Suggestions/15th-Mar-2006

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

Iron Grip

Timestamp: 00:07, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: New Zombie Skill
Scope: New skill on "Brain Rot" skill tree
Description: Iron grip
  • Appears under "Brain Rot" on that skill tree.

Additional requirements: Level 8 AND Tangling Grasp. (And Brain Rot of course) Game Mechanics: Your character has a grip that no (living) human can possess, and escape from your grasp requires a much more skilled survivor.

How it works - Any time your character hits a survivor with "Tangling Grasp", it also hit that survivor with the following game effect:

  • "You are in the iron grip of the living dead! You may NOT leave this location until you, or that zombie, is destroyed!"

That however isn't 100% accurate, but it is what the survivor reads when you hit them with it. The survivor may only move away from this location if that survivor is at least 5 or more levels higher than you are.

  • (Yes, you will know that survivor is 5+ levels above you if they move away, but they will know they are 5+ levels above you as well). Even if a survivor CAN move from your grip they take 5 damage for doing so (if you're still alive and at the location they just left) "You lose a section of scalp and hair to the zombie who had you in it's grip, take 5 damage!" (flak jacket does not reduce this damage.)If a survivor attempts to move and they can't, they lost 1 AP for their move attempt and they get the message "Damn! You are held fast by the death grip of a zombie! You're trapped!" so they are free to TRY and see if they can escape for 1 AP if they wish.

This skill's bonus effect is cancelled if your zombie moves from this location, or is destroyed, or if your survivor targeted is killed. It is not however broken if some other effect in the game breaks your tangling grasp on this player, you still have an iron grip on them, even if you don't have the bite bonus anymore, they're staying, if they have to.

The survivor's attacks may now ONLY be made against "a zombie", which is YOU who hit them with it (you are at the top of the stack for this survivor's attacks, and they may not select another target of attack, because of your close grip). Only 1 zombie may have Iron Grip on a survivor at a time. It has no effect on zombies whatsoever.

Why bother? This is a "duel" related skill, but if your zombie ends his session, and is still "alive" (standing), that one survivor is NOT going anywhere until they kill you, or are allowed to escape you (other survivors may kill this zombie by then however). So if a survivor logs on only to find a zombie has them in their grip, that is the first thing they're going to have to deal with before they can go anywhere.. they can take other actions like searching (maybe you need bullets to shoot this SOB, or a FAK, can't nerf the survivor completely with this, but until the zombie is dead, or you can leave by levels you're stuck with them! You can even still barricade the building or FAK others, so as to not give this skill too much power. It is assumed you are dragging this zombie around the building with you, but only so far..)

The dead being able to grasp and HOLD survivors at a location is a very specific and very powerful reward for zombies that are willing to take that final step into "Brain Rot City", and this will make zombie building attacks much more interesting for that one poor survivor who can't run for it. (easpecially if he's the designated meal).

But for high level survivors, this is a painful 5 Hit Points (zombie gets XP for it!) that in a manner of speaking gets their attention in the same manner as "headshot" to a zombie.. keeps things interesting. And the most powerful zombies out there will surely be having some fun with the zombie hunters!

Votes

  1. Keep - Author Vote. Zombies holding survivors at their mercy.. hmm.. what would that do to the game? Might force players who are "caught" to fight. Might create all manner of new and interesting zombie tactics for getting a "hold" on things. It is not limitless however, if you're high enough level you can just walk away.- MrAushvitz 00:07, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Wowee! Now if I get in a group of, say, four other zombies online, I can hold a human still while I and others attack! There's no way he can kill me before he dies! Hooray! --Snikers 00:51, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill What about young survivors? They'll whine. We can find a better way to do this. 343 01:03, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Spam - BAH-ROKEN! Nerfs newbies (yippee!). Nerfs scientists (I'm caught! I know, I'll punch him to death! And never succeed!)--McArrowni 01:10, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - As it has been stated above, hideously overpowered--Mpaturet 01:13, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Not only hideously overpowered, but it would nerf hardcore zombies (i.e. no flak jacket, no human skills) even more, as they can't reach as high a level as anyone else can. And that's the last thing those guys need.--Wifey 01:25, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Um, how does a powerful skill for dedicates zombies nerf dedicated zombies? But I'll think this one over for sure, I'm getting more kill votes and less spam so I think some people may have liked some of the idea, just if it were a lot less of what it does. --MrAushvitz 14:48, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Spam - It's like you're taking every bad suggestion and re-submitting it more broken. Cinnibar 01:38, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - It's a nice try, and I'm very pro-zombie skill...but this is just too over powering... -- Nicks 01:59, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Spam - Non-willful immobilization is not much different from non-willful relocation which is just bad. Additionally, this discourages "pure" characters, especially zombies (since they have fewer skills) who will be beaten by maxed characters. --ism 02:11, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Spam - You'd think that after almost all your suggestions were spaminated you'd realize that you suck at making them. - CthulhuFhtagn 02:54, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Spam - Oh hell no. Imagine a 60HP zombie with a vest and digestion grabbing a survivor? You might as well just call it an insta-kill attack. Plus, you can see how many levels a survivor has before grabbing them, so the 5+ levels thing is hardly a limitation - it's just a way to make Zombies attack newbies while ignoring high-level characters, which is bad. And nothing else in the game (AFAIK) is based on which character has more levels, I'd rather not start down that road. --Norcross 02:57, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - I've started to wonder why I bother to read these. Velkrin 03:56, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - I tend to agree with Velkrin. I'm giving serious thought to taking a haitus from the UD page (and game). It's quite obvious that only about two people ever think through their suggestions or bother to even skim the archives. This suggestion has been an awful idea the last 20 times it was proposed, and it will continue to be one. Bentley Foss 07:59, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - This suggestion was never offered before so far as I am aware. but you may be referring to variants on Tangling Grasp, this one is an entirely different skill that requires tangling grasp to initiate it. Nonetheless it's an idea, can be modified (weakened) of course, but I still like the idea of even a "chance" of holding a survivor to the location, maybe if there were a time limit on the grip per use.. or a % chance the iron grip is broken. It all depends on how it is worded and how it works in the game. Main basis of this is a zombie ability to get a hold of a survivor and keep them there, even if it wasn't 100% effective it could be useful if balanced carefully. --MrAushvitzS 14:48, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - The first thing that came to mind when I read Iron Grip was masturbation. That'd been a good idea. This, however, is not. The reason why Kevan implemented Tangling Grasp was because he wanted a way to buff Zombie hit percentages, without buffing their effectiveness against Barricades (which is half of the claw rate) --Siddhant 08:02, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Spam - What Norcross said. Timid Dan 14:54, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - Tad overpowered. There's a suggestion from the other day that just makes Tangling Grasp work properly; vote on that instead. --WibbleBRAINS 16:48, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  17. Spam - Its a neat Idea but I hate you. -Banana Bear4 01:27, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  18. Spam -for all of the reasons given above, and for months I've heard that zombies should inspire so much fear into survivors that they should flee whenever there is a sizable horde attacking them, and what do we get? suggestion after suggestion making fleeing impossible. I'm sorry but fleeing should always be possible for survivors.--Vista W! 15:45, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 1 Keep, 9 Kill, 8 Spam 21:27, 31 March 2006 (BST)

New Use For Wire Cutters, Sever Finger

Timestamp: 16:22, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: New Item Use
Scope: Use For Wirecutters To Counter "Tangling Grasp"
Description: Sever Finger - Button
  • The "Sever Finger" button is available IF you are a survivor who has at least 1 "tangling Grasp" currently targeting you, and you possess a set of wire cutters.

Using the "Sever Finger" button costs 1 AP, and (if successful) deals 1 point of damage to every zombie who has "Tangling Grasp" on you, and breaks all of those "Tangling Grasp" effects (just to simplify things it stops them all, if you're online when it happens.

Chance of success Base 25%+5% per level of your survivor, per attempt. (Minimum 30% at level 1, maxes out at 90% success, level 13)

Why bother? Gives a survivor a chance to do something if they're online and hit by a tangling grasp.. it's also extra gross, painful sounding and fun. It also is a decent use for wirecutters, or a reason to keep them, or find them.

Survivor sucess :"You just snipped off some unneeded zombie fingers, freeing yourself from their grip!" Survivor failure :"You fumble with your attempts to remove their grip upon you!" Zombie who loses grip :"You just lost 1 Hit Point, and a finger or two to a survivor using their wirecutters! Your tangling grasp has been broken!" No message to a zombie if the survivor's attempts fail (it is assumed they're to busy trying to bite them to notice, waste of text) Nearby survivors and zombies witnessing a success by survivor:"Fingers fall to the ground as a survivor frees themself from a zombie's grip using their cutting tool." Bystanders get no message on a failure, waste of text.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author Vote. When a problem comes along.. you must SNIP it!- MrAushvitz 17:32, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Spam- Nerfs new zombie skills. hit Percentage too high. Damage as well as nerfing? All in short a broken over powered idea Drogmir 00:40, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Tangling Grasp really isn't such a showstopper as to require a specific counter. Good on you trying to do something with the wirecutters, though. --John Ember 00:52, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - What Jon Pyre said. And other stuff. And please, please slow down --McArrowni 01:14, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - What John Ember said. MrAushvitz, we really wouldn't think less of you if you didn't submit a suggestion every time you blinked. -mikm W! 01:23, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Unlike the previous suggestion which was horribly broken, this one is just way overpowered and nerfs a zombie skill. Which makes it broken, but not as bad as usual. --Cinnibar 01:47, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Spam - Nerfing a zombie skill... bad, bad boy! --Certified=Insane 03:58, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Spam - Tangling Grasp does not need to be adjusted in this manner. Additionally, it is not realistic to snip fingers considering a zombie will eventually lose all 10. --ism 02:15, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Spam - This is just stupid. All it does is nerf Tangling Grasp, since every high-level character can get wirecutters with no problem and have a 95% chance of escaping without even buying a skill for it. At best, it would be a way to make Zombies target only newbies. It's also stupid: "Arrgghh! A zombie has grabbed me and is trying to chew through my neck! Hmm, what to do... shoot him in the face, or get out the wirecutters???" --Norcross 03:00, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - Lower the precentages of successfully cutting off the zombies fingers to like 25% and then make it worth 3 damage and I will vote keep. --TheBigT 03:44, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - There are many kinds of wire cutters. Since we don't know the size, we don't know if you can actually snip off a finger. Besides, if a zombie snatchs you, I doubt your first reaction would be to cut off it's fingers. Velkrin 03:54, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - It's obvious that this suggestion is connected with the above suggestion. No. Just, no. Bentley Foss 08:01, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Spam - What Norcross said. Timid Dan 14:55, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Killl - For 1AP you have a 90% chance of nerfing every zombie that is attacking you? --WibbleBRAINS 16:51, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Spam - Let's see. Tangling Grasp is already broken if another zombie attacks you, if you attack, if you heal, if you do anything. Hell, I think refreshing the page breaks it. This is worthless. - CthulhuFhtagn 20:14, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - This is just silly--Mookiemookie 21:36, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  17. Spam - Yeah, nice work. Get out. -Banana Bear4 01:29, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  18. Spam -Any action by the survivor breaks tangling grasp, and second this is just inane. I like my zombie apocalypse without any more 'Comic' slapstick. lets just pretend that its a serious apocalypse?--Vista W! 15:50, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 1 Keep, 9 Kill, 8 Spam 21:26, 31 March 2006 (BST)

Syringe Reworking

Timestamp: 20:38, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Balance change
Scope: All players, primarily NTs and Zombies
Description: As of right now, a human with NecroNet Access can revive 2 zombies a day. A zombie with maxed out combat skills is lucky to get one kill working with a large horde. At these rates, it is impossible for zombies to advance their numbers or decrease survivor numbers for a meaningful amount of time without new zombie players joining the game, or survivors willingly switching sides (yeah, right!). Therefore, I propose a three part plan to fix the ratio.

