Suggestions/16th-Dec-2005

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Closed Suggestions

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

Current Days' Suggestions

READ THE Suggestions Dos and Do Nots BEFORE YOU POST A NEW SUGGESTION.

Add new suggestions to the bottom of this page - duplicate suggestions WILL be removed.


Rooms inside buildings (version 0)

Timestamp: 01:45, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Adding rooms to buildings
Scope: Buildings
Description: Here is one way I know to expand the map without changing any existing structure. Add rooms in each buildings that you can enter after you enter the lobby of that building. Say a police station can have a janitor's closet, a men's restroom, a ladies restroom, jail cell, lobby, office, gym, armory, cafeteria, basement parking, etc. This can be made random for each specific building. No two buildings of the same type will have the same rooms (unless it is just a coincidence). Once a zombie breaks the barricades and enter the lobby, he can (after killing everyone in the lobby) enter the other rooms and search for more survivors. Rooms cannot be barricaded, only locked. And each one may have different characteristics. For example, you can search and get more ammunition searching in a PD's armoury, get tools in a FD's tool shed, etc. Players on target lists of PKers will have more places to hide as well. Also more privacy for people. This is just a raw suggestion, maybe anyone else can add on to it?

Votes

  • Kill Nub zombies have a hard enough time. We don't need to discourage them more. --Zaruthustra 02:06, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The AP cost to move from room to room would be really annoying, and I don't see any reason to make life harder for young zombies who don't yet have Memories of Life. --Everyl 02:01, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - And it wouldn't take an AP to move that far because 1 AP is a whole block of walking. --ALIENwolve 02:09, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Think of the server, and Kevan. Not to mention, how would buildings be diffrent? How would you map it? How would Kevan code it? Someone needs to actually MAKE this - AND make it work on the server - and it's not as easy as you'd like to think.--Arathen 02:42, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The tower "floors" were a better implementation of this, as they weren't global and didn't change search odds/options. Really, though, I'm not a huge fan of either. There is enough space in the game world right now. --Drakkenmaw 04:03, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Searching the women's restroom, you find a used tampon. We don't need more rooms in police stations. --Shadowstar 13:31, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Not really necessary, and makes the whole thing too complicated. --Dickie Fux 17:07, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -This violates the first and second guidelines for suggestions. --Matthew-Stewart 20:31, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - i'm voting kill cause everyone else is (hooray for pack mentality!). no, seriously though - everyone made good points. --Firemanstan 21:42, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Great idea, but it's just too hard to put in the game. Sorry :( --Carfan7 03:58, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Too complex. Think outside the box - think simple. Riktar 06:16, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This would probably be something that while interesting, would not be able to be implemented in the near future due to server load problems. If multiple rooms in a single block would exist sometime, I would have to recommend that moving between them cost no AP. Being able to lock doors is enough to block out newbie zombies, and really, no one would stay in the lobby if you could do that either. Though, I would like to point out that multiple rooms in a building does exist in some form already - Shopping skill. A similar skill could say, let you lock yourself in a room seperate from all other people.... just thinking off the top of my head... --Zarquon 07:04, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Zombies destroying doors

Timestamp: 01:54, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: balance skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: A zombie can totally destroy a door, and that building will have no doors until a survivor with construction skills fix it.

Votes

  • Kill - So... what real difference would this make? Starting a new barracade already closes the doors (as far as I know), so the biggest thing I could see is the repairman needing to spend 1 extra AP to fix the door first. And it might make low-level survivors a little more vulnerable to low-level zombies, but I don't see any good reason for that, either. --Everyl 02:06, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Needless complexity for little to no benefit. Bentley Foss 02:08, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill A lazy version of something suggested yesterday. Although I'll give it the benefit of the doubt since it is slightly different. --Zaruthustra 02:10, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What's the point? I really don't see one. --Drakkenmaw 04:04, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Yeah, the previous suggestion mentioned above is less complicated in game, and easier to program. This idea isn't bad, though, just more complex than it needs to be. --Dickie Fux 17:11, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - My one was better. --Zeek 01:10, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - --Vista 15:50, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Throw Item

Timestamp: 03:02, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: Aren't you sick of finding clips, but no pistol? Shells, but no shotgun? Flak Jackets, GPSes, Books, and Newspapers but nothing useful? With this skill you would be able to throw all of these items and more at Zombies or other players if you're into PKing.

