards they just stand right up and keep on biting people. If a zombie kills me then I turn into a zombie! This not only slows my progression but effectively stops it. Nearly all of my skills and equipment are instantly useless. I can try and get new skills as a zombie, but if I ever manage to get myself reved then those will have been a waste of XP. --Jstoller 03:18, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Enabling and disabling would also be fine, but it would require more of an interface change than just unlearning it. --Shadowstar 03:24, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Awesome idea. Just let people do the right thing. --Shaolinzombie 03:57, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Changed vote - the toggle suggestion below is much more clearly written. I think something similar for Brain Rot is worth considering, though I'm not optimistic about that one's odds in the voting process. --LouisB3 04:00, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Unbuying Headshot would be a nice option. So would the toggle, which someone could write up as a separate suggestion. --Dickie Fux 04:20, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Then we could know who the people who are actually trying to grief the zombeis are --Athos710 04:29, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - The skill is horrible anyway. You'd better get a refund. Jirtan 06:38, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Never bought it, never intend to buy it, and I'm sure some people would like to get rid of it. --Drakkenmaw 07:36, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - That's fine. There are times when I want to kill something but don't necessarily want to headshot it. Bentley Foss 11:18, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Although I want to keep I must kill. Bad luck if you brought the wrong ability. However someone should post a toggling option for headshot as mentioned above. Mabey I might suggest it... - Jedaz 11:26, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re It's not the wrong ability as such. It's just a very inconsiderate one. --Shadowstar 14:16, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'd be all for a toggle option. --Phaserlight 15:04, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No, no, no. Either the skill stays in or it doesn't. On some level this is a role-playing game, so explain to me how your character would justify unlearning this skill? Because your character wants the zombies to be able to gain experience? Doesn't keep very well with the zombie apocalypse theme for the survivors to be getting the warm fuzzies for the creatures trying to eat their brains. --Chester Katz 15:31, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - As has been mentioned, a toggle would be much more preferable. Again, as has been mentioned, if we allow this, we must allow people to unbuy brain rot and other skills. I'd prefer to see one all-encompassing suggestion, to ensure fair voting. --Lucero Capell 16:21, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The more recent toggle suggestion is better, although this is still a good idea. --Sknig 16:27, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - You should be able to unbuy all of the skills (or only Headshot and Infectious Bite), but as a penalty, don't get the XP back. --GreatEmerald 18:35, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Maybe you should have thought of that before you bought Headshot. --Eddo36 19:40, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This isn't bad, but I think the toggle idea is a better solution. --Max Lord 00:36, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I would also support a toggle. --Memuler
  • Keep - Headshot is an unbalanced game breaking skill right now, anything to lessen it's effect will help, although outright removal is needed for the game to be playable again. phungus420
  • Kill - Bad precedent to set. --VoidDragon 16:41, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Remove brain rot AND ankle grab first.. --Adrian 19:18, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I prefer the "Headshot not automatic" suggestion proposed recently. --Seagull Flock 12:21, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Headshot IS too powerful, but this game needs more skills, so kill. --Tereseth 0:17, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Seems fair, why not? Maybe also allow Brain Rot to be unbought. --Father_Gregoriy 16:15, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Brutal Death

DE-STROY ALL ZOMBIE HEADSHOT SKILLS. --Red Robot 03:00, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Feeding Frenzy

Timestamp: 02:59, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: In zombie movies when a crowd of zombies kill someone they all partake in the feast, they don't sit around watching the one that got the killing blow eat. This subskill of Digestion would allow zombies to regain 4 health every time a suvivor is killed in the same room as them. This is representing the fact that the zombie got at least one bite in. This is not unbalancing because it heals less health than a first-aid kit with no training and requires a suvivor to die. However once a zombie doesn't have more pressing skills to obtain this would be a good purchase to restore health without spending their own AP when in active battle zones.