1) Raise the cost of manufacturing a syringe to 30 AP. Syringes can be hard enough to find searching in an ordinary manner (despite supposedly having a 1/20 chance of being found), so their rate can remain unchanged. This will put a stem on the massive outflow of syringes. NecroNet does not become useless, as the extra 10 AP is for the guarantee that a syringe will be found. I have searched three days straight using the normal method and come up empty handed.
2) Players should be able to be revived only once every two days. Considering that a well-organized group can conduct a revive of its member within a few hours, this will allow zombies to make a more noticable dent the survivor population. An in-game explanation can be that the player has developed a slight immunity to the syringe.
3) Have a 5% chance per zombie skill (capping off at 20%) that the syringe will fail. It gives zombies without brain rot a slight protection against combat revives, and also makes survivors who bought lurching gait and ankle grab soley for the purpose of making revives go smoother pay a little more.

None of these points are unfair. The thing is that Urban Dead is the exact opposite of what a zombie game should be. "It's a few brave zombies against a horde of mindless humans," to quote a wise zombie. The undead are an endangered species, and unable to increase their numbers in any significant way. Were it not for a small group of dedicated players who always return to their unlife, the zombie population would evaporate within weeks.

Votes

  1. Keep - Desperately needed. Revives are far, far too easy to get these days, and it is utterly destroying Zombie morale because nothing they can do will make a difference. Without this, or something similiar, the complete collapse of the zombie population is highly likely. --Grim s 00:50, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - When someone has 50 syringes it basically makes sieges useless. --Mpaturet 00:57, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - I agree very much with the gist of the suggestion, but not necessarily with the exact numbers proposed. A shorter no-revive time would be nice. But overall, very much yes. -Murgatroid 00:55, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - "Desperately needed" is putting it mildly. --John Ember 01:01, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - What everyone else said. I would have prefered a % chance for syringes to work, but this might actually be reviewed --McArrowni 01:19, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill The balance issue is not because its too easy to get revives. Its cause frankly, zombies are boring as hell. As for combat revives, more elegant ways to solve the problem without penalizing people for trying to play both sides/not metagame. --Zaruthustra-Mod 01:23, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - I havnt seen a zombie in a week, this needs to be done so i dont die of boredom. --Meanest 01:25, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - Utterly essential, lest zombies become extinct.--Jorm 01:26, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - Disregard the heretic: the "dead time" is fine, not too long and not too short. If anything, bump it to three. My only improvement would be to kick the AP counter down to 24, and that I will acknowledge is highly debatable. Also, nearly impossible for high-level revives? Do a re-read, champ, 20% cap. Undeadinator 01:27, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - 65 to 35 survivors isn't balance by any stretch of the imagination--Bermudez 01:28, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - Author vote. Zaru, 20% chance of failure is not "nearly impossible." --TheTeeHeeMonster 01:31, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - This penalizes survivors who do their part and play zombies when they're dead. They wandered around and broke into places and got all of the skills, just to keep things interesting for other survivors. Now they have a harder time getting revived? [EDIT: I am only speaking about suggestion 3. The others, I like.]--Wifey 01:35, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Well then they won't mind playing as zombies a bit more. It's a small chance that it won't work. They can always keep trying. A 1-day setback at most. --TheTeeHeeMonster 01:40, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill NecroNet access provides a convenience by making searching unnecessary. If you made NecroNet Access worse than searching why would anyone use it? I'd feel compelled to start searching again, which would turn up the same number of syringes on average, would cost me more time, and would cause more server stress. --Jon Pyre 01:43, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • I covered this already. Searching in a wild card. You can search for days and days and not find a thing. This guarantees one syringe a day plus left-over AP. And in case you haven't noticed, it still takes 20 server hits to make a syringe. It does nothing to reduce stress. Notice how much the zombie numbers dropped by once NecroNet was implemented. With 2 syringes a day vs the zombie's <1 kill a day, how is this a zombie apocolypse? The zombies are dying out. Unless you want to see UD become a PKer game, then either the syringe rate drops or zombies get more killing power. Our advantage should be in numbers, and what happens when we don't even have that? --TheTeeHeeMonster 01:50, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
      • You have a point, but he is right, the NercoNet is saving server load. 19 Server hits. --Wikkid Bigshot 03:46, 15 March 2006 (EST)
        • The point still stands: searching is a risk. You may find a lot, you may find nothing. Manufacturing is a sure thing. It's worth a little extra for a guarantee. --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:59, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep Oh yes, so very yes. --Cinnibar 01:53, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep Please oh please. If this is the zombie armageddon, why not, oh, I don't know, make survivors wait a day or two before they completely recover from having their brains eaten? "Gosh, Becky, a minute ago you were a groaning zombie, but now your hair is perfect. However do you do it"? And for folks who don't get why you would go for a sure thing at a slight statistical penalty, all I can say is, stay in school. Lots and lots of school. And become an actuary. I dare you. --Fred Dullard 02:00, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - I'm a bit iffy on #2, but the game certainly needs something drastic. --Sindai 02:01, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill Not the way to fix this problem. --Certified=Insane 03:13, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - I like it..would be interesting to see it implemented. Nice work. - Nicks 02:04, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep -- SOMETHING must be done, and I don't think these changes are game-breaking in any way. A few of them, like the once-a-day revive limit just plain make sense. I can take or leave the zombie skill failure rate, but limiting the number of revives a character can get in a day is a really good idea. furtim 02:12, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - I hate when i am combat revived. I think people want to fight zombies, not other humans. Call me 'zmobie spy', but i get so pissed about this that i just enjoy my time as a human and go inside buildings destroying generators, only to jump the next tower i find. --hagnat talk 02:24, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep - Will pull this game back into a fight for survival instead of a fight to find some zeds to kill. And it might mean my Zombie might stay dead for a few days --Private Chineselegolas RAF 02:37, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - Yes, I need more zombies to kill! I can also live with being one for a few days.- Monkeylord 02:52, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  23. Keep - There should be some penalty for "death" other than wasting a few AP standing up and walking to the closest revive point. --Norcross 03:05, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  24. Keep - Due to the ease of getting syringes it does need an increased cost. Velkrin 03:17, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  25. Kill - Ok I find more syringes searching then using necronet so I dont even use that period. This would just make necronet worse than it already is. Next I work as a part time bounty hunter in game. During this time I have had a few people hate me specifically Joseph Deacon, boucher, and SquarepantsSpongebob. All of which, for some odd reason, are obsessed with killing me at every chance they get. Therefore I am killed almost everyday. I get revived everyday also and as soon as I get up I continue barricading and healing people. Not being able to be revived everyday would just make me leave the game because I do not want to play a zombie. People do not want to be forced to play zombies either. Now onto that percentage of failure. I bought every skill, both zombie and survivor, in case I ever had an inclination to play the zombie role. Do not penalize me for thinking into the future. If people see a level 36 they might say, "I am not reviving him, he might make me waste 30 AP!" So now picture it. Here is my character, who I don't want to be a zombie, walking around as a zombie, eating other zombies down to 1 HP so newbie survivors get an easy kill, and never having a chance of a revival. What am I going to do? Well I will quit. Period. I am sure other people have these same feelings. --TheBigT 03:38, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Getting killed almost every day, as a survivor, is far from the norm. Perhaps this change would discourage bounty hunting... I'm not sure that's a bad thing, frankly. --John Ember 03:45, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - It might discourage bounty hunting, but probably not PKing. ;)--Wifey 04:39, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Your case seems very extreme. If we don't do something about the syringe then we run the risk of having MORE players leaving. So I think the choice is clear. --Wikkid BigShot 03:47, 15 March 2006 (EST)
    • Re - So you're killing this suggestion because it would mean you couldn't continue getting killed and revived on a daily basis? Why don't you just suggest an "Invincibility Cloak" item?--Electrocutioner 21:17, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - No I am killing it because I don't want to play as a zombie and this is forcing me to play as a zombie.--TheBigT 22:22, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Well if we don't want bad things to happen to players, maybe my next suggestion will be to make survivors automatically stand back up as survivors, completely removing the middleman. Or better yet: your health automaticall regenerates once it gets too low! No one wants to die, so in order to please them we should remove that aspect of the game. We should also remove body dumping, because zombies don't like tearing through the barricades every day. Let's just get rid of the barricades in the first place! Revives aren't almost impossible with this suggestion, they just take a bit longer to get. The thing is, without zombies, Urban Dead will become a primarily PK game, not a survivor vs. zombie game. The zombie players are starting to get fed up and when we leave Urban Dead will cease to be what it was intended to be. --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:36, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - This would make a revive almost impossible because of the large shortage of syringes that would follow. It really doesn't matter anyway because this suggestion would be added to the ever growing list of peer reviewed suggestions. --TheBigT 22:22, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  26. Kill It seems, to me, like 3 seperate suggestions crammed into one. The first one isn't bad and it makes me think we should see how the game changes (were that one implemented) before introducing others.--Pesatyel 03:58, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 20 Keep, 6 Kill, 0 Spam/Dupe