Some item stats include:

  • Clip - 2 Damage, 5% to hit.
  • Shell - 1 Damage, 2% to hit.
  • Flak Jacket - 4 Damage, 10% to hit.
  • GPS - 2 Damage, 10% to hit.

And so on.

Users who buy this skill will see a drop-down list of items next to their attack area, along with a "Throw" button. Select a zombie or player in the normal attack window, select an item, and click "Throw" and you will chuck it at them for great justice!

Votes

  • Kill - No, not really... and you couldn't throw a flak jacket far enough for it to do that much damage. Now if you club someone with it... --ALIENwolve 03:05, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Dupe This is even more useless than the last one. Look, if you don't have anything to fight with, RUN THE F**K AWAY! And also, theres something called reasonable logic, which you definitely have never heard of before. It works like this: If you have all that ammo, maybe you can save those clips and shells for when you get the actual weapons that fire them? Now thats smart. And all of the stuff you have suggested won't even hurt a small animal, much less a zombie, although if the GPS had sharp corners, or maybe if the flak jacket was so heavy that it smothers a squirrel, it might do some damage to small animals, but none at all to a human being. God, too much stupidity in this. This is beyond my mind's tolerance. There are so many flaws with this that I cannot possibly list them all. AllStarZ 03:08, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT) pointlessly aggressive comment --It contains several undeniable grains of truth -- get the point Note: No swearing please, I just blocked out the "UC". --Carfan7 04:00, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Dupe Same reasons as AllStarZ, only without all the needless cursing. Just the plain "this has been done before and isn't even all that good" excuse. And yes, it WOULD be better to just run, especially at such a low chance of hitting! --Volke 03:48, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Not worth the code. Drop doesn't spend an AP, and doesn't annoy the people around you as much as hurling GPS units at them would. --Drakkenmaw 04:10, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I never knew that throwing a flack jacket at someone was more dangerous than swinging an axe at them. - Jedaz 04:23, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill This idea keeps coming back like a rash, and it never gets better. The damage to AP ratio is so pitiful that nobody will wan't to waste the AP, and its silly. Bad on flavor, bad on mechanics. --Zaruthustra 04:32, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill What they said. Rhialto 08:12, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Should be Dupe, but the old version didn't get transferred to the Rejected page. I don't think a shot gun shell could be thrown by hand hard enough to do any damage, unless you hit someone in the eye. --Dickie Fux 17:16, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - hey AllStarZ - you ever been hit with a GPS unit? man, those things hurt like a bitch!... but no to the suggestion. not even for flavor - shells wouldn't hurt a fly, and flak jackets...? any item that would cause serious damage to someone in real life can already be used to attack with (except for maybe wire cutters - but please don't add that item to your list and resubmit it, anything like this will get shot down again and again and again). --Firemanstan 21:59, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -That was the second album I ever bought!--Vista 15:49, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Watch where your pointing that flak jacket. You could hurt somebody!--The General 19:16, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Ravenous Hands

Timestamp: 03:19, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombie
Description: This is inspired by the earlier suggestions Wound and Scalable Diseases. Wound lowered max health by a small percentage until healed with surgery while Scalable Diseases suggested infections that could only be cured by surgery. I wasn't too keen on changing maximum health and I thought that Scalable Diseases would lead to groups of suvivors stranded in hospitals, forced to wait for days until whatever high leveled surgeons were in the area could find enough first-aid kits to heal them. But I liked their basic goal of making surgery more important. Here's my idea. Ravenous Hands would emulate that ability movie zombies have to tear chunks of flesh out of their prey, and rend gaping wounds. Here's how the mechanics of it would work: If a zombie with Ravenous Hands uses a hand attack on a suvivor that damages them to any point 25hp or lower the suvivor becomes Wounded. A wounded suvivor loses 1 health per AP spent from blood loss when they are at 25hp or lower. A suvivor could heal themselves over 25hp and no longer lose health though they would still be Wounded. If they are ever lowered to 25 or less again (by anything) the wounds are reopened and they start bleeding again. The only way of curing the wounded condition is surgery in a powered hospital. I feel this accomplishes several things. First it gives zombies a skill to make hand attacks more interesting. It allows infectious bite to be more severe rather than just an excuse to use a health kit because at low health an infected and wounded suvivor would lose 2 health per turn instead of 1. That could make something like 15hp too few to reach a hospital and find a health kit. It would make surgery have a more important function than restoring 5 extra health. And it would allow low level players that don't have surgery the ability to heal themselves over 25hp and play normally until they can find a surgeon to operate on their Wound rather than being entirely dependant on another player who may or not be nearby to help.