Votes

  • Kill No something for nothing skills. Realtime auto skills aren't good for this game. This skill is entirely untargeted autohealing that would make large hordes pretty much invulnerable.--Zaruthustra 03:03, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Something for nothing skills: First Aid, Surgery both of which can give back health to people who spend no AP to receive it. This at least requires a skill. --Jon Pyre 03:07, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I really wish there were a FA skill of some kind for zombies to give to other zombies... If someone gets caught outside of a seige like Caiger, how many of those zombies will get HP? All of them (well, once they level for this skill, that is)? Maybe if it was for... I dunno, the first few zombies... but zombies often go in hoardes, and no FAK can heal hundreds of HP worth of damage... --Shadowstar 03:11, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - First Aid, and Surgery are not "something for nothing" skills. The healer has to spend AP and a FAK on his/her patient. On the other hand, your proposal doesn't require anything other than being nearby. --VoidDragon 03:13, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - The attacking zombie has to spend AP on killing a suvivor. If the suvivor is indoors AP must have been spent to destroy the barricades and enter. The zombie benefitting from this skill needs to have spent 100 experience for it. This is not overpowered. Imagine a first aid kit that only heals you when you kill a zombie! Sure it can potentially heal many zombies at once but suvivors are not killed that frequently outdoors where the largest groups of zombies are. Hundred zombie groups inside safehouses are rare because barricades generally get put up before more than 4 or 5 can enter. Suvivors can heal themselves and each other. Why shouldn't zombies have a form of that ability (while remaining different enough to maintain differences in play)? It's not like they have items and I think a zombie "Lay on Hands" skill isn't the way to go. And don't tell me zombies can just stand back up with full hp. They can do that minus headshotted xp and being inside a safehouse. And don't tell me zombies can be healed with FAK. That's just silly, requires the help of traitors, and shouldn't even be possible. --Jon Pyre 03:20, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Maybe if it were limited to a certain number of randomly selected zombies with the skill; one death shouldn't heal fifty zombies, as infrequently as that might happen. --Dickie Fux 04:26, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill hords will be unstopable. --Deathnut 06:17, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombies don't need healing. They have Ankle Grab. And even when they don't, it's just a hazard of being a level 2 zombie. And then no self-respecting zombie is going to lurk in a horde when it's shambling around looking for XP unless a safe-house break-in is active and it's not a seige anyhow... --PatrickDark 06:36, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Just as I wouldn't give the survivors the ability to damage every single zombie in a block, I wouldn't give the zombies the ability to heal every single zombie in a block. Think about possible totals, especially in 100+ zombie horde situations. It's just far too much. --Drakkenmaw 07:35, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - A) No automatic anything B) No "actions that cost no AP" skills Bentley Foss 11:32, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Flak jacket. Automatic damage reduction. And here's my argument to, "but what if 100 zombies are healed at once?!?"
    1. You'd need to kill a human in front of them. Outside. Each time. I think it's harder to pull that off than have a group of suvivors search out a few dozen first aid kits.
    2. Not all the zombies will be injured and so only a small number will gain a benefit from the kill anyway. If you made it only restore 1hp or capped it at the first 10 zombies the chance of this skill ever benefitting zombies would be astronomical. As suggested I think it's far inferior to first aid kits which might I add can now restore far more than 4 health. --Jon Pyre 20:09, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I actually like this one... if a zed is in the same room as a human than they are likely as not to be attacked anyway, so it's not like a zombie could stand around in a human controlled area waiting to get free hp. The reason I voted kill however is that 4 hp is far too much. Imagine a room of 10 humans that get killed, every zombie with this skill would gain 40hp! Now imagine this in terms of the siege of Caiger mall. 1 hp per kill or a 25% chance to gain 4hp might be be a little more reasonable. --Phaserlight 15:08, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - But as I said most zombie kills take place indoors and only a small number of zombies would likely gain the benefit. And besides, I can carry 4 first aid kits with me and restore 40hp with 4AP. This skill is inferior. --Jon Pyre 20:15, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like the general idea, but maybe you could balance it a little by making only other zombies with the Feeding Frenzy skill benefit. The Digestion > Infectious Bite > Feeding Frenzy avenue would hardly represents the ideal target for low level experience spending - when claws do reliable damage for less AP with Vigour Mortis > Rend Flesh > Death Grip - so ever zombie wouldn't have it. When a zombie with Feeding Frenzy kills a survivor all other zombies with FF in the same square get Xhp - maybe 4hp, maybe just 2hp. The idea just has such a potential for adding flavour to the zombie characters and the way they fight! --Costin 16:31, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - That's what I intended all along. Only zombies with the skill get a benefit. It doesn't matter what the skills are of the zombie that kills the suvivor. This skill is just "You gain some health when another zombie kills a human". Wait...did anyone who voted kill think I meant that? Because "heal everyone when you kill a human" is stupid. That's overpowered. No the burden is on the injured zombie to have the skill.--Jon Pyre 17:37, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - --Monstah 19:34, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Grab Gun

Timestamp: 04:00, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: The zombie grabs at the closet part of a suvivor. If they're pointing a shotgun at a zombie the shotgun barrel is the closest part. Don't worry, this isn't an inventory stealing skill, here's how it works: When a suvivor shoots at a zombie with a shotgun there is a small chance (5% maybe? Maybe higher?) that the zombie will grab the gun. The suvivor will be unable to shoot and have to pull the gun free, using the 1 AP they spent and not taking a shot. A defensive skill to offer some protection against the most powerful weapon in the game without making it do less damage than the pistol per AP spent. And trust me, it's true to genre.