  27. Keep - With the nerf to this skill, the search odds for syringes would need to be lowered to at least equal again. However, something must be done to keep zombies in the game, and this is mostly good, so I'm voting keep on it anyway.--Guardian of Nekops 04:15, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  28. Keep - We've reached the level of suckitude that prompted the strike, and a large part of that stems from the fact that survivor death is meaningless now. I had a character get killed at Caiger who was revived within four hours of my posting a revive request, and that was an unaffiliated survivor. Groups can stockpile syringes with no problem whatsoever now, and nobody cares about dying. Zombies end up penalized more from death due to actual AP (Headfuckingshot) loss, whereas with survivors the AP expenditure is distributed along a playerbase that triples the zombie playerbase. Combine this with routine abuse of revive alts, is it any wonder that the ratio is where it's at? Those who claim that this is sheerly a matter of lack of options for zombies miss out on the fact that if the prime zombie function, killing survivors, is rendered utterly meaningless, so is the class. So yes, this or something like this is desperately needed. Petrosjko 05:33, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  29. Keep - Fantastic. Frankly, now that revive boards are popping up, syringes SHOULD be harder to find since DNA Scanning has been nerfed slightly by the "tag a dead guy" policy some have. I like this, and it makes sense. You have my vote. --Dr. Fletch 06:08, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  30. Keep - Definitely for this. --Kibbs 06:56, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  31. Kill - I don't like it. There are already too many wasted syringes on brain rotters --EnForcer32 07:18, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  32. Keep - Keep this please. --Kasz 18:55, 15 March 2006 (AEST)
  33. Kill - This whole syringe "problem" is only apparent in a few well-populated and highly-trafficked neighborhoods. Go die out on the edge of the map sometime and see how many weeks it takes to get revived. Brain Rot is the cure for revive clinics. Just no. Bentley Foss 08:11, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • "Only apparent in a few well-populated and highly trafficked neighborhoods (read: where most players are.)" The lack of revives in those area is due to the lack of survivors to do it, not the lack of syringes. If anything, players on the edge will have plenty of syringes stocked up if they plan on reviving. The slow down of syringe finds wouldn't really affect them if there are less people around to be revived in the first place. --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:18, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  34. Keep - Desperately needed and possibly game-fixing. And, Enforcer32, that's what DNA scanning is for, and maybe you shouldn't rely so much on the all-powerful combat revive. Bentley Foss, my human alt keeps to the edge of the map and is always revived in less than a day. What are you bitching about? --Jack Destruct 08:33, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  35. Keep - Desperately needed, as Petrosjko said. --Abi79 13:00, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  36. Keep - Yes. --Gfuz 14:22, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  37. Kill - Your logic is broken. A player manufacturing 2 syringes per day doesn't equate to being able to revive 2 zeds every day for reasons too obvious and numerous to list. In addition, not all survivors have the skill to manufacture syringes or bother with it even if they do. As a side note, is there any public info on the number of players with any given skill - that'd be an interesting stat to see. Finally, this method would do nothing to encourage players to switch to playing zombies - it would simply make being killed as a survivor far more dull. --Cybrgrl 14:33, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • You want dull? Try breaching the same safehouse day after day, seeing the same humans that you killed the day before, and then killing them again only to see them the next day. And the next day. And the next day. It's extremely disheartening. Even if zombies don't gain any new allies from those they kill, at least there are less enemies. It's the same principle as headshot: taking out the enemy's AP pool. Each dead survivor is one less to barricade, one less to headshot us, one less to heal the wounded. We're not trying to make you join us, but we are trying to take you out of action long enough to make a difference. A player at a dedicated revive point filled with zombies manufacturing 2 syringes a day with 10AP left over to use them could easily revive two zombies a day. Keep in mind also that not all zombies get 1 kill a day, either. A 1:1 kill ratio in a horde breach in considered phenomenal. 2 or 3 kills for every 4 zombies is what it is like most times. If the humans aren't reviving faster than the zombies can kill, then why has the undead population dropped to its lowest point ever in recent weeks? And why did this trend start when NecroNet was introduced? Coincidence? --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:02, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - Hey, I play a dedicated zombie. I know how frustrating it is to break down barricades day after day, wasting much of my AP on empty buildings. I really like the Changes to Barricades suggestion bellow because it makes "life" a little better for zeds and a little more interesting for humans. However, I also play a somewhat reckless human and know what it is like to stand at a revive point for days because there just aren't enough syringes to go around for scientist to bother with anyone not in their faction. Making playing a human more onorous and dull is not the way to fix problems with playing a zombie. --Cybrgrl 22:59, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
        • Re - Excuse me. You're joking, right? This is the same idiot argument that BigT made. You're throwing a kill-vote on a damned good suggestion, potentially a game fixer, because YOU don't want to be inconvenienced? The fact that you get bored at revive points doesn't impress me, and I doubt it impresses any of the other zombies out there grinding away on the barricades. The solution to your problem is not a Kill vote on this suggestion. The solution to your problem is to stop playing your harman like a dope. Quite frankly, I will be damned if I'll keep playing a game where me fragging you for being sloppy is a bad thing. Get off of your high horse. This (potentially) minor inconvenience for you is a huge fix for us...and if and when we ditch because we're sick of not getting it, you can bet your ass you're gonna get "bored". To put it mathematically, your convenience < game balance. Undeadinator 00:13, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
  38. Keep - Death just isn't scary enough now. Timid Dan 14:56, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  39. Keep - But I don't think item 2 should be implemented. --WibbleBRAINS 16:55, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  40. kill - i dont like 3, but totally agree with 2, however until 3 is removed i cant vote keep--xbehave 17:06, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  41. Keep - The game is broken and this addresses one of the fundamental reasons why.--Mookiemookie 17:34, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 31 Keep, 10 Kill, 0 Spam/Dupe
  42. Keep - 20AP x 2 to manufacture 2 syringes, 1AP x 2 to revive 2 zombies = 42AP. That leaves 6 AP from the 48AP per day to move; as long as there are zombies within 3 spaces of the player, they can revive 2 zombies per day, Cybrgrl. As for this hurting bounty hunters: maybe, but look at it like this: it also hurts player killers. Instead of them being killed, getting revived, and coming back to get revenge, they have to wait a bit as well. — g026r 19:26, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  43. Keep - It does seem unreasonable that it is so comparatively easy to change a zombie into the living (a miracle in itself). And yet it is so hard to find and drop a zombie in combat unless you're tweaked to do so more easily. Seems fair to make the Necro Tech work harder for their pay stubs, who knows maybe they origional anti-zombie chem strain isn't working like it used to (increased tolerances), or the NT bases are running low on supplies having revived so many zombies.; MrAushvitz 14:26, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  44. Keep - --Electrocutioner 21:17, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  45. Keep - Any and all of the above would be a good change. --Beauxdeigh 21:41, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  46. Keep - I agree strongly with (2), mostly agree with (3), and agree with (1), but only if (3) is not implemented. I think that increasing it by 10AP is a bit heavy if there is also a lower success precentage for using syringes. However, the restricted rate of revivication is brilliant. BTW, will I find out that the zombie I'm trying to revive has already been revived is ineligible (author clarification) before or after I used a syringe? --Ralav 22:09, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  47. Keep - See above. --Lucero Capell 23:02, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  48. Kill - This is nothing but griefing survivors. Not every survivor uses syringes or even has that skill. Even if they do have it they rarely combat revive. 40 AP to create syringes and 10 AP to find a zombie close enough to rev it and then make it back into safety? Highly unlikely. Saromu 23:26, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Nothing but grief survivors? Excuse me, have you looked at the stats page lately? Zombies are outnumbered almost 2 to 1. What's this "rarely combat revive" bullshit? I'd like to introduce you to some zombies. They can tell you how often it happens to them. And considering that many revive points are adjacent to NT buildings, it would only take 5AP to revive a zombie. One to step outside, one to move to the next block, one to revive it, one to go back to the NT block, and one more to go back in. That leaves 3-5 AP left over, depending on your playing schedule. --TheTeeHeeMonster 00:10, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
      • 4 AP. One to click on the adjacent square, screw leaving the building manually. Also, I hate to just re-post TeeHee, but: RARELY COMBAT REVIVE? I pray for your soul. Undeadinator 00:22, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
        • Did you forget having to search for a building at VS to get in? I wouldn't sleep in a NT building at VS, especially with zombies outside of it. The most I've ever revived in a day was 4. And that was after 2 days of manufacturing syringes and then the third day going out to find zombies. Saromu 03:07, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
  49. Keep - with the one exception that I'd say revival should be "no more than once per 24 hours" instead of every two days, using essentially the same engine that limits how often a zombie can be sampled --Elderdan 00:25, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
  50. Keep - As a person who plays both sides.. this is badly needed... Anywah alot of zombieifed survivors end up standing in a revive spot for over a day anyway so why worry? --Technerd 00:55, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
  51. Keep - Nice idea, I like the explanations a lot. --Omega2Talk 13:07, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 40 Keep, 11 Kill, 0 Spam/Dupe
  52. Keep - I have one in each character class, and I'd say this is definitely needed to address the (im)balance. --Motogrrl 20:23, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
  53. Kill - I like this idea a lot. However, I think its a bit much, the fail percent or the increased cost, would be great, together, I think it might be overkill, maybe not though.. -Banana Bear4 01:35, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
  54. Kill - It's main effect is that it will increase Mrh? cows. And to be honest, I don't think that zombies without brainrot get to complain about combat revives. buy it or suck it up, don't try to have the best of both sides and get all pissy when there are disadvantages to that.--Vista W! 15:56, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
  55. Kill - Forcing players to be zombies isn't gonna help the zombies. They'll just sit around and wait for two days to be revived. Dickus Maximus 18:11, 27 March 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 41 Keep, 14 Kill, 0 Spam 21:25, 31 March 2006 (BST)

Flare Bomb

Timestamp: 52:47, Wednesday, March 15th, 2006 (GMT)
Type: Zombie Hunter skill
Scope: zombie hunters
Description: This skill would go under the zombie hunter skill tree

This skill would allow a zombie hunter with less than 15 health, a fuel can in their inventory, and a flare gun in their inventory to douse zombie in gas, then fire the flare gun wildly. A hit with this skill would set the zombie on fire, subtracting 2 damage every turn taken after the initial hit. The zombie could, however, put the flames out without suffering any damage. This turn taken to put ut the fire would give the zombie hunter time to run away.

To balance the effects of this, the flare could lose x amount of accuracy, explained by the panicked state in which the flare gun is fired.It's use as a common weapon would also be negated by the need for less than 15 health to be remaining.