Votes

  • Keep - Well I for one like it. My only suggestion would be to make it a separate attack, say "Rend," which operates off the Claw skilltree but has a lower percent chance to hit. Otherwise you'll be attaching a status effect to an attack which is more powerful specifically because it doesn't carry status effects. But I'll still vote Keep on this. --Drakkenmaw 04:15, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - I really wouldn't know where to start with suggesting a new attack, because then I'd need to figure out things like damages, hit percentages, etc. I think it needing a hand attack is a pretty trivial detail since it's only one attack. If I didn't have a specific attack type to use this ability I think the skill would be equally good. Besides, bite still has Digestion over it. --Jon Pyre 04:22, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - So a survivor who's just got revived could be infected and have this and would efectivily have only 10AP to get to a hospital if they don't have a FAK on them. A bit too over powered for me. - Jedaz 04:30, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep/Change - I agree with this. And yes,a person who's just been revived may well die again if they're seriously injured. There's something to be said for horror in this game genre. Though.. why infection carries on after death is beyond me. I think revivification, curing undeath, might also cure infection and wounding, that'd be nice. --paincake
  • Keep - But change that name. Ravenous is an adjective traditionally associated with eating/biting, not claws. Rhialto 08:10, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Rend was already used by another skill unfortunately. And by ravenous hands I mean greedily eagerly grasping scrabbling clawing hands ripping flesh to feast upon. --Jon Pyre 08:40, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - if reviv. clears this aliment. Also has the bonus of making the balance between hands/teeth more interesting, right? I don't really like the name, but I'm too tired to suggest anything. --Tyroney 08:52, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nice. - KingRaptor 12:07, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good idea--Lord Evans 15:19, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I agree with the above concerns that claw attacks shouldn't have effects as well, but the whole thing is balanced enough that it should be included in some fashion. --Dickie Fux 17:21, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it. --Basher 23:47, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Most excelent. I would suggest though that maby one should'nt be able to cure one's own wounds. 'tis a foolish doctor who operates on him self afterall.--Zeek 01:14, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)edit: I think it would be most logical to put this under the bite tree, as I think being bitten would be much more likely to cause this type of injury; ie. an open wound. (HEY! That might make a good title.). Also, I dont think revivs should cure this, as it's not an infection, but an actual physical wound (besides, if people cant find help before bleeding to death all over again, then sucks for them, but it might help sure up the zombie population), though then you might consider lowering the hp requirement to open the wound abit (say 20?)--Zeek 01:24, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Oooh, someone was inspired by my Wound skill. I'm flattered. Keepage! Although as others above have stated, I am a little worried about one thing - people freshly revived. Would they still be wounded after dying? I don't think i saw you mention that above. And to the person who suggested this be a bite skill. Bite doesn't really need a boost, at least not of this magnitude. But there is a symbiosis with this, as a claw attack, coupled with infectious bite, that brings about interesting scenarios. Riktar 06:23, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill/Change - There's a balance issue here. For levelled-up zombies, attacking with hands is more effective than biting in terms of raw damage, as biting has the cool added-effects. So it has to either go on the bite tree (arguably making bite over-powered) or becomes a new attack type with its own to-hit and damage stats. But it's a good attempt. Throctukes 17:48 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - I don't consider this a skill to change the value of individual zombie attacks but to reward a zombie to reducing a suvivor to under half their health. I think the skill would work fine even if it allowed any attack to reduce their health below 25. --Jon Pyre 23:30, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Tereseth 0:16, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • kill -combined with infection this just overwhelms a survivor too much. the fact that it percist is overpowered. screws up the balance between bite and claws--Vista 15:46, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Internet in buildings

Spaminated due to a lack of information. Please try again when you've developed the concept enough that it is possible to discuss the merits of your idea. --Drakkenmaw 19:40, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I think he wanted us to be able to use the internet while playing an internet game. --ALIENwolve 19:44, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Zombie Ray

Moved to humerous


Barricade Sense / Lookout

Duplicate of this and this. --Brizth 17:51, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Free Running balance

Timestamp: 16:28, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: balance change
Scope: Free running skill
Description: It is ludicrously unrealistic how a badly wounded survivor can easily leap from rooftop to rooftop in the manner free running suggests. It is also horribly unbalancing as often humans wake up with zombies chewing on them, then just free run to safety. Basically, i propose that free running should only work when am person has more than 20hp (Selected so that even the recently revived can free run. It adds an air of terror to those who have been badly wounded, yet it doesnt affect typical everyday play). Its simply ludicrous that people on terribly low HP can manage to leap from one building to another while struggling to hold thier insides in, or plugging numerous bullet holes in thier person.