Votes

  • Kill - I don't completely follow you. So the zombie grabs the gun automatically (if it's within the 5% chance)? I'm just not a fan of characters doing anything automatically (short of falling down once killed/revived). — g026r 04:14, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Yeah, no auto skills. --Dickie Fux 04:28, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What makes you think people fire their shotgun at point-blank range? — Argus Blood 04:29, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Plus, wouldn't a zombie grabbing a shotgun pointed at them just draw it closer to them, thus increasing the accuracy of the shot? --Vellin 06:40, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like the central concept of zombie defense, but a zombie grabbing at a shotgun just means there's soon going to be a zombie without a hand... --Drakkenmaw 07:33, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombie defense (especially with flak jackets) is quite good enough as it is, thanks. Bentley Foss 11:34, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill lol, yeah, i DARE you to reach for the shotgun i have pointed at you pointblank. how much do you like your extremities? -- P0p0 12:04, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)\
  • Kill So while a zombie player is offline and his char has no AP, suddenly, the zombie grabs the gun? ...Can you say Kill? AllStarZ 17:30, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No, this is not good. Zombies don't have agility, so they can't use the weapon, and grabbing it is ridiculous - zombies just aren't strong enough! --GreatEmerald 18:40, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - So, if the survivor and his shotgun are across the room, how is the zed supposed to grab the barrel? Rocket fists? --VoidDragon 19:11, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - So they're going to grab as the "closet" part of a survivor? I didn't know zombies were homophobes! -Caknuck 19:46, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Have you watched any zombie movies? Check this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077402/fullcredits . 35th from the top. Watch the movie to see how he gets it.--Jon Pyre 20:01, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • Re' - Ya gotta admit, though, the survivors in that movie were idiots. "I gotta pick up my toolkit in a dangerous and stupid manner so I can get bitten in the process!" "Let's dangerously drive through the zombies instead of systematically shooting them and dumping them outside!" "Let's let five zombies fondle the M-16 and steal it instead of pulling the trigger once and blowing their heads off!" C'mon. :-P Bentley Foss 05:45, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Wait, so a zombie holding on my shotgun isn't able to attack me, right? So what if 10 zombies would all just snap some guns and the others would chomp on survivors? That's kinda unbalancing. --Father_Gregoriy 16:23, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Sewers (Different implementation)

Timestamp: 08:18, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Sub-area
Scope: Malton
Description: I saw the earlier suggestion about a sewer system which was killed, but I'd like to expand upon it with implementation and reasons.

First, mechanics only. The sewers would be a sub-grid within the city, such that each square has the 'street' level, the building if it has one, or the 'sewer' level. Anyone can enter the sewers, survivor or zombie, through manhole entry points located throughout Malton, possibly 10 entry points for every suburb.

For survivors, entry to the sewers will be hazardous - the map grid will be blanked such that there are only blank directional buttons, and all area descriptions are homogenous unless it's a sewer manhole, UNLESS the survivor 'searched the area'. No fellow survivor names will show up, no zombies will appear until you search the area.

So basically a survivor would enter a sewer, wander without knowing if there's anyone in the same grid block, unless the survivor searched the area to uncover any hordes of zeds.

For zombies, the sewers show up as a standard grid - zombies using scent to find other zombies or survivors. In other words, they would be able to see in the sewers, while survivors wouldn't, which gives them an excellent advantage.

Like an inverse barricaded building, survivors would probably be hard-pressed to break into the sewers and get out without getting lost or being killed. The sewers would be an inherently beneficial place for zeds in an alternate fashion from barricaded buildings, and low level zeds could hide out safely in the sewers with relatively low fear of being headshot.

Now, to make sure survivors stand a chance, perhaps incorporate a flashlight object powered by batteries, lasting for 100AP before requiring reloading of batteries. This would allow a survivor AND all the other survivors in the same sewer block to see each other any any zombies in the block, but NOT ones adjacent unless there was another survivor with a flashlight in that block. In effect, a coordinated team of humans could enter a sewer and begin systematically sweeping the area the same way a horde of zeds can sweep a suburb out of survivors.

As for flavor, I read somewhere that Free Running incorporated sewer travel, but I haven't seen any examples of that in the real-life sport of Parkour, which is the 'original' Free Running extreme sport. As for the issue of zombies protecting themselves in the sewers, well, uh, I don't know, to be honest. All I know is that it was frustrating starting out as a zed but being forced to start each day with 40AP simply from standing up, whereas survivors can just find a building and shack up (any building since zombies kinda rarely enter nonbarricaded buildings for the hell of it).

Votes

  • Kill - I don't like the idea as you have presented it. No survivor would enter a sewer because there would be no benifit, at the moment survivors could just free run around town. - Jedaz 08:27, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - Well, if this was implemented zombies would have little incentive to simply hang around in the streets after logout. This way, hordes of zeds could simply pop out of a nearby sewer grate, attack, and retreat back into the sewer, the same way humans pop out of a barricaded building, attack, and retreat back. In this case the incentive to explore the sewers would be zombie hunting for exp gain, since it's not likely you'll find logged off zeds standing in the street. FireballX301 08:41, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE' - Zombies need safehouses, damnit. Would you rather they could barricade? Also, you could add more zombie hunting skills that had to do with the sewers, like being invisible to zombies when in the sewers. Are you happy with one zombie hunter skill?--Tereseth 0:27, 24 dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - All the zombies would go underground, all the humans would stay barricaded aboveground. I'd prefer Malton not turn into France in World War One. Small "safe" bunkers between huge "dead zones" where neither human nor zombie can tread without dying is... kinda boring. --Drakkenmaw 08:46, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I think the similar Subway Tunnels suggestion is better. Vote 'Keep' on that one instead.--WibbleBRAINS 09:17, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - Hot damn, didn't see that one. I guess this suggestion is almost identical, eh? I dunno if I should blank this suggestion out but I know I can request it. FireballX301 21:27, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Sorry, the other one is better, and this still doesn't give any reason why survivors would enter the sewers. All you're providing are zombie safe houses, and since when do zombies use safe houses? -BauulBen 10:47, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like the Dec. 7th version better. Bentley Foss 11:36, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If server population ever becomes an issue I would love to see the game world expand into the city sewers, but until that time imma vote K --Phaserlight 18:16, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like this idea a lot. Zombies should show up on the map for survivors who've been attacked. Sewer entrances should be a little bit hard to find, like 5 per suburb, (or maybe 10 IS hard to find...) so survivors could avoid them a bit. Also, they should be randomly placed, to make the barricade maps interesting.--Tereseth 0:24, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I think that your idea must be dropped, just think of the server load! --Father_Gregoriy 16:48, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Toggle Headshot