I am certainly open to changes to this, and if I see some good ones, I will re submit it with them included at a later date

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Votes

  1. Keep- (author vote) I think it could add a useful new zombie hunter skill, and neat new uses for flareguns and fuel cans Vote not signed. remove strikout when you include your signature. --Grim s 01:15, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Too complicated overpowered, zombie hunters don't need infection when they have headshot--Mpaturet 01:05, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - So let me get this straight, you need to have less than 15 health, a fuel can, and then you need to hit them with a flare gun, the most worthless gun in the game, at a reduced chance to hit? It would cost an average of about a million AP to score a hit. --Zaruthustra-Mod 01:13, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Humans do not need an infection analogue. --Grim s 01:15, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - The prerequisites for use are so specific that it would make actually HITTING with it a rarity. And grim is right. Humans don't need an infection analogue.--Mookiemookie 01:23, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - What they all said --McArrowni 01:27, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Hah. Hah. Really though, what's your suggestion.Undeadinator 01:30, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill I'd like to point out that you don't need time to run away. You can instantly escape attacks with a single click. --Jon Pyre 01:37, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - This suggestion seems almost silly enough to merit a spamming. Who would use it, anyways? Why not just run? There's nothing keeping you from it, so there's no need to "buy time"--especially when you waste time in doing this. Lastly... Survivors don't need more skills and perks. Zombies do.--Wifey 01:43, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Spam - No, it IS silly enough to merit a spam vote. --Cinnibar 01:59, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Spam -- It really is silly enough to merit a spam vote. And then some. furtim 02:14, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Spam - This game is usually not real-time, and as previously mentioned, you don't need to distract a zombie to escape. Given that, this is extremely contrived to the point of silliness. --ism 02:21, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Spam - I'm not even going to dignify this with a reason. You know why I'm voting spam. - CthulhuFhtagn 02:58, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Spam - What the frak? This is even stupider than the wirecutter suggestion above. Why only less than 15HP? And if you're that low on HP, wouldn't you be better off trying to get away to someplace safer? If the Zombie is low enough on HP for this to matter, you'd be better off just shooting them anyway - especially if you have less than a 15% chance of it even working! --Norcross 03:13, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - Do people even check to make sure they're using the template correctly anymore? Next time preview it first. Personally I just don't like the skill, hence, kill. Velkrin 03:50, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - See the various above votes. Bentley Foss 08:15, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  17. Spam - Just silly Timid Dan 14:58, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  18. Spam - So its.. Infection? But with a 15 Hp req? NO INFECTION FOR SURVIVORS! --Jak Rhee 16:22, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  19. Spam - Silly and complicated infection analogue, that some guy wants to implement just so he can say "Har har, burn in hell, zombie!" --WibbleBRAINS 17:00, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  20. Kill - Author vote. --Jordan "Boxman" Walsh. Thank you for your suggestions and comments, i appreciate the flaws that you pointed out in the idea, the more calm and sensible of which convinced me that it was not as good an idea as i thought when I originally thouht of it, but i will say that I do not appreciate the comments on my personal intelligence and on my amateur use of the template which had nothing to do with the idea itself. Anyone else who reads this do not bother to vote, the community has made it's opinion clear, so far as i can see.
  21. Spam - This is such spam it makes me mad. RRRH! -Banana Bear4 01:38, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 0 Keep, 11 Kill, 9 Spam 21:25, 31 March 2006 (BST)

Propaganda

Timestamp: 01:44, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Building use
Scope: Survivors in powered libraries
Description: I love the idea of giving every building type its own particular purpose. I've been thinking for a while about what purpose the libraries of Malton could possibly serve. Here's what I propose.

When inside a library with a running generator, the survivor player has the option to "Print Paper." (Libraries often do have copiers and printers on hand, for various uses. My university library was actually one of the primary places on-campus for printing essays and assignments.) What gets printed? Whatever the player wants -- a large text field next to the Print Paper button will permit any ASCII input up to a 1000 characters (about two paragraphs).

After printing, you'll now have a new item in your inventory -- "First few words" (10), which takes up one block of space. "First few words" means that the first 15 characters or so of what you printed will appear in the item button. If you ever need to check the full contents, you can click on the item to read the entire printout. You get 10 copies.

What do you do with these? Hand them out to other players. A pair of pulldowns will show up to allow this transaction: Give [this printout] to [this player]. Yes, this is a "givable" item, but its whole purpose is to be handed out. When you give a printout to another player, it's automatically added to their inventory without any interaction from them. However, you can only give one printout to any particular survivor per day, to prevent griefing through inventory overloading.

Once your recipient has your printout, she can read it by clicking on it in her inventory.

I see a number of possible purposes for this feature:

  • Spreading the word about your group
  • Spreading the word about the suburb's barricade plan
  • Distributing concise game tips to new players
  • Delivering a message in secret -- only the recipient sees it
  • Creating fake newspapers for fun ("CAIGER SURVIVORS PREFER CREW SWEATERS TO TRENCHCOATS, SURVEY SAYS")

and probably many uses that others will come up with which I can't foresee.

I'm honestly not sure how useful this would be. But I like the idea of libraries being used for something, and printing literature seems as thematically appropriate as anything.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote. I'd be interested to see how this would be used. --John Ember 01:51, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - I get enough spam in my email. I do not want spam in my inventory, too. Dropping it all would take too long. Perhaps if, instead, you could post them on buildings (thus making it like a second spray tag, but longer. You hit a button on the building description to read it, and it is always replaced by the latest flyer to be put up), I would be inclined to give this one a "Keep".--Wifey 01:53, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Something about this idea is just incredibly appealing to me. It's a useful game tool, it gives libraries some actual purpose (1 XP for books = Go to hell) and quite frankly it's just cool. Also: you're not obliged to read any of it, it takes you maybe two seconds and no AP to drop it, and I don't think it would be very hard to add a "post" function to it as well. Gives Malton some well-needed variety. Undeadinator 02:00, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - I agree with Wifey. --Certified=Insane 04:07, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill/Change - I like this idea, but maybe each survivor can only have one or they all go into one button. A few changes and you'll get a keep from me.- Monkeylord 02:59, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - I don't like the idea of "givable" items. The concept is interesting, though - maybe you could replace newspapers with "leaflets", with the contents being chosen randomly from among the last X number of "propaganda" pieces that had been printed in that suburb or something? I just don't like the implementation of this suggestion. --Norcross 03:18, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - I like the idea... the only thing you would make sure to change is that it doesnt take up an inventory space and you could check off boxes and hit one "throw away" button that would trash the selected papers. --TheBigT 03:28, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - I dislike it, as it would require IP hits to drop them afterwards. Just plain annoying. --McArrowni 03:46, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - needing to drop spam is bad for your IP. However, if you dropped the propaganda on the floor, so it showed up with the first few characters, and allowed other characters the option of picking it up to read, I would Keep. -Oppenharpo 10:26, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - When I start getting religious tracts in UD, I know its gone from zombie apocolypse to a real life simulator.--Mookiemookie 12:24, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - Great, my survivors would love to logon in the morning and find his rucksack stuffed with ASCII goatse images, links to viagra websites, and SURE FIRE MONEY-MAKING IDEAS!... --WibbleBRAINS 17:08, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - I don't understand what entity is supposed to be producing this spam. If we don't have spraypaint messages advertising viagra and such now, why we would start having spam because players can hand out messages? There's no way to automate this process, it's too complicated (generator, fuel, find a library, find a recipient). This objection is just paranoid. --John Ember 17:28, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. keep - Its a good idea, not sure about the mecanics of it, i hope the libraries need to be powered--xbehave 17:12, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 4 Keep, 8 Kill, 0 Spam 21:23, 31 March 2006 (BST)

Burrowing

Spaminated with 10 Spam votes, and 1 Kill. Bypass barricades? The people think not. Velkrin 03:42, 15 March 2006 (GMT)


Construction tweak to remove grief factor

Timestamp: 01:52, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: improvement, removal of greifer use of the construction skill
Scope: Griefers
Description: There is a major problem with the construction skill (Hell, there are a lot of problems, but this is one of the bigger ones), and that is the griefer tactic of barricade strafing. Personally, i have no problem with someone setting up a dummy barricade to distract an attacking horde, but strafing suburbs building barricades to heavy on empty building after empty building is just complete and utter greifing of zombie players (Many of whom quit the game after a short period of enduring this crap, and given the complete mess the zombie population is in AGAIN this just cant stand). As such i propose a 60% chance of failure when barricading an empty building (Empty being defined as no other humans present) and the complete inability to barricade an empty building with zombies in it. This doesnt prevent people from constructing a dummy barricade with a little patience, but it does stop trenchcoaters from wandering into a devestated area and building four or five buildings to heavy each, before running away, resting, then coming back the next day to do it again.

It is explained RP wise by explaining that people have a hard time creating a solid barricade without help moving and placing the gear into position. As such it takes more effort to build one alone.

For the zombie thing: You are in a building surrounded by zombies, are you really going to be able to put in the time and effort to build a barricade without other people to distract them?

It is important to note that this does not make it any harder to do anything else, just harder to greif zombie players, many of whom have been getting the short end of the greif stick for many months. Also, it merely lowers the chance to succeed to be on par with a fireaxes hit rate when you have all the skills for it. Once there is another person, the barricade rates are returned to normal. This also doesnt prevent the barricading of buildings with zombies in them if there are other people present. This is an attempt to disable the griefer use of the skill without removing the "good" points of it.