Votes

  • Keep - Author --Grim s 16:28, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I agree, I think this is a good balance. --robotcaptain 16:28, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - By the same token, it's ludicrous that it takes half a dozen direct shotgun blasts to kill anyone, and twice as many revolver shots. A certain degree of unrealism is built into the game. Edit: see Discussion page for more on the subject of analogies. Edit of edit: check it after I'm done moving, so I've had time to type a proper response. --Everyl 17:02, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE - However that bit of unrealism exists for balance purposes (Or Pkers would be laughably overpowered at their task). This, however, isnt. As such, the two are not analogous and your stated reason for voting kill is fallacious (False analogy fallacy). --Grim s 17:12, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sounds good to me --Qwako 17:16, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It makes sense, though I somehow doubt it will happen. --Shintaro Rain 17:30, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - An infected, newly-revived survivor gets only 5 squares of free running? That could be a death sentence. --Drakkenmaw 17:31, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE - Three actually, as they have to stand up and move inside. Anyhow, it serves them right for not carring an FAK. Far better for them to travel on foot until they find a VS hospital, enter and ask for a heal. There is no place in malton more than 10 blocks from a hospital. --Grim s 17:40, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't see how that's unbalancing that they can walk away, with or without free running. If you wake up to see someone shooting you, you walk away too. --Shadowstar 17:45, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Makes getting injured a real threat. Kevan might tweak the exact HP value, but the general concept is good. --Dickie Fux 17:47, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Hmm, why not. --Brizth 17:53, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --Lord Evans 18:03, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'm all for bringing a bit of fear to the game. --WibbleBRAINS 18:11, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Not so much for the balance, but for the flavor. X1M43 18:28, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nice, though I can't remember ever free-running on low HP. --Hexedian 19:08, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Awesome idea, would help make the game more fun for survivors again. phungus420 1944, 16DEC05 (GMT)
  • kill -Zombies should work together to finish everything on their plate; This punishes recent revives more than helps zombies. Also there are perfectly good "make the meal limp" skills well on their way to peer review without a unilateral game mechanic shift. --Matthew-Stewart 20:26, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Playing a new survivor character (or recently revived zombie who wants to RP as human) is really annoying, due to players with "free run" who seem to forget that others can't get into buildings that are over VS. This would go a long way to encourage such people to follow a reasonable barracade policy. --Swiers 20:30, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Low health penalties would be an intresting bit of flavor, but for more than only Free Running. Can't really swing an axe or a claw with a dislocated shoulder, after all. Of course, a -5% to attacks when at "critical health" wouldn't be exactly gamebreaking either.--Arathen 21:24, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I like this idea, and I like Arathen's idea even more about the "low health" status. --Zombie1313
  • Keep Add much needed balance to the game. -Technerd 22:14, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Not a bad suggestion, but not especially necessary. furtim 22:52, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill --Deathnut 04:35, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I also like Arathen's idea. --Basher 17:00, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I to agree with Arathen. --Pesatyel 03:59, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I agree with Pesatyel. Just for a bit of variation. --Throctukes 17:35, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --Tereseth 10:47, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • kill -sovles a problem that isn't there, this is just griefing survivors--Vista 15:41, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Zombie in game communication

Timestamp: 16:40, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: improvement
Scope: Zombies
Description: Basically this change would result in zombies, who have the death rattle skill, being able to communicate clearly with other zombies (Even those without Death Rattle). If the character that hears it is a zombie, they can hear whatever the zombie typed in his speak box. Humans hear it to, but after being fed through the Death rattle filter that seems to be in place (So zombies can still say "Grab mah hangan zambah banana bagz harman! HAR HAR HAR!! if they so chose, and it would appear like that to all present.) This would allow zombies to recruit in game without using human alts, and allow zombie players to pass on message board locations and the like to others. It would add depth to the game, and simulate the collective conciousness that appears present in zombie movies.