Timestamp: 11:38, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill change
Scope: People with headshot
Description: As commented in the suggestion Unbuy Headshot, Headshot should be able to be toggled on and off. This would allow players to get to their maxium level without causing griefing. The toggle would be a checkbox (or whatever Kevan decides is best) in the edit profile page. If the player does not have headshot then the checkbox would be grayed out. This would not dramaticaly add to server load or database size. This would only add 306109 bytes (Aprox 0.3 MB) or so to the database. As the program already has a check on headshot it would check if this is active (if not then either the player has chosen to not use headshot or doesn't have headshot) and then respond appropriately. This also makes sense gameplay wise as the character would be able to choose whether or not they destroy the zombie's brain/skull.

Votes

  • Keep - It's all the same to me. Calculating the exact byte size, though, is maybe too valiant an effort, considering that we don't know the data format and whatnot. (But yes, it should be a 1 bit flag per character...) Bentley Foss 11:47, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - As the author of unbuy headshot, I think this is also acceptable. --Shadowstar 14:18, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, with great feeling. I also applaud your calculation to shoot down the cries of "oh noes teh surver load" before they arise. --LouisB3 14:53, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --Phaserlight 15:12, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This is better than the "Unbuy Headshot" suggestion, but I still don't feel it's in keeping with the character of the game. Survivors facing an undead horde would not suddenly decide to spare a particular zombie just because he's cute or something. No, they'd be fighting for their lives and trying to shoot as many zeds in the head as possible. If Kevan wants to remove the skill entirely (unlikely) or nerf it somehow, fine, but he shouldn't add in something which makes no sense within the theme of the game. --Chester Katz 15:36, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - There currently are roughly 500 more zombie hunters than zombies (it's been close to 1000 in the past). Allowing a toggle for headshot would allow those players concerned about the (comparative) lack of dedicated zombies to keep killing without worrying about causing too many to become frustrated and leave. — g026r 16:21, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Another idea you might consider it altering Headshot to have some sort of To-Hit penalty if it is toggled on. Just a thought, maybe for another suggestion. --Lucero Capell 16:22, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I think someone good enough with firearms to always get a headshot is quite capable of not aiming for the head, if they so desire. Bentley: you mean one bit. A byte is eight bits. --Sknig 16:23, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - To Chester : This might be true in your average zombie movie, but here zombies have a chance to come back, thanks to NecroTech syringes; survivors, knowing this, might be tempted to not completely kill people. Call it mercy, but I think it's quite appropriate. --Hexedian 16:32, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Riktar 17:05, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Jirtan 17:26, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Regarding the problem mentioned by Chester, perhaps the zombie hunters recognize that it takes careful aiming to catch a zombie in the forehead at 50 yards using a snubnose revolver? It's acceptable to do that when it really, REALLY counts - but in situations where it's not life or death, and you're only moving through, it's just enough to knock the things down long enough to pass. Also realistically, if you see a bunch of zombies and you know your friend is among them - and you have some syringes, but not enough for everyone - do you shoot your friend in the head, or just knock him down for a little while? There are plenty of "realistic" justifications for this toggle. --Drakkenmaw 17:50, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - If I'm just looking for combat XP, I wouldn't want to headshot. However, if I was, say, defending Caiger Mall, hell yes I want to make them pay. I'd consider buying headshot if I could choose when to use it and when not to use it. Giltwist 18:08, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Because I suggested that someone suggest this. --Dickie Fux 18:10, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Because I love my ideas. :X Now if we could have this for Brain Rot... ;X --Amazing 18:27, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - You should be able to unbuy (or toggle off, doesn't matter) all of the skills (or only Headshot and Infectious Bite). --GreatEmerald 18:35, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - If a person has enough skill to shoot the head every time, they have enough skill to not shoot the head, too. --Barbalute 21:48, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yeah, sure, why not? The "survivors wouldn't show a zombie any mercy" argument is based on "realism" IMO, which as we all know is a poor foundation for an argument in this game. Not to mention the "realistic" counterarguments by Hexedian and Drakkenmaw, or the fact that a survivor could simply choose not to aim for a zombie's head. -CWD 00:17, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - People shouldn't be forced to do something that they don't want to do. If they don't want to use headshot, they shouldn't have to (similarly for Infectious Bite). --Max Lord 00:37, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm still gonna PK everyone I can who has this skill, wether toggled or not anyone with headshot is a bitch Pointlessly aggressive comment
  • Keep - Heck, I've been holding off finishing off Zeds because I just don't want to pinch their XP...This would be a big step in the right direction of more dedeicated zombie players.. --Nicks 01:20, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Alright! I think it'd be far easier and less painfull then buying and unbuying the Headshot skill --[user:Father_Gregoriy

revive alteration/skill

And it's 1, 2, 3, what are we voting for? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, all the suggestions are just spam. (4 spam votes, no keeps.) — g026r 20:30, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Interdiction