Votes

  1. Keep - At first, reading through this, Iwas tempted to give it a "Kill." Then I finished reading. Not a bad idea, and it does make a little IC sense.--Wifey 02:03, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - I like it. Makes sense IRL and it helps fix a recurring problem --Meanest 02:11, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - On first thought i too was gonna vote kill, but as i read through i realised this made sense. --Certified=Insane 04:11, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - My god, this is perhaps the solution to all of my prayers. Next up: making it so that I don't need to spend 40 AP to rip apart a bunch of toasters. Undeadinator 02:15, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - I guess this will actually help wandering survivors too, as noted below. --John Ember 02:17, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep -- Doesn't change the situations where barricading is really important (i.e., sieges), but it makes barricade spamming more difficult. This benefits both sides, since survivors should run into the "HOLY CRAP 2 AP AND ALL EHB" problem a lot less often if this goes through. furtim 02:20, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - I like it. Makes it much more difficult to secure areas with many active zombies. --Sindai 02:43, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - Although all it needs to beat this is for two people to move around all the buildings working together --Private Chineselegolas RAF 02:44, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - Yes, just yes - Monkeylord 03:05, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - Author vote... Cant believe i forgot to vote. --Grim s 03:16, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - After the first few sentences I was pretty sure this would be another "kill", but it actually does make sense. --Norcross 03:24, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - I know I have a reputation here of being ridiculously anti-zombie, but hear me out. 60% success rate isn't what I'm concerned about, it's the automatic failure for zombie presence that I simply can't agree with. That alone would allow the undead to steamroll over anywhere they go. Let's take Caiger Mall right now, for instance. If the barricades are broken, the survivors inside have a reduced chance to barricade the building again before a zombie gets in. If they do, then hey, close call and nothing changes. But if a zombie gets in, then they have to kill it off before rebuilding the 'cades. While they're busy with the lone rot, more come in. And more. The undead are coming in faster than the humans can kill them. Soon, the mall is overrun with zombies. Humans lose. They never stood a chance. While that makes a great scene for a movie, and yeah, it IS in-genre, it sucks all of the fun out of a game by taking the balance out. --Arcibi 03:32, 15 March 2006 (GMT) I could have sworn that paragraph wasn't there when I voted on this. At any rate, vote retracted. --Arcibi 04:23, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Right, because the current scenario of a handful of zombies making it in before the 'cades go back up, and then getting instantly torn apart, is great fun for both sides. --John Ember 03:39, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - the current system isn't perfect either, but this just takes the problem and reverses it in favor of zombie players. I know zombies supposedly have it rough, but playing the game shouldn't be a chore, for either side. --Arcibi 03:51, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
        • Re - Arcibi, the change has absolutely no effect on existing inhabited buildings. If there is another human present in the building then its normal barricade mechanics. This only affects buildings where the barricader is the only human in the building. As such, i can only conclude that you did not, in fact, read the suggestion. Your entire reasoning behind killing this is about something this suggestion doesnt affect. --Grim s 03:55, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - God yes. --Jorm 03:41, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - Makes it harder to get away with barricade and flee tactics, and it doesn't affect sieges. Sounds fine. Velkrin 03:45, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - Would the "help" person have to have Construction as well AND "help" construct? Doesn't make a lot of sense that I walk into a building with one other guy spend all my AP searching then leave and the guy is able to barricade merely because of my presense. I'd think it would be the OPPOSITE. The more people inside (sleeping and all) the harder it would be to move furniture around. As for the zombies part, the survivor has the choice of barricading or fighting. Why should he be precluded from making that choice? If he wants to barricade then he isn't "defending" himself from zombies that might attack him. Not to mention the second half is a Dupe that didn't go over well.-Pesatyel 04:32, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - neat. --Cinnibar 04:51, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  17. Keep - I'd prefer decaying barricades, but this would be nice as well. Petrosjko 05:39, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  18. kill - i like hte idea of it being harder to baricade in an empty building but i hate the idea of it being impossible to barricade a building with zombies in it. I personally would try to prevent more zombies from getting in if i could. --User:ericblinsley 05:41, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: It doesn't make it impossible to barricade if a zombie's inside, unless there are no other humans in there. Frankly, I think I'd be hard-pressed to make a wall if someone were chewing on me, but that's just a personal weakness, I suppose. --Dr. Fletch 06:11, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep - Well thought out, and more than welcome. --Dr. Fletch 06:11, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep / Change - Needs work. What happens if TWO survivors walk into the building (coordinated strafing run with a friend)? Does he get a 100% barricade rate? Does he get to barricade with zombies inside? I also think survivors should not be penalised for barricading empty buildings (though I agree with the barricade penalty when zombies are inside). Over all, a decent suggestion; but I think it's turned a few wheels in my head. I'll put it in as a seperate suggestion. --Siddhant 06:44, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  21. KILL You do realize that individual survivors sometimes take shelter by themselves? These people shouldn't have trouble barricading a building. This would just encourage every survivor in the game to huddle together in Caiger Mall. Humans aren't always in groups. If I'm out exploring an area and need to barricade a shelter for myself I shouldn't be unable to. Skills allow players to be self-sufficient. They shouldn't be turned off or weakened just because I don't have buddies nearby. A better solution would be to just suggest that barricades be a bit easier to destroy if the building is empty. --Jon Pyre 06:45, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - um... It isnt impossible for a survivor, sheltering by himself to build a barricade, just more difficult. Also, making barricades easier to knock down if the building is empty does nothing to solve the problem and stop the griefy barricade strafing from happening, all it does it make it a bit easier to get into an empty building. In short, your alternative does fuck all to solve the problem i am proposing to solve, and your reason for killing falls flat on its face. --Grim s 12:40, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Jon, I originally had the same concern, until I realized this actually helps newbie survivors by making it more likely they'll find a safehouse they're able to enter -- because fewer buildings will be empty structures maintained at impassible barricade levels. --John Ember 14:57, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re The answer to distributed defense is Feeding Groan. 10 buildings are broken into to. 4 are occupied. The zombies groan and now everyone knows where the humans are. Besides, I don't need help pushing a shelf in front of a door. Help from other people is that they barricade too, not that they assist with your own barricading in some way. This opens the door to some other automatic assistance skills like for instance "Distract Zombie" a skill that makes zombies have a lower chance of attacking you if another person is there because they'll distract the zombie to help you escape. Not a good idea. --Jon Pyre 16:54, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - I like this alot. --Kibbs 07:16, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  23. Kill - See Joh Pyre's comment. Better yet, just leave barricades alone. Bentley Foss 08:20, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  24. Keep - Though I sympathise with Jon Pyre, any reduction in unnecessary barricading is good for both Zs and n00bs. However, I think that suggestion from a while back about barricades decreasing over time if not maintained was the better suggestion, though harder to code (too lazy to search for it) -Oppenharpo 10:31, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  25. Keep - Less grief = more good. --Mookiemookie 12:19, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  26. Kill - What Jon Pyre said. --mikm W! 12:27, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  27. Kill - What Jon said. --Abi79 13:07, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  28. Kill - Why would barricading be harder in an empty building? There is no logical reason. To fix the problem of barricaded empty buildings give zeds a skill to sense humans inside. --Cybrgrl 14:38, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - You evidently didnt read the suggestion then, because i said: It is explained RP wise by explaining that people have a hard time creating a solid barricade without help moving and placing the gear into position. As such it takes more effort to build one alone. Sheesh. --Grim s 14:51, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - So, all those sleeping players are helping to barricade? How many AP are they spending to help move furniture? Sorry, it doesn't fit with the game dynamics. Sheesh, yourself, buddy. --Cybrgrl 19:22, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  29. Keep - I may be an idiot, but I recognize a good idea when I see one. Timid Dan 15:00, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  30. Keep - RP-wise makes sense, and helps balance the game a little mroe. --Pinpoint 15:35, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  31. Keep / Change - Needs work. I agree with Siddhant's statement. Siddhant summed it up, so I don't feel this will work in the long run. --Jacquie 15:48, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  32. Keep - Like Petrosjko, I'd prefer a suggestion where 'cades on empty buildings decay over time, but this'll do for now. --WibbleBRAINS 17:15, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  33. Kill - While I'd support some sort of barricade improvement, I just think this is too drastic. — g026r 19:26, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  34. Keep - well done! - Nicks 21:06, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  35. Keep - My interpretation of why constructing a barricade by yourself would suck would be a bit different. But although I would agree for different reasons I agree with this suggestion because ultimately it produces the same results. It IS hard to construct barricades by yourself (you can do it but 2 people can put the boards up better, faster, and more accurately, unless you're a 20+ year contractor in which case you have a fully loaded truck with tools that save you from needing anyone else, too often). But I agree, constructing a barricade with zombies outside just AIN'T easy, you've seen the movies, they keep trying to poke a head in the window, steal your hammer, eat your nails, throw your hammer back in through a different window, pain in the A$$. I agree it would be nice to see barricades where they belong, on buildings that have sufficient survivor #'s to maintain them, that way zombies can be out and about thrashing barricades that don't belong until they hit a building that is being fixed. - MrAushvitz 14:06, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  36. Keep - maybe a little tweaking, but good. 343 21:24, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  37. Keep - I'm not wholesale in love with it, but it's the best suggestion thus far. --Beauxdeigh 21:57, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  38. Keep - Love, love, LOVE this idea. Perhaps it could be somewhat offset by a new human skill to slightly improve the chances to baricade an empty building. But this idea works excellently on it's own, both from a RP and game mechanic sandpoint. --Bonham 23:18, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  39. Kill - Why would it be harder to barricade without other people in it? Unless you use the people as part of the barricade. Until then this idea is worthless. Saromu 23:32, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  40. Keep - So it helps noobs and zombies and only hurts Griefers. I fail to see the downside to this one. oh and difficulty puting them is a much better idea than makeing them weaker or easyer to take down. the only thing I would add is increaseing difficulty for higher barricade lvls. and maby a skill under construction to help ofset the increase (Engenering?) --I see dead people 22:08, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 29 Keeps, 10 Kills, 0 Spam/Dupe, 1 invalid
  41. Kill - GRIEFING?, if you say that word about Pk'ers like that you get flamed, but a soon as it kind of hinders zombies it is griefing? grow up really. go to a suburb that is more populated. the only time I get across dummy barricading is in ridleybank, and yeah I take them down anyway knowing fully that there are no survivors inside. sorry but this just a whiney little diatrade. so what if barricading is the only viabable survivor defence? they need at least one tactic that works. grow up. just boost the zombie side if you think it is over powered, don't nerf the otherside.--Vista W! 16:09, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
  42. Kill - So, in other words, if you're trying to clear a building and there's zombies in it, you can't do a thing to keep them from coming back in until every single one has been killed? Sure Ignatius Newcastle 19:41, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  43. Kill - Ah, so the RRF couldn't handle Candyland, so you make a suggestion not being able to barricade empty buildings? How about we just move in pairs of two them? Will it still be "griefing" to you? --YuriRuler90 07:52, 26 March 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 30 Keep, 13 Kill, 0 Spam 21:23, 31 March 2006 (BST)

Mentoring

Timestamp: 03:39, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors in powered schools
Description: I love the idea of giving obscure buildings special uses. While inside schools powered by generators, survivors with lots of XP banked and the "Mentoring" skill will have the option to "teach" other survivors. Mentoring is found in the Civilian skill tree. Here's how it works.

The "mentor" survivor accesses a pulldown to specify: Teach [this player]. 40 XP is then deducted from the "mentor's" record and transferred to the "student" at a rate of 1/10th the value. That is to say, the mentor's 40 XP becomes 4 XP when transferred to the student. This represents that while learning from another is valuable, it still doesn't quite compare to first-hand experience. The mentor may do this no more than 5 times for any particular student, period. Once the mentor has "taught" the student 5 times, that's it. He's taught him everything he can. At the same time, the student can learn no more from any mentor until the next Urban Dead day begins. That is to say, no more than 20 XP per day can be gained in this manner, and no more than 20 XP per lifetime can be gained from any one mentor.