Votes

  • Keep Author Vote --Grim s 16:40, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Yup, sounds good. --Electrocutioner 17:00, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Zombies desperately need a way to communicate ingame to stimulate usefully coordinated horde attacks without tedious out-of-game coordination. --Sindai 17:02, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sounds good to me. And as zombies need things to make them more attractive to potential players, I'm all for it. Hey, more zombies = more targets for me! --John Taggart 17:08, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This could be useful, though I think it's fun to think up zombie catchphrases with the limited speech of Death Rattle. --Shintaro Rain 17:11, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - But I think this has been approved before... Edit: I looked, and I can't find it. Perhaps I was just not remembering another skill properly. --Drakkenmaw 17:30, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Your're probably thinking of my "Rattle and Some" skill proposal, which did exactly the same thing, but required a new skill (under death rattle) for the speaker to make it work. Rattle and Some got a bad reception as being "unrealistic" since it let zombies be "to intellegent", and it mysteriously disapeered when the Wiki was re-organized. Anyhow, given current times, its not suprising this has a better reception, and I like that it is easier to use. --Swiers 20:22, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yes, please! Question though, if you have death rattle and you're revived, can you still understand zombie speech? --Antrobus178 17:34, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE - No. Only Zombies can understand it, and those with death rattle can speak it. --Grim s 18:17, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Let's just hope that a giant horde doesn't coordinate to annihlate a suburb after this is implemented. --Penance 17:43, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - good idea, if it hasn't been approved before. And if it has, still a good idea. --Shadowstar 17:47, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT) Edit: though, either we need human speech to be nonsense to zombies, or we need zombie speech to be understandable by humans. And we need the bugs surrounding speech fixed in general. --Shadowstar 23:10, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --Lord Evans 18:04, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - --WibbleBRAINS 18:09, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Approved. --Arcos 18:46, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good idea, although you just KNOW someone will suggest a skill to make humans understand zombie language. They never learn, do they? --Hexedian 19:04, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yes. --Vair 19:38, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - yea! it will make death rattle an actually useful skill. --Firemanstan 20:32, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Wow, this is smart. --MaulMachine 16:23, 16 Dec 2005 (EST)
  • Keep - Makes sense to me. Perhaps the generic zombie phrases should have one-word translations?--Arathen 21:28, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Almost anything to keep the need for zombies to metagame down is a good thing. --Zombie1313
  • Keep - Why didn't I think of this? Great idea, Grim. --TheTeeHeeMonster 21:55, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Good suggestion, I would note the actual suggestion type is Skill Alteration: Zombie, for when this hits peer review. --Matthew-Stewart 22:29, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If zombies get a skill that lets them understand each other and talk just like survivors they better damn need a skill for it. I'd say zombies should need two skills to talk fluently: One to speak with Death Rattle, and a second to talk fluently to other zombies. And I'd limit zombie speech when spoken clearly to only fifteen characters so the most one could say would be "Poole Mall..Go" or "Meat inside" not "I do say old chap, there's been buzz of harmans afoot at the firestation a few blocks north. Shall we mosey on over and see if there's open buffet?" P.S. Also, zombies understanding zombies and suvivors but suvivors only understanding suvivors? Zombies with better communication than humans??--Jon Pyre 22:36, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Considering that 95% of all survivor speech is bitching about PKers, I don't want more garbage cluttering up my screen. Maybe if it made all survivor speech invisible. --Dickie Fux 22:43, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - But I'd vote keep if this was a skill underneath Death rattle. Communication is supposed to be a key advantage of humans over zombies, and not only would this change give teh same ability to zombies, but it would give zombies the advantage in this specific area, as zombies could still read human messages, but humans still could not read zombie messages. Rhialto 22:47, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- Any survivor who votes against this is completely disqualified from using "zombies should only be scary in hordes" as an excuse for anything ever again. This suggestion is one of many things that are desperately needed to give the game some semblance of balance between the two sides, and come on, it's not exactly game-breaking. It doesn't even change the zombie attacks. It just means zombies can talk to each other. furtim 22:50, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Jirtan 22:59, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - CHanged my vote after further thought on concept and a very long day at work. --Thelabrat 07:35, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yes. --Basher 23:43, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Personally, I don't see why this hasn't always been in effect. It's like the zombies have their own language, right? So why can't they understand each other? --Volke 04:12, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Riktar 06:26, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I would vote keep if it was a skill under Death Rattle and/or only those with the new skill or Death Rattle would understand zombie speak. Not that my vote has any effect at this point though... --Brizth 13:05, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill No, I don't want to listen to zombie patton ordering a flanking movement, or zombie Descartes talking philosophy. They aren't supposed to be intelligent. Zombie tactics are meant to be restricted to gathering into large groups, moaning, and messing up your face. If this really bother s you theres always metagame. --Zaruthustra 21:12, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE - Im starting to think you are a bot, as you automatically kill any suggestion that could possibly help zombies. The fact is that you are arguing realism in a game that is deperately unbalanced, realism is all good and well, but it takes a back seat when confronted with playability, as Revivificiation Syringes show (These are completely unreal, as they are basically raising the dead, an impossible task. By arguing realism in this manner you have to also argue for revivification to be removed from the game on the same grounds, unless, of course, you are a hypocrite). You also say we should horde while at the same time voting kill on the suggestion that would make it easier for us to do just that. One has to wonder if this is some obscure form of idiocy you are displaying, or just a massive anti-zombie bias. --Grim s 21:57, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - As others have said, make a skill under Death Rattle and I'll change to keep. --Pesatyel 04:02, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - We need something interesting CthulhuFhtagn 21:59, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Like the firefox UDTranslate plugin (which works well if you have firefox), but removes the need to use extra tech. So as it's in there already for those with the knowhow, how does it hurt to keep it? Throctukes 17:37, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