Timestamp: 12:55, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: balance change, game realism
Scope: All
Description: Interdiction would be a change to the existing game mechanics regarding movement, and would constitute a slight nerf to the free running skill. The basic premise is that when a building is under heavy siege, you cannot just walk past the horde guarding it and enter.

I propose that any building with 50 or more STANDING zombies outside becomes interdicted, and no humans can either enter or leave the block until there are less than 50 zombies STANDING outside (Which means that if there are 80 outside, then 31 get inside the building, humans can free run or run away in the chaos). This would add a new level of strategy to sieges, where zombies act to cut off free running routes (And have survivors fighting to defend them) and prevent survivors from entering a besieged building without a bit of a fight first (Signifying people having to fight thier way through the crowd). It would also discourage the rampant EH barricading, as people would need more entry and exit points to avoid such blockages, which helps newbie humans.

Zombies would remain unaffected by such movement restrictions. As it stands now, a person in a safehouse can say "Oh, there are 13,000 zombies outside, im leaving" and then free run to safety (Which makes lightning smash and eat raids by zombies essential).

This suggestion aims to increase enjoyment on both sides by adding an element of strategy, and a point for utilising large groups. It should also be noted that the hordes would only be able to block ten or eleven buildings using this mechanic, so we cant just swamp every block. As an extra measure, only zombies of third level or higher count towards the skill, as an anti zerging measure.

To give survivors inside the buildings the option to break out, they can be given a button that reads "attack zombies through the window" or something similiar when a building is interdicted that allows them to wound and kill zombies, perhaps even enough to make escape a possibility.

Either that or make it cost 15 ap to break out of an interdicted building and you end up on the street, and have to run to cover.

Votes

  • Keep - Author --Grim s 12:55, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Hordes would just tell 51 people to stand up outside the building, and humans could not escape. Also, i don't like the idea of resting for a day in a building and being caught in it the next day.--Denzel Washington 13:00, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE: Then call for help on your mobile phones. Hordes dont actually have too much control over the activities of everyone. Only a Many sized horde could pull off what you are describing. It would require a level of coordination beyond what is possible, basically. Also, unless the entire RRF or Scourge parks outside your building (In which case you are dead anyway), the group outside will have to devote a sizable force ot overcome the humans inside, so if they try to keep you pinned down they will only be able to get in a handful of zombies, who would all get killed and tossed outside. However, i will add something to give people inside a fighting chance. --Grim s 13:06, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • RE: I like this... almost. It would work for me if 50+ zombies created a no-go area for Survivors getting out of buildings - UNLESS they had Free-running. It makes sense that someone inside can't get out on to the street without getting torn apart, but someone who can access the rooftops or sewers can still get away. --Costin 16:40, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE: Comment deleted by comment author because it was unproductive. Sorry. --Unlife 03:45, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I like this. Well though of. --Brizth 13:29, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This level of organisation is well within what is possible. It could have been done several times over for every quadrant of that mall with the zombies available there. I agree there should be something that slows down entry/exit, but NOt blocking it altogether. Rhialto 14:24, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Not only does this nerf all strategy humans can do (they can't even walk into the side of the area to kill someone because they'll get stuck), but you're not also destroying ALL movement, not just free running. Are we going to say that zombies in a low, barricaded building shouldn't be able to get back out next? I don't like anything that pins you to the location you're in. And with the "allow them to kill things from inside," it's even worse. Humans shouldn't be able to kill things that are outside without going outside. --Shadowstar 14:28, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The whole premise of free running is just that you CAN avoid the horde of zombies outside. You're either agile enough to leap from building to building, across fire escapes, etc., or you can dash, duck, and weave expertly through the crowd of zombies. How are all the zombies on the street going to stop me from leaping rooftop to rooftop, anyway? Bentley Foss 14:50, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - So what happens if there's no one inside a building and 51 zombies are standing outside? No-one can enter the block so those zombies are invulnerable? If this were changed to no-one can *leave* a block with more than 50 zombies in it I might vote keep. This needs some more thought put into it. --Phaserlight 15:16, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - My main problem with it is that you are ignoring what free running is. Free running doesn't let you whisk directly through a horde of zombies, it lets you avoid them altogether by staying on the rooftops, meaning that how many there are down on the street isn't an issue. This would have been a little more realistic if you had suggested that the Enter the Building button be unusable if there are 50+ zombies, instead of free running. --Sknig 16:17, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Perhaps this is a plausible idea now, what with the survivor/zombie ratio being what it is and all, but I'd much prefer seeing a percentage change to escape, rather than a blanket "no escape". Perhaps you have one chance to leave the building, if you achieve the necessary percentage, you free-run as normal, if you fail, you are placed on the street or something similar. --Lucero Capell 16:26, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Things that automatically effect another player's movements suck. --Drakkenmaw 17:57, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Should be no one can enter the building; people inside can exit the building, but not the block (they're stuck between the building and the horde, allowing them to attack to try to break through); and people from other blocks can pass through, skirting the horde as they go. Probably difficult to implement. --Dickie Fux 18:17, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Kill.........just kill.--The General 18:22, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Not bad concept, but too harsh. AP penalty for moving three 50+ zombie controlled blocks would be better. Also Dickie Fux has a good point about specifics. --Matthew-Stewart 19:41, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good concept, and realistic, too. I don't know how many zombie movies I've seen where a group of survivors are trapped inside a building. Trapped = unable to exit. It would force people to get help breaking the siege, and it would add excitement to it as well. I think there should definetly be a way of having the survivors attack the zombies outside, though. --Barbalute 21:45, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Free Running represents stuff like zipcords between buildings or jumping over narrow alleys. There isn't really a way to stop that from the ground, barring AA-fire and forcefields. --VoidDragon 03:07, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill While I respect that you wish to make zombies stronger, I'm afraid this nerfs survivors way too much. This gruntees that when a horde attacks, they will win. I liked Caiger becuase it was completely even with no clear victor until the end, which is what the game is supposed to be about. Yes, I agree that zombies need a boost, but this will just sway the tides too much and turn zombies into the overpowered ones. --Volke 03:51, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep/rework - I love the idea, but 50 is way too small a number. Buildings are large, have lots of windows and multiple exits. I'm thinking in the order of 200 or more Zombies. --ScottyBones 10:40, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Many of the reasons above--Spellbinder 02:29, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Although free running should not be penalised. That is, a building with 50+ zombies outside counts as a H+ barricaded, for the purpose of (survivors) getting in/out. --Monstah 19:47, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Have you considered making it Zombies INSIDE the building? Perhaps affecting barricading too. I realise that my idea is hardly original Lancensis 12:39 23 Dec 2005
  • Keep - I like the 15 AP to escape interdicted building. --User:Tereseth