Every Teach action costs 1 AP. Thus, it takes 5 AP to teach one student 20 XP worth of knowledge.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote. --John Ember 03:39, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - I DO like the idea, but it is so easily open to abuse/zerging, isn't it? What about a % chance the student doesn't learn anything, similar to reading a book (though not THAT low)? It just seems a little too easy to get XP otherwise.--Pesatyel 04:36, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - It's not open to zerging at all, because each of your characters can only teach the others 20 XP max. There may be reasons to Kill this suggestion, but I don't think abuse is one of them. --John Ember 14:48, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - what pesatyel said, plus i dont want to get hit with spam such as, teach me teach me please, the idea has potential needs a little work though, i do like the xp cap..--User:ericblinsley 04:48, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - My gut reaction, at first, was to vote "Kill." Then I read some more, saw the cap, and thought, "Keep." Then you said it will cost only 1 AP, and I dropped down to "Kill" again. Change it to a cap of at least 5 AP, and I'll give my vote. I think 10 might be better, though.
  5. Kill Players should have to play to earn xp. I don't want people to spend all their time in schools going "lvl me up pls". --Jon Pyre 06:41, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - I just don't like it. There just doesn't seem to be much use. 20 XP for free per day is not my thing. Bentley Foss 08:23, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - I wasn't sure at first, but I think I like it. A 1:10 ratio is going to deplete even the most aged player pretty quickly; that's 1000 XP to train a single person for a single level. I don't see that as very zerg-friendly, especially compared to something like cooperative PKing. 20 XP per day is less than most low-level characters could get for a day's work anyway. 20 lifetime per mentor makes it pretty zerg-proof. This would give bored high-levellers something to do. -Oppenharpo 11:56, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - This way I could be able to make some more characters, teach them and have an army of Abi's hehehe. --Abi79 13:09, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - It's not open to zerging at all, because each of your characters can only teach the others 20 XP max. --John Ember 14:48, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - Gives schools a use, gives a use for extra XP saved by high-levels, isn't open to abuse, gives a useful Civilian skill, what's not to like? Logically, the student should have to spend AP, but that would make it complicated to avoid using up someone else's AP, so even that's not so bad. --Norcross 18:20, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - Sure, there's a cap per mentor, but I'm not a fan of 'free' XP. (Yes, it subtracts from the other player, but there are high-level survivors with thousands of XP bankrolled. To them, it's virtually not costing a thing to give someone some free XP.) Besides, I don't think survivors currently need another XP mechanism at this point. — g026r 19:30, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - Gives me something else to do! - Nicks 21:12, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - Hmm, newbies can go to powered schools and the local high level zombie hunter "sensei" can bestow blessings and many painful a$$-whooping teachings to the student. It's not so easy at it seems per se, you gotta go to some school and probably ask if someone there is willing to teach you, might be some begging but if someone needs only let's say 15 XP to level, what the hell. It's a real useful tactic to get newbies to join your faction (by giving them something they can use).. I'd say it should cost AP for the student to "learn" the lesson but something tells me that would be a programming nightmare. It's safer to say the student learns because they are there when the teacher spend the AP and XP to do the teaching. Besides, it adds to the movie element, and who knows, if retirement is permitted for the most insanely high level chars, why should we not all listen to what Massa Yoda "He-Who-Speaks-With-Buckshot" has to say? - MrAushvitz 14:30, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - I'm against XP gifts that you yourself did not earn.--Mookiemookie 21:32, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - What MookieMookie said --McArrowni 15:16, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill -Xp should be earned not given--Vista W! 18:26, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 5 Keep, 10 Kill, 0 Spam 21:20, 31 March 2006 (BST)

Scent Infection

Timestamp: 04:00, 15 march 2006 (GMT)
Type: Zombie Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: *Prerequisites: scent blood.
  • Story element:

The zombies sense's have become more accurate in detecting fresh and unspoiled blood. Now any infected human has the letter "I" next to their name.

  • What it does:

Simply put this allows zombies to detect fresh or uninfected humans from infected humans. This should hopefully then make infectious bite more useful and allow zombies to infect more humans with out biting previously bitten humans or allowing them to target infected humans for death. Infected humans are shown as "infected" in room descriptions, and have the letter "I" next to their name on the map.

  • clarification:

do you think this should cross over? i have no problem with it. also the "I" could be something else like italised letters. whatever would work best.

Votes

  1. Keep - I was tempted to vote kill, but that's because this suggestion is so good I was sure that something was wrong with it. --Cinnibar 04:23, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - Simple enough.--Pesatyel 04:40, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - I like it. Very clearly and concisely explained. Good job.--Wifey 05:07, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - I do like this, thus the keep vote. I'm curious, though: if revived, would one keep this skill as a survivor? I only ask because if zombies get Diagnosis, this would SERIOUSLY aid medics at times. --Dr. Fletch 06:17, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep Heck, it should be a crossover skill. Say that the zombification the revived survivor once had left them with slightly improved senses. This is a good skill idea but only if both the infectors and the healers get it. --Jon Pyre 06:39, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - It should not be a crossover skill, however. --Grim s 07:36, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - I was actually going to suggest this last night, ah well. I was thinking however of the infected having their names in italics in room descriptions rather than more writing on screen, thoughts? Blue Wild Angel 08:55, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - I like it and have wanted this for a long time--Mookiemookie 12:29, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - I love it. --Basher 13:09, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - This would indeed be useful, for both sides. --John Ember 14:37, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - Smells like a good idea if it's zombie-only. Timid Dan 15:05, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - Okay on the crossover element too, as there are so many FAK-peddlers out there anyway that it wouldn't make a difference. --WibbleBRAINS 17:19, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - Works for me -- Norminator 2 18:19, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - Useful for Zombies, and gives a reason to get "Scent Blood" instead of just getting Diagnosis. I would prefer for it not to be a cross-over skill, though (but then, I don't think Diagnosis should be cross-over, either). --Norcross 18:22, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - I agree that this shouldn't be a cross-over skill. (And yes, I also think Diagnosis shouldn't be cross-over.) — g026r 19:31, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - I like this idea. It is simple and has a point. --Jacquie 20:02, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  17. Keep - Great idea! - Nicks 21:13, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - Makes perfect sense to me, zombies get that hunter sense of smell, and blood is their #1 source of information. Everybody gets a bite and everybody gets some infection. I like it because it gives a zombie a reason to bite multiple survivors with what little AP they have left when they make it inside a building.. and by all means, enjoy yourself, it's miller time! - MrAushvitz 14:06, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep - Sure, make us all agree on something, why don't you. --Ralav 21:56, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - Wish it didn't have to be a separate skill, and it definitely should not be cross-over, but it sounds good. --Beauxdeigh 22:04, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep - Simple and useful. I don't think it should cross-over. --Cannibalcomfort 00:17, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
  22. Kill - Because I hate zombies and don't want them playing this game. Hah! I crack me up. Seriously though, Keep this hardcore. Undeadinator 00:30, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
  23. Keep - It should be a cross overskill, the zombie side is light on cross overskills. If we're going to have cross-overskills we should as least try to make both sides equally attractive through it. I see no reason to withhold it from survivors as most of the time this will have limited benefit for them--Vista W! 18:16, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 23 Keeps, 0 Kills, 0 Spam/Dupe, 0 invalid

A Simpler Form Of Redistribute Ammo

Timestamp: 07:17, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Survivors
Description: Currently clicking on a gun in your inventory costs an AP and doesn't do anything. I propose giving these buttons the function that the suggestion "Redistribute Ammo" put forth as a new button: moving your already loaded ammunition into as few guns as possible. In addition it should move these guns together to the beginning of your inventory to make it easier to keep track of them. So if you had 4 pistol with eight bullets spread between them and clicked on any pistol the beginning of your inventory would looking like this: Pistol (6) Pistol (2) Pistol (0) Pistol (0). If you clicked on a shotgun it'd do the same thing for your shotguns. It'd cost 1 AP. This would not load shells and clips into guns, it'd only redistribute already loaded ammunition to make your inventory more efficient.

Votes

  1. Keep - sorry, nearly duped you until I realised what you were trying to say. Please link to the peer reviewed item you are improving, for the sake of those who may not have seen it: Peer_Reviewed_Suggestions#Redistribute_Ammunition. -Oppenharpo 10:42, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - I am against that: Peer_Reviewed_Suggestions#Redistribute_Ammunition and I am against the current suggestion. One of the drawbacks of having these powerful weapons is to handle the ammunition. In addition, pistol bullets are delivered in clips, as it is, so you'd have to frickle all the single bullets out of the half-loaded clips and back into others? For 1 AP? No. -Gfuz 15:40, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re AP Is Not A Unit Of Time. It is a representation of the value of a player's actions. Erecting a barricade by shoving a big heavy object against the door and speaking would logically take different amounts of time but both cost 1AP. The value provided by this suggestion isn't that much. It'd just change Pistol (3) Pistol (1) Pistol (6) to Pistol (6), Pistol (4), Pistol (0). They aren't getting more powerful attacks or getting more ammunition, they've already spent 1AP loaded each clip of ammunition, and AP finding the ammunition. --Jon Pyre 16:20, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re Yes, I have heard about that 'AP Is Not A Unit Of Time'. But, correct me if I am wrong, nevertheless redistributing your ammo Is an AP advantage. At least if it comes to a fight, and you don't need reloading during the fight, but can prepare this case by redistribute the remaining ammo before a fight. I don't think that this AP advantage is justified, or even necessary. If you insist on the possibility to do this, then let it cost 1 AP per affected gun. Gfuz 19:53, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Just diffrent enough to avoid a dupe, but no point having doubles. Velkrin 17:51, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 1 Keep, 2 Kill, 0 Spam 21:19, 31 March 2006 (BST)

Changes to Barricades

Timestamp: 07:29, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Balance Changes
Scope: Zombies and Humans
Description: As identified above, the problems with barricading are :

(1) Barricading with Zombies inside (no humans) : If a zombie is the most inactive character in the building (Similar to Survivors being at the top of the list), all Human actions except Attacking, Movement, Dropping and Speech will take 2 more AP. This will solve the Freerun Barricade sniping problem and give a way for zombies to "hold" buildings. Of course, if humans want to reclaim the building, it'd be a matter of evicting the resident zombie and then barricading up.

(2) Zombies inside buildings : If a zombie happens to be inside a building, his chance to crumble barricades is 1.5 times normal. This is in essence, a way for zombies to dent the ridiculous "Barricade, Heal then Shoot" used at sieges, and to reward the zombies who did make it through to help them let others join. (it also makes sense from the RP point of view ... Human puts a cabinet in front of a door, Zombie smashes the cabinet)