"You Are Now Dead"

Timestamp: 20:15, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Game Mechanic
Scope: All Players
Description: Okay, so you get the "big grey box" when you run out of AP. And also when you run out of IP hits for the day. This is fine - mild flavour, and it reduces the ability to "peek" on what is happening around you (thus requiring another server hit) when you're already unable to act. My question is - why are you able to see what's around you when you're dead? I would think that being at 0HP should be the same as being at 0AP, in terms of not being able to "check on the action." I mean... you're dead, after all. So I think you should get the "grey box" at those times as well, with the message "You are dead." And it should persist until you hit the "Stand Up" button. Would prevent people from being able to influence the game any while a corpse, by spying on the still-active, and it adds just that little bit of uncertainty over your safety when you go to click that button. Thoughts? --Drakkenmaw 20:15, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Votes

  • Kill - I'd like to be able to get the jump on someone if I was a corpse on the ground. There was even a suggestion for a part of ankle grab to do damage when someone else is in the same block. --ALIENwolve 20:19, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - i see what you are saying - and it is logical (in a sense of realism) that you would be blacked out - but i think this would really really hurt zombies. zombies don't need anymore hurting at this point. and i voted keep on that ankle grab suggestion ALIENwolve mentioned, which if implemented would conflict with your suggestion. --Firemanstan 20:28, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Re: - Personally, I see this less as a matter of realism and more as a matter of "you shouldn't be able to do things in the game if you're not targettable within it." Much like crawling around while a corpse, spying on things while invulnerable seems just a tad... cheap, really. So I just figured I'd toss it out and see what people say about it. Plus it gave me reason to use one of my favourite Futurama quotes. --Drakkenmaw 20:32, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Re: - Check the edit history on that page. Oh, and look at the response I gave above. --Drakkenmaw 20:43, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't think it's a "realism argument." But I don't think it's really a good idea to do it either, unless UD starts having problems with server load. --Shadowstar 20:44, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - "Dead" is a bit of a misnomer. It should be more along the lines of "you aren't standing" because a character may choose to play dead until a threat leaves the area. I've had to do this a couple of times. Besides, the zombie from seemingly no where effect is in genre. --Arcos 22:18, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - because it makes sense. Either keep this, or allow you to see when at 0 AP. I don't care which, but one or the other. The game is being inconsistant. Remember the rule of Dr. Seuss: "consistent nonsense". Rhialto 22:49, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep This suggestion would probably net the server a LOT of "breathing room" in terms of processing power and bandwidth (much more than merely sleeping saves the server) it makes standing up even less fun than dying in the first place, which is kinda' wrong, but I am willing to forgive that for faster game play/more server power to dedicate to new features. --Matthew-Stewart 06:10, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Too lazy to copy/paste Rhialto's comment. Riktar 06:28, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like laying in ambush as a corpse. --Grim s 06:38, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Ditto. --Basher 17:02, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I would like this if you wrote it so that the screen would blank after you become revived. As a zombie you are merely waiting for the opportune moment to stand up and eat flesh, but in the revivification process your brain shuts down until the virus is purged from your system, so at that point you aren't aware of your surroundings. -- Andrew McM 19:58, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - A zombie could lay on the ground with his eyes open. Tereseth 0:39, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • keep -small change, good for load. improves flavour (for me that is, reading some of the other people seems indicate disagreement) you go down in a fight and have to wait what you wake up to... Are they still there? are they still active?...--Vista 15:37, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Revival Syringe, Mark 3.0