Another Cheating Penalty

Removed by author due to some good arguments. --Shadowstar 18:04, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Perception

Timestamp: 15.39 december 10, 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: "Perception" would be another subskill below Scent Trail. There's a little trick survivors have at the moment of barricading an attacked building, then simply Free Run away while the zombies attack an empty shell. with this skill, a zombie would be alerted to survivors exiting a building on the same block as them (Edit: via Free Running), and would show their new position just like Scent Trail.

Votes

  • Kill - That's potentially a LOT of messages to deal with. It would be too much clutter to do it in this manner (you see a human enter, you see a human leave, etc.) unless you really just wanted a simple neon sign on each building saying "There are x survivors inside. Please eat them." Either way, kill. Bentley Foss 16:31, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Show every new position of every person leaving your block with free running? Wow. Um. Do you know, I run through buildings healing people, or just scouting to see if they're properly barricaded. I doubt you really want all that spam. Plus, it's a human tactic to combat massive horde activity. I think Zombies have to come up with counters to the tactic, not just destroy the tactic in game, just like humans had to come up with a way to combat the massive horde tactic. --Shadowstar 16:40, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Although the sheer amount of text a zombie would get from standing outside of a mall would be rather amusing, this is a pretty bad idea. --Sknig 16:46, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I think zombies are blind, because in every single zombie movie they have no irises or corneas or whatever. AllStarZ 17:43, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I personally like the UBP. This would make it rather worthless. If my zombie breaks into an empty building, I close the doors and sit in there overnight - and, if I haven't caught someone by morning, I just move on. --Drakkenmaw 18:02, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The screen clutter alone kills this idea. --Dickie Fux 20:40, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Crawl

Spam removed due to it being a duplicate suggestion and having lots of valid spam votes. Wah wah wah, yes there were two "Keep" votes. One was from the author, and the other claimed that "Ninja zombies rule." So, it's spam. Deal with it. Bentley Foss 23:58, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Change Headshot!

Timestamp: 16.39 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Zombie Hunters
Description: Face it: the Headshot skill is a MAJOR griefing source. it pisses off zombies and makes some want to be revived just so they can get somewhere in the game; it's probably one of the big reasons why zombies don't sign up and are so outnumbered. However, instead of getting rid of it, change the skill so that whenever you land a successful hit on a zombie with a firearm, there is an additional chance (maybe 5%) to land (edit: Extra damage).