(3) Barricading and leaving the building empty (or with zombies inside) : If a building does not have any humans in it (dummy barricades), the chance to collapse the barricades for everybody doubles (This will allow newbies trapped outside an EHB empty building to make it to safety). This stacks with the Zombies inside buildings bonus.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author Vote --Siddhant 07:29, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - It's powerful, but not over powered just look at the ratio to see that this is needed, --Bermudez 07:34, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Doesn't hurt barricades at all when used for their original purpose, but prevents them from being treated as a hammer and every problem really is a nail. Might want to clarify point 2 so that it's clear that the "upgraded" chance to break barricades is 30-37%, not 70-75%. It could be misread that way. --TheHermit 07:39, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - agree w/above. --Jorm 07:46, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - I like, keep it please. --Kasz 18:59, 15 March 2006 (AEST)
  6. Keep - Doesn't stop survivors from protecting themselves how they do currently, but it makes dummy 'cades less efficient, which makes a whole lot of sense --David Suzuki 07:58, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Whee! Let's remove the one survivor tactic that can actually convince a horde to move out of a neighborhood! No. Stop it. Bentley Foss 08:25, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Wait... Barricades are supposed to make a horde go away? What is this "tactic" are you talking about? The "If you cant see them, they'll go away" aka "head in the sand" tactic? I find your lack of logic intriguing, and your reason for kill voting rather unfounded. --Siddhant 09:13, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - What they said. --Basher 11:09, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - dummy barricades are the best survival tactics ever. While zeds breaking in empty buildings, you can rest somewhere esle in safety --EnForcer32 11:57, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - So you want a so called Zombie Apocalypse where you never see any zombies, except when you decide to take a step out of your invulnerable retirement home and shoot them like fish in a barrel? A strange apocalypse, indeed. --Siddhant 12:33, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re Everything is right. In real life, would you try to survive, or to be a hero-zombie smahser? --EnForcer32 16:00, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - 1. So why does an inactive zombie cause barricading and healing to cost 3AP instead of 1AP? 2. Barricade --> Heal --> Shoot is necessary for seiges. If we let the barricades stay down, more zombies come in. 3. Newbies shouldn't be taking down 'cades to get into a building anyways (especially because they don't know if it is occupied or not). They should just look for a VSB building. --mikm W! 12:41, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - "Excuse me, Mr Zombie; care to step aside while we put this cabinet against the door? No? Thank you!" See how absurd that sounds? You need the extra AP because you're going all sneaky like, trying not to get the attention of the zombie in question. Since a blanket Barricade weaking (Ie. increasing hit %) is viewed as highly imbalancing, this takes care of griefing. I see you are a griefer too. Your point (3) illustrated it perfectly. Thank you for your bias. --Siddhant 12:56, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re Explain to me how I am a greifer for freerunning into an EHB building. Note that I freerun into it, meaning I must enter a VSB (or less) building somewhere close. I am all for keeping numerous VSB buildings (for freerunners and otherwise). I just don't think that EVERY building should be VSB. --mikm W! 13:18, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
        • Re I quote "Newbies shouldn't be taking down 'cades to get into a building anyways". So newbies should stay out in the streets and get eaten? That's griefing, my friend. Barricade sniping is also a despicable tactic that is widely considered griefing, and you're guilty of that, too. And finally, EHB'ing all jumping points to grief new zombies players also comes to mind. Or do you enjoy griefing others? In that case I'll make a suggestion for headshot to take away 40APs. --Siddhant 13:52, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - Why not? --Grim s 13:02, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - This is very good. I'd even give zombies inside a building a 100% chance of bashing barricades -- they're already inside, it should be easy -- but this is a good choice too. --John Ember 14:32, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - Something, anything to make barricades more reasonable. --Sindai 14:35, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - I wondered if it was too powerful, then I started thinking my survivors would probably still keep on barricading :P. However, I predict that if this is to pass, we'll need something else to give survivors a fighting chance against hordes. Still, we need to shift the focus of the game from interaction with barricade statuses to human vs zombie interactions. --McArrowni 14:44, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - What has been said above. Timid Dan 15:07, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill 50 zombies outside. 5 break in. Someone tries to barricade. It costs them 25 AP just to get it up to VS. They can't barricade fast enough. More zombies break in. Survivors are dead without a chance. The appropriate name for this suggestion is "No More Sieges In Malton Ever" or "Teleport Caiger Mall Into the Sun". --Jon Pyre 16:25, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - As the suggestion notes, the ridiculous "barricade first" strategy is exactly what's being aimed at. --John Ember 17:33, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - It is obvious you've not read the sugesstion, Jon Pyre. If you look at it again, you'll notice that nowhere have I touched barricade rates in sieges. It still costs the same amount of AP to VSB+2 (10 if you're lucky). However, If you're saying it takes you 25 AP to barricade to VSB+2 at this juncture of the game, I accuse you of cheating; zerger. --Siddhant 17:46, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re -Chill the out, learn some manners. Right now everybody who disagrees with you is either a griefer or a cheater. Don't act like you are an asshole. simply respect the person who disagrees with you. This guy has done more for this game then you. and seeing your attitude that'll likely remain that way.--Vista W! 18:09, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - I agree that I did fly off the handle there. I'm normally a polite person, however I was kinda moody that day. 70 ap (2 zombies) of bashing barricades to get into empty buildings will do that to you too. Now, with regards to your comment : "This guy has done more for this game then you. and seeing your attitude that'll likely remain that way." : I find unjustified. I've been playing this game for a pretty long time; all my previous suggestions have made it through to Peer Reviewed; and many people hold my opinion in regard. Now, with that out of the way; I want you to bash barricades, and tell me how fun it is. --Siddhant 06:54, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Survivors without overnumbering odds against zombies that choose to stay behind when zombies had breached into the building, and with more outside, er.. deserves to die. And during a siege you will have enough survivors to be able to afford the extra AP (which makes sense) --Wikkid BigShot 04:05, 15 March 2006 (EST)
  17. Keep - Another good barricade fix suggestion--Mookiemookie 17:39, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - At least parts (2) and (3), but I don't like part (1). --Norcross 18:27, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep - i voted keep because i find it ridiculous how easy it is to nerf a whole day ap from a zombie with just a few survivor ap spent on barricading. BUT, the 'cade, heal, kill' tactic is something smart created by harmanz, and should not be destroyed. I also find the whole 'move Caiger to the sun' idea very interessting ;) --hagnat talk 18:37, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - This barricade change I can get behind. — g026r 19:32, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep - Loverly. --Cybrgrl 19:35, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - Jon, in order for your theory to work, the zombie would have to be idle longer than all of the humans. In Caiger, a zombie lasts 15-20 minutes at best. The survivors that have been idle longest have been so for about a day. Therefore this would have no change in sieges. --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:09, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  23. Kill - I'll vote keep if 1) is removed. --Dr. Fletch 20:58, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  24. Keep - why not? I kinda like giving the Z's a boost at this point. - Nicks 21:16, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  25. Keep - I agree with each and every word listed here. You desribed it better than I did with my zombie vs. barricade suggestions. Because as I agree it is easier for a zombie to damage the barricades from the inside than the outside, and a LOT easier to damage barricades from the inside when no humans are there to harass you (it won't take as long, no one is here to stop you). - MrAushvitz 15:16, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  26. Keep - Any and all of these should be implemented as soon as possible. --Beauxdeigh 22:15, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  27. Keep - No. 2 seems a little unnecessary, but not problematic. --Dickie Fux 01:07, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 22 Keeps, 5 Kills, 0 Spams/Dupes -- 01:07, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
  28. Keep - Sure. Velkrin 06:06, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
  29. Keep - This one is gold! --Omega2Talk 12:46, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
  30. Keep - but learn some manners, you sound like an arsehole. Wich I'm sure you're not, so don't act like one.--Vista W! 18:09, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Apology above. The main point being that 70 AP spent bashing barricades to discover empty buildings is enough to test anyones patience. --Siddhant 06:58, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 25 Keep, 5 Kill, 0 Spam 21:18, 31 March 2006 (BST)

AP Timer

Timestamp: 12:59, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: General Improvement
Scope: Everyone
Description: This suggestion's pretty simple (which explains its short length): add a timer that counts down to your next AP gain. It would save many, many hits on the server from people constantly refreshing the page to check whether they've recieved an AP. I don't think this has been suggested before; I checked but there may be archived suggestions that aren't displayed.

Like I said, I believe this would greatly relieve strain on the server and free up time for everyone.

Votes

  1. Keep - Always wanted this --EnForcer32 16:01, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep Useful for the obsessed. --Jon Pyre 16:26, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Sounds good!--DicktheTech 17:24, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - That last AP can be damn useful sometimes. --WibbleBRAINS 17:25, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - A definite keeper. --Norcross 18:29, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Unnecessary screen clutter. --Dickie Fux 20:29, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - Simple enough, give the really retentive players a reason to relax on that button. --MrAushvitz 15:29, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 6 Keeps, 1 Kill, 0 Spams/Dupes -- 22:27, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - It is amazing how many times I miss counted, and are one move away from safety, would be nice to know how long it is till then --Private Chineselegolas RAF 00:38, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - Awesome - I've been using my head for this, and never even THOUGHT of this. Simply awesome, I find myself wondering when my next AP comes every day. --Erados 15:02, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - Very good idea, would be incredibly useful. --Wedley
  11. Keep - Zen-like simplicity, yet so useful. --Samroberts 11:24, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep -Appereantly there are people who want this. I think they're a bit obsessed that they just don't have the patience of waiting a few minutes extra. but thats just me--Vista W! 17:54, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - Great idea, would save my unpaid characters alot of hassle--HVLD 22:56, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 12 Keep, 1 Kill, 0 Spam 21:17, 31 March 2006 (BST)

Yet Another Drag Bodies Idea

Timestamp: 19:49, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zmobies
Description: A zombie with this skill can drag a survivor outside of an unbarricaded building.

It will not be something automatic, since the survivor will fight against this. Therefore, the zombie have 30% - the health of the survivor he is trying to drag outside %. (It is harder to drag outside a fully health survivor than a wounded one)

Ex.

The zombie enters the building. Inside it he find Harman1 (20 Hp) and Harman2 (40 Hp). He tries to drag Harman1 outside, at a 10% chance of sucess. Harman2 is safe, and the zombie will only be able to drag him out if he drop his HP below 30HP.

Further improvement could be added to this skill, raising the chances to drag by a certain bit.

  • Drag - you can drag survivors outside an unbarricaded building at 30% minus the health of the survivor.
    • Rigor Mortis - Zombies have an extra 10% on Drag.

Every drag attack a zombie does will be shown to the survivor he was aiming at.

A zombie grabbed you by the arm/leg and tried to toss you outside.

When sucessfull, it would be shown in the recent activities, just like when someone is killed.

A zombie grabbed you by the arm/leg and dragged you outside. -- in, bold, for the dragged person.
A zombie dragged harman1 outside. -- for everyone else
or
You hear harman1 scream in terror as a zombie drag him outside.

In the end, both zombie and survivor will be outside.

Closing notes

  • These skills will most probably be under Tangling Grasp. It doesnt require the victim to be griped to drag it outside, but grip bonus and standard lose grip on failure (and sometimes sucess) would affect Drag just like any other zombie attack.
  • A zombie with this skill CAN NOT drag a survivor around. He can only drag a survivor outside an unbarricaded building. He cant drag it outside a barricaded building (even loosely or doors closed), neither drag it to a nearby square, neither drag it INSIDE. Inside -> Outside only.
  • This is no more "Pied Piper" than a zombie getting dumped outside, which is a 100% hit, 1 AP move that dump ALL corpses outside any building, barricaded or not.