{{suggestion|

suggest_time=21:38, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)| suggest_type=Item| suggest_scope=Replaces Revival Syringe Mark 2.0| suggest_description= Current revival syringes (both the rare remaining 1.0 and more common 2.0 versions) are very effective as weapons, and seem a bit lacking in flavor. The Mark 3.0 Revival syringe would work thus: you inject a zombie, and they are flagged as "de-necrotizing" (this would be the same flag that marks a corpse as �revived� currently) and they would get a message to the effect of �you feal the undead vigor leaching from your animated corpse�. De-necrotizing zombies loose one HP per AP they spend- similar to infected survivors, except there�s no need to exempt speech from this case. When they finally drop dead (from this damage, or other causes), THEN they will be able to stand up again as human.

Because a "revived" zombie can still be walking around, "De-necrotizing" zombies would be ignored for purposes of syringe injection, and not held in the datbase as part of the "revive que"; a tech who had the ability to use a syringe would never foolishly waste one on a de-necrotizing zombie! In fact, to further simulate the "recongnizable" symptoms of de-necrotization, survivors with lab expereince should automatically see de-necrotizing zombies as such; they would see "x zombies, y bodies, and z de-necrotizing zombies" in a given location. Among other things, this would aid them in recognizing revive points vs battle zones. They would also be given the option of attacking either sort ("attack zombie" and "attack de-nectotizing zombie"), in case they wanted to aid thier "patients" in loosing HPs. Maybe everybody should see de-necrotizing zombies this way; this would help people with "Headshot" if they decide be nice and not blast the brains out of soon-to-be survivors.

This makes the Mark 3.0 fairly useless as a weapon, at least in real-time combats, but it actually would make them BETTER (and more flavorful) as revival tools. For example, a soon-to-be-revived survivor would have some time to look for a good place to "crash", which is handy if they have an infection and are going to be standing up with half HPs. --Swiers 21:38, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)| suggest_votes=

  • Keep - EDIT: Okay, you're still getting my Keep vote... but I'd like to point out a problem that just occurred to me with this suggestion. Namely, how do you deal with potentially "infecting" a zombie multiple times? A zombie's DOT skill is tied to an attack, so it doesn't matter that much if you miss... but it takes a lot of AP to search up a single syringe, and it's bad enough to lose one to a brain-rotted zombie without also having to guess at whether the zombie on the top of the pile has already been stuck. It'd pretty much have to work along the lines of the DNA Scanner, rolling along the zombies in the stack, or else the "zombie slaughterhouse" I mentioned as a disturbing possibility would become an actual requirement to avoid wasting dozens and dozens of syringes at revive points. --Drakkenmaw 23:31, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

re- Revival points are already slaughterhouses, if people choose to treat them as such. There's no reason currently not to knock a zombie down to 1 hp, and then revive them. True, this REQUIRES the zombie being revived to be killed, or to spend AP to die of de-necrotization, but IMO its a good thing, since it slows down revival just a bit. Yes, revial poits will become XP farms- but only moreso than they are now, and only at the expense of survivors deciding to NOT kill "real" zombies. --Swiers 23:24, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT) re- Good point with the multi-revives. I'll edit the suggestion to adress that. --Swiers 23:37, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Kill Not bad but not good enough as is. This makes the revival syringes the perfect weapon against zombies who are sieging a place. The survivors would "infect" a number of zombies so they would be less effective for 2-3 days of real time. While I love the idea of it taking time for the revival syringes to work from a survivor point of view I hate it from a dedicated low/mid-level zombie point of view. If there was a way to cure the "infection" for the zombies then I'll change my vote. Say by attacking/harming a survivor/zombie.
Comment -- I think you misunderstand. The "de-necrotization" would be cured by death. So when they stand up again as a human, they don't lose HP, nor do they start "de-necrotizing" again when they return to their zombie state. Giving a way to "cure" revivification isn't really necessary, since we already have Brain Rot for zombies who don't want to be revived. furtim 22:43, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