Votes

  • Spam - Do I even need to link these at this point? And besides, there are a half-dozen better headshot-related suggestions in existence already. Two of them are even on this page. And by the way, no insta-kills. Go read the Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots. Bentley Foss 17:19, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Changed. --Bachmaner 17:33, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Not saying that you don't have a point, but the skill headshot *does* violate the Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots on its own merit. There is line item that specifically describes the skill under "Don't." So, why is the skill headshot supported but suggestions against it are not, even though both items are specifically on the "Don't" list? I'm not being sarcastic, I would actually like to discuss the justification. --Unlife 03:53, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam I will vote spam on all headshot nerfings. Besides that, the main reason why most people play humans is because of peoples' view on the whole good guy/bad guy thing, and that people want to be the good guys most of the time. Theres also the fact that zombies are unexciting. They lumber around and can only kill, die, throw themselves against barricades, or bite people. AllStarZ 17:23, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Wrong. When Urban dead was first set up, the zombie-human ratio was tipped towards the legions of the undead. Nowadays survivors outnumber zombies 3:1. --Bachmaner 17:30, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Author vote. --Bachmaner 17:22, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, remember that a Spam vote is not a strong kill vote. Jirtan 17:37, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Voting Spam on this because this has been suggested countless times, and has failed every time. AllStarZ 17:40, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT) original author responses only
  • Kill - I think it's probably spam, but whatever. Anyhow, there're a couple of suggestions on this page that are better. --Shadowstar 18:00, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I personally don't take headshot, but for a survivor in a seige it's the ONLY way as of this moment to hold the opposing side in a stalemate long enough for them to give up. If you're not gaining XP from beseiging a building, you may eventually be tempted to move on. I'd prefer the toggle idea above to functionally nerfing the skill entirely. --Drakkenmaw 18:07, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This was a very well thought out plan... --ALIENwolve 18:44, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Right, Shadowstar, right, Bentley Foss! There are already 2 suggestions, better than this one on this page! --GreatEmerald 18:57, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Just because there have been lots of suggestions to nerf a very poorly thought-out skill that shouldn't exist doesn't mean it wasn't poorly thought-out and shouldn't exist. Quite the opposite. --Sindai 19:33, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Almost any change to headshot is a good one. The more "change headshot" suggestions that end up in Peer Reviewed, the more apparent this will be. --Graaaaaaagh 20:23, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Retroactive penalty (makes skill useless) --VoidDragon 20:26, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - As this won't get spaminated. There are many better headshot suggestions. And that's even if you believe headshot does need changing at all. --Daxx 00:51, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - headshot is broken. extra damage seems more reasonable than chopping someone's XPs. --Frosty 05:22, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - With Hunters outnumbering zombies, headshot in it's current state is gamebreaking. It needs axed, but anything to limit it's effecct will help now phungus420
  • Keep - SOOOO tired of survivors bragging and thinking they're cool for headshotting me. CUT BACK HEADSHOT. I think it should be made into a random chance (5%?) to add 1 point of ap damage or maybe 1 point of hp damage to a successful firearms attack. --User:Tereseth 1:28, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Knock Knock

Timestamp: 17:09, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Game Change
Scope: Survivors
Description: This game change would help anyone who has just picked up the game and was cursed with the bad luck to be placed in a suburb where every building is barricaded. If you are on top of a building that is barricaded heavily you have the option to knock. If you move after making the message it becomes void. The next time someone inside the building logs on they see a message like, "*Player* calls for help outside" and would give the player inside an option to let them in by throwing ropes down the side, giving them a helping hand, etc. This would allow begining players a few things, 1. A chance to survive the first day and 2. Perhaps a new friend. This would involve new players faster as well as building teamwork between groups.

Votes

  • Kill - I appreciate what you're trying to accomplish. But, especially given the fact that the majority of this game's actions take place while one of the players is offline, I don't think this would accomplish much. You'd knock, go to sleep, and by the time somebody saw it, you'd have already been eaten. So, little reward for the effort. Kill. Bentley Foss 17:20, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, that's the penalty for over-barricading. Jirtan 17:39, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - The people overbarricading are the high-level morons who've forgotten what it's like to need to look for a safe house. The ones paying the price are new players on low levels. --Leit 13:48, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Well... it's bad luck, yes, but... it's a new character, you can always just make another new one and hopefully get better luck with your position. --Shadowstar 18:02, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You can't get in heavily-barricaded buildings. That's their associated penalty. This makes that penalty functionally negligable, so now we won't even have any VS buildings anymore. --Drakkenmaw 18:09, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Right again, Bentley Foss! It would only give more data to the servers! --GreatEmerald 19:01, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Get a crowbar and hack your way in or start looking for some place to hide earlier. Or be fodder for low level shambling corpses. I don't think we should be changing game mechanics just to make things easier for people. The point of being a low level character is that no, you're not going to survive as well. --PatrickDark 19:35, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Get a crowbar? where, in the street? --Leit 13:48, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like the ability to yell for help, but not the part that allows those inside to let them in without lowering the barricades. Would add some flavor, if you logged in and saw ten yells for help from outside. --Dickie Fux 19:41, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I also see what you're trying to do; but you're basically just talking about an altered 'speak' function. This really won't fix the problem. --MorthBabid 01:42, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I agree with Dickie Fux. You should be able to call for help, but people shouldn't be able to throw ropes down. --User:Tereseth 0:39, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Zomdar

Timestamp: 19:01, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: The idea is to give zombies a unique skill and help them horde better. It would allow me to peer into buildings in squares adjacent to them as well as a buildings they are outside and sense how many of my zombie friends are there. It would not enhance my ability to view humans, just my zombie bretheren. If you see 10 zombies in a building, you could assume that they're feasting on some brains and join them.