Votes

  1. Keep - Authors vote. This was on discussion. Please consider the closing notes before voting. --hagnat talk 19:49, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - No. It's stupid, overpowered, and stupid. - CthulhuFhtagn 20:20, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - i fail to see how stupid this is (since i am the author, perhaps i am just stupid them). But i believe that this will make zombie play a lot more fun, expecially when you already have all zombie skills and have nothing to do with the extra-xp. Barricades are also overpowered. Join cades with drag and perhaps we will see something that really could remember an horror movie. --hagnat talk 23:31, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - I love this. The flavor is perfect (esp. the "scream in terror" text), and the fact that only a nearly-dead survivor can be dragged outside with any decent success rate makes it more of a finishing move than anything. --John Ember 20:22, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - I'm sold on the fact that it's not automatic, but an attack (and therefore won't always work), and the fact that it moves the zombie outside, meaning that an attempt to enter a safehouse and toss every low HP survivor outside would be rather prohibitive due to the AP cost. — g026r 20:24, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - If survivors can dump a hundred bodies at once, zombies should get some chance to pull a human outside. --Dickie Fux 20:35, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - Tying it to HP makes is balanced. --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:41, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - It's a good idea. Timid Dan 20:50, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - Hell yes! Great idea, fun to. Although, you should change the text to survivor screams as a zombie drags THEM outside, i'm sure there are ladies out there who play this game. /nitpicking (!) Blue Wild Angel 21:02, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - I'm willing to support this. Even if I do get killed. --Dr. Fletch 21:04, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - I'm willing to support this. Because it is a very interesting zombie group tactic, one seen in movies (just before the poor bastard gets eaten!) Additionally, it gives survivors a very serious reason to NOT end their session with very, very low HP, because it is possible if things go bad in your building you may be dragged outside and eaten. Makes sense, easy meal, zombies want it, you gots to use your FAK's or beg for heals. Smart survivors can avoid this if they know a lot of zombies are nearby and plan for it to some degree. And the lazy players who don't want to die might help out with the occasional barricade so they don't get eaten (as easily) --MrAushvitz 15:04, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - Not bad. The strong point of being able to drag a survivior is compounded by the drawbacks and restrictions. -- Andrew McM W! 22:24, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 11 Keeps, 1 Kill, 0 Spams/Dupes -- 22:28, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - I like it, but you should be able to drag people out through Closed Doors as long as you have MoL, since there's no way to open doors from inside a building. --Sindai 23:13, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re; I assume that a zombie need at least 1 hand free to open a door (just like regular people does...) and that to drag a living person outside, no matter how wounded it is, it requires both hands to be free. Therefore, you cant open a door while holding and dragging a living person. --hagnat talk 23:35, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - But drop the failure spam text. We don't show misses to targets. --Cinnibar 01:02, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
    • This was added so online survivors has a way to fight this back (either by running away or shooting the zombie before he toss you out). When a zombie is attacking you (with claws/bite) you see your health decrease hit by hit, and have a way to run away when you think it is too much low. If a zombie could drag you away, i think you would like to know this and find a way to counter it before he succed. --english language killer 01:33, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - It happens in the movies. This could have a huge impact in sieges: Breach opened. Zed grabs a harman. Drags him out. Goes in to get another, drags him out. Survivors eventually barricade the breach. The two survivors stuck outside are zombie-bait. I'm rabbidly pro-survivor, but this adds levels of terror to the game. --Samroberts 11:38, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - Maybe change the Rigor Mortis % bonus to 5% but overall a good suggestion. I would worry with the Multiply by a billion rule but, it is overall balanced. --Lordofnightmares 21:05, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - Love the idea, adds flavour inside a game mechanic. Nice idea to pull them out, 'specially in malls, where the cades'll shoot up in seconds, and zeds inside get shot down, at least you get a chance whilst they can't get back in.--HVLD 23:10, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 15 Keep, 1 Kill, 0 Spam 21:16, 31 March 2006 (BST)

Don't dump the living!

Timestamp: 20:31, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: balance change/improvement
Scope: Survivors, Revived bodies
Description: Survivors now recognize and can discern a breathing body (one that has been revived) from a true corpse when handling them. "Dump bodies" inside a building will now only dump fallen zombies that are dead, not bodies created when someone has been hit with a revivication syringe. Attempts to clear bodies cost 1 AP only if dead corpses are dumped.

Sample Success/Failure messages :

Partial Success: "You dump some of the bodies out of the building, but a few are breathing and you leave them alone."

Failure: "You start to throw the body out of the building, but realize that they are just asleep, not dead."

Specifically suggested due to the griefing tactic of combat-reviving zombies that are then immediately dumped outside, regardless of barricade status.

Note that this does not allow identification of bodies or group them into two categories in display. It also, obviously, does not work outside.

Votes

  1. Keep - (Author Vote) I was tempted to add zombies with guns doing drive-by shootings, but resisted the urge. Timid Dan 20:31, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - It makes it so much easier for the guy you just combat-revived to stand up and PK you for pissing him off. --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:42, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - If you don't want the zombie to have guns, don't combat revive him... Timid Dan 20:59, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Ironically enough, for the same reasons TeeHee voted kill. I want people to STOP combat-reviving: the more consequences that could happen if you do it, the better. --Dr. Fletch 21:01, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - Yup, for the same reason as given above, i LIKE going on a slight rampage, and combat revives are for wusses... Blue Wild Angel 21:05, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - I'm of the opinion that it's a risk you take when you dump bodies, that one of them may be living. (And I feel the solution to complaints over combat revives isn't to make people afraid to do them, but to change the syringe dynamic. Some players play as zombies when dead, and survivors when living. To make everyone afraid to combat revive means that they'd essentially be stuck playing zombies unless they abandonded any semblence of role playing and wandered over to a revive spot with the rest of the Mrrh? cows.) — g026r 21:19, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - How hard would it be to tell a zombie from a living body, not hard, just smell alone should suffice. makes sense to me. --MrAushvitz 15:04, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - If you're reviving zombies to bring them back to life, you should be willing to take this risk to keep them alive. If you're doing it simply to drop them with 1 AP and they shoot you in the head when they stand up, you deserve what you get.--Guardian of Nekops 22:14, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - No thanks. The current way of doing it is as so to make it fair for both sides: if a revived human gets thrown out he just walks around until he can find a building he can enter. It adds to the role-playing effect of wandering around the streets in a daze after being a zombie. -- Andrew McM W! 22:20, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 5 Keeps, 3 Kills, 0 Spams/Dupes -- 22:20, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - What Andrew MCM said. Besides, its a difficulty that people have to live with. All this would do is encourage more overbarricading because people wouldnt need to worry about their infection which may kill them before they find an entry point anymore. Also cuts down on the trapped outside survivors for zombies to eat, making low level zombies even harder to play and far less fun. --Grim s 22:32, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - I think this is a dupe. Will change vote when i find the damn thing. Either way, i dont like this. --hagnat talk 23:05, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - I like this. --Cinnibar 01:03, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - Bodies are bodies. Safer to chuck em before you check em. Velkrin 06:08, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - What Andrew McM said. Eventually someone will suggest that revivification makes you get up for 1 AP in Caiger mall... --McArrowni 15:08, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - And they'd work the word balance in thier suggestion as well. Best to stop it now before it comes so far--Vista W! 17:13, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - There is no need for this change. A dead body is a dead body. It doesn't say in game "There are 2 zombie corpses and 3 revivifying bodies." Since all dead bodies are equal, don't distinguish between them. --Lordofnightmares 21:00, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 6 Keep, 9 Kill, 0 Spam 21:16, 31 March 2006 (BST)

The Dead Listen

Timestamp: 15:49, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Zombie Skill
Scope: Your zombie can hear (and understand) construction noise
Description: There are all manners of noise throughout Malton: the occasional gunshot, a blood curdling scream, a lot of cursing, moans of the local dead, moans of a living couple you happen to share a barricaded building with.

It is all a rich tapestry to be sure, however survivors actually CARE what sounds are going on here and there (verbal communication is more effective and nessesary for humans, especially me!). Whereas the zombies merely remember enough to utter a long feeding groan to call their brothers to corner their next meal, not much more need for sound is useful to them (smell is usually their main sense of finding brains anyways).

BUT, zombies that have just enough grey matter to maybe put 2 and 2 together and remember that all that hammering and banging and panicked cursing on the other side of a barricade means ONE thing.... there are HUMANS in this building because of all that noise!

The Dead Listen

Appears on skill tree just below "Feeding Groan".
When outside of a building, your zombie can recognize (and understand) construction noise to the point that they will know that there are human survivors inside this building. (Or there were at some point and time while you were logged out).
  • Game Mechanics -

Every 3 hours (of server time) that your zombie spends outside of a building the computer will post a message IF construction at that location was in excess of 29 AP worth of "construct barricades" (regardless of success of these attempts). Your zombie will only "listen for construction" when you are logged out (inactive) for such noises, because when you are logged in your zombie in focused on finding food, not listening for it.

You hear (and understand), that the noises inside this building mean it contains FOOD that is trying to keep you out!

This message will only appear once every 3 hours if the noise level was sufficent to matter (30 AP or more, inside this building, that you are standing outside of). To cut down on spam messages, you will only get the construction message a maximum of 2 times at a location, no matter how long you were standing there (the passage of time is meaningless to a zombie).

Limitation: You don't hear any noise as a zombie until you stand up, this means smart survivors can kill you, then construct barricades, and you'd not have heard a thing. If you heard anything before they dropped you, you will still remember when you stand up later, more or less.

  • Rationale:

Your zombie is there, and can hear the noise, this is not prevented by anything. But most zombies don't have the IQ god gave a houseplant, they just move and attack anything right in front of them. It is a handicap that they have, one which the survivors have learned to use "Yes, they are that damn stupid! Now keep hammering!" The problem is now there are zombies that can remember enough to understand HOW to get their next meal, that is now bad for the humans. Zombies 1st started humting by scent, now they can listen at your door, and if you're too damn noisy, they will know you're in there!

This skill tree is at the end of "Memories of Life", "Death Rattle" and "Feeding Groan". Which are all intelligence based skills (not all out combat) no zombie will be sopisticated enough to even USE this skill until they have completed those branches of the tree. This skill will NOT give the zombies an advantage immediately, and it will primarily favour higher level ones, but that coupled with "Feeding Groan" it makes it possible for a zombie to call the other shambling dead to "Come here and feed!" Hopefully they might come, get bored, and start munching on the barricade until they can feed.. we'll see.

Votes

  1. Keep - Origionally I was going to have construction noise as a benefit to any zombie that has "memories of life", but that would be TOO easy and it would render a lot of barricaded, empty buildings meaningless. I have definately made sure this skill ain't cheap just to get, and use. It's almost underpowered to be honest, but a zombie's AP use is very frustrating, and zombies that are dedicated to wrecking buildings should have a option to know the building contains survivors and is worth their efforts. If said zombie is too stupid to notice they all ran out the back door after they made their barricades, well.. some survivor tactics can still work. It's simple and useable. --MrAushvitz 16:04, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - isnt 30 AP more than enough AP to barricade any building from doors open to VHB ? I would rather see the suggestion above (Changes to Barricade) implemented. This suggestion is also almost a x-ray vision thing, which is spamminated in several levels. --hagnat talk 23:12, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - 99% of the time, a barricaded building has food inside. I've found empty barricaded buildings a grand total of twice with all my zombie characters, and perhaps three or four times with all my human characters, mainly because a mall siege was happening at the time. - CthulhuFhtagn 23:51, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill -There's enough spam at Caiger without zombies getting this crap all over there screen--Mpaturet 00:12, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Too much text spam already. --Cinnibar 01:05, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - man, is game flavor a dangerous thing in your hand, you could knock yourself out with it I think. Why not simply let it say, "you here something move inside"? a lot less silly. but I kill it mostly for the facts people already mentioned.--Vista W! 17:33, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 1 Keep, 5 Kill, 0 Spam 21:15, 31 March 2006 (BST)

Personal tools
advertisements