Votes

  • Keep, but perhaps limit it to the building in the same square? Jirtan 19:08, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Exactly, Jirtan. But I fear this may get out of hand and prevent hiding. How about limit this also to only up to very strong? --ALIENwolve 19:17, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - I can't see how it would prevent hiding as you would'nt be able to see humans. --Roscar 23:29, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Obviously needs a name change, and I'd personally say the skill shouldn't be able to see through barricades at all (no point - a zombie in an actively-barricaded building isn't going to last long anyways). As a "sense dead" skill, however, this would help zombies to find each other and horde effectively without metagaming. --Drakkenmaw 19:21, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Name changed to what I wanted initially. --Roscar 23:29, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombies follow flesh, not other zombies. I'd rather see Enhanced Scent, Scent Life, or Scent Skills Revised. --Dickie Fux 19:39, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I even like the name. And Dickie, who's to say that zeds don't have some sort of "Buffet Time" pheromone going on. That may explain the stench... -- Caknuck 19:50, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Zombies really need more ways to coordinate. I like this one. --Graaaaaaagh 20:19, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It could be as simple as a number next to the building name on the map. Saves a few APs at a time. --Hexedian 20:44, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I like it... I have wasted plenty of AP just going in and out of wide-open buildings thinking there maybe something to munch on. --ScottyBones 22:34, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - In all honesty, this kind of thing should have been implemented months ago. --Katthew 00:58, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Hordes unite! -- Ruining 2032 Dec. 10, 2005 (EST)
  • Keep Could be a scent skill, or alteration of previously existing scent skill. Helps ferals who just don't want to get into politics, but still hunger. --MorthBabid 01:40, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Just so I can tell if a place is better to sleep in, or if there is bra!nz, I can regain xp from a headshot I get from being where I am. --Fullemtaled 12:14, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This is a major part of almost all zombie movies. Once one zombie finds you the horde decends. This would be a major in game improvment. Although the name needs to be changed. phungus420 1448, 11Dec05 (GMT)
  • Keep - Follows the spirit and word of the zombie precedent. Love it. MaestroXC
  • Keep - Yeah, I like it. --Dogbarian 04:24, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Keep it. Zombie gathering. --User:Tereseth 1:37, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)

One Way Ticket

Four spam votes and a bazillion kills, and this one's outta here. Bentley Foss 04:45, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • As much as I hated this suggestion, it had a couple of keep votes, and therefore should not just have been deleted. --Argus Blood 04:50, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Don't let the rules get in the way! :O Ahrrr! Ahhhrrr! Destroy people's work! Heh heh. -- Amazing 05:26, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • It could still have been removed for being a duplicate. - KingRaptor 07:20, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • It had a "couple" of keep votes, one from the author (which does not count) and one Keep vote that was started with "It'll never pass..." Seriously though, it was a duplicate of a duplicate of a duplicate, all of which had gotten hideously shot down every single time before. Therefore, I removed it. Bentley Foss 23:55, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Unloading Weapons

Timestamp: 20:34, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Item use change
Scope: Living
Description: Using a pistol clip loads a pistol - fairly simple. However, using a pistol - by clicking on it in the inventory list - does not do the corresponding action of unloading it. Adding such a function would allow people to keep from accumulating masses of pistols when only one is needed. A possible variation would allow for clips to be combined into a single clip, reducing inventory load.

Votes

  • Keep - My suggestion, so voting to keep. --CanuckErrant 20:52, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nice. Not overpowered, no real reason against, makes sense in terms of flavour. Well done. -- Andrew McM 20:41, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What happens when you unload a pistol with two bullets? Keeping track of partial clips would just make your inventory more messy. Just fire a pistol down to empty, then discard it. --Dickie Fux 20:48, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - No messier than keeping track of multiple pistols. ��; --CanuckErrant 20:51, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Hella messier than multiple pistols. There was a suggestion with a similar purpose ("Rationalize ammo", I think) that prevented the living hell of partial clips. --LouisB3 20:54, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it, adds flavor and realism to the game. The only problem I see is server strain. --Barbalute 21:39, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like this suggestion since it makes sense (pistols generally have clips, so why not?) but there are problems with having partial clips and all that. Still, I can't vote against something that makes good sense in-game. It doesn't make sense that someone running from zombies would throw away ANY useful ammo. They might, however, throw away guns in order to make more space for ammo. -- Ethan Frome 22:23, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Better ammo management ideas than this have died. Partial clips would require a bigger code rework and be a pain. --Zaruthustra 22:32, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I really don't see a need for this; You'd spend the same amount of AP either way. Why not just wait until pistol is reduced to zero, then reload? --MorthBabid 01:38, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - a much better solution vote keep there --Athos710 15:29, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like having my 6 pistols and 3 shotguns. All are loaded at once, so in the event of an attack I don't have to reload for a little bit. --Thelabrat 17:58, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Personal tools
advertisements