re- bingo, give the man a cee-gar. Unlike infection, "de-necrotization" has no effect once you've become revived. That's because (as said in the suggestion) it uses the same flag as the current revival system, which obviously is removed once you stand up as a re-vivivified survivor. In fact, this makes Syringes all but useless as anti-zombie weapons in a siege combat; de-necrotized zombies would be able to gain HP faster through "digestion" than they would loose them through de-necrotization.--Swiers 23:27, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Comment re- I believe I have made my comments unclear my bad. I'll give an example instead. You have a low/mid-level zombie without brain rot. He wants to stay a zombie but gets stuck with a Mark 3.0. Now he is effectively "poisoned" until he dies. This "de-necrotization" status doesn't go away until he dies and if this is during a seige it could take him a day or two to die assuming no ZK'ing. It is basically forcing the zombie to get killed in order to fix the "de-necrotization". Maybe I still don't get it so please tell me if I'm wrong. --Zombie1313

re- I don't see the problem with that- and my zombie was at Caiger, without Brain Rot! Say you DO get injected with a Mark 2.0. You imediately fall over DEAD (can be tossed out of the mall) and then when you stand up, you are not a zombie any more. With the Mark 3.0, you'd still be able to keep on killing survivors for a while. Yeah, your "poisoned", but so what? The effects of the "poison" finally "killing" you are no worse than the effect the Mark 2.0 has instantaniously. At least you can still keep attacking after you get injected, and with "digestion" you could probably stay ahead of the HP loss until you log out. --Swiers 00:02, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Keep - Good enough in my opinion. And this is a kind template; you have to finish it. And you remember to reformat yet not sign it, Dickie? --ALIENwolve 21:55, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This is nice.--Arathen 22:05, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it, I hate the 100% to hit insta kill combat syringe, this would help that, alot.--phungus420 2213, 16DEC05 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yep more balance and realism.... --Technerd 22:18, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I see people complaining about other insta-kill items, but not the Mark II Syringe. Why? Personally, I think this is a great way of handling the revive thing. --John Taggart 22:23, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Hurray for nifty mechanics! But, then again, why would NT make a less effective syringe? Regardless, this gets my seal of approval. --Arcos 22:25, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

re- Why would they make a less effective syringe? Maybe they can't make enough good ones! There's like 10 times as mnay people using syringes now as thier used to be, the good syringes are all gone, and this is the only thing they can make fast enough. Voila, fluf ready for the "news" page... --Swiers 23:32, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Keep - I've never really minded the old syringe, but this sounds pretty neat. I like it. --Shintaro Rain 22:26, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Really cool idea. I do worry about the XP farming, but since you can do that anyway (attacking five times, then reviving), I guess it's not a problem. --Dickie Fux 22:32, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Great idea. Anyways, regarding the percieved XP-farming at revive points, damaging zeds before using a syringe also makes it easier to kill the zed if it's brainrotted. --VoidDragon 22:37, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- Way keep! This is a great idea to discourage "combat revives" without completely nerfing them. "Combat revives" would still benefit survivors by the infection-style effects, but they wouldn't be the somewhat cheap 100% hit instakill weapons they are now. This idea is good for overall game mechanics, and not just a knee-jerk response to the low zombie population; although it should help with the zombie population problem, as well. furtim 22:43, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It kills them to bring them back to life! So crazy it has to work! I assume brain rot makes them immune to this condition. Hey, brain rot makes you immune to a hp draining effect! It would have a tactical purpose besides "I want to play a zombie forever!" --Jon Pyre 22:49, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Worst case AP-wise for an unwilling revivee is 2 standups (2/20 AP) plus however long it takes to either find a tower (2-10 AP), or else even just sacrifice yourself to the horde if you're in a seige (almost instant in any decent horde). Yes, it does leave the target open to a revive, but that's still going to cost the survivor APs. I have seen other suggestions to fix syringes which are as good, but this one is fine. Rhialto 22:55, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Genius! I saw this in the forum, and HAD to vote, it's one fo the best suggestions going! More people vote, NOW! --RitchieB 22:57, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - good idea. puts a little twist on reviving. --Firemanstan 23:06, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --Thelabrat 23:09, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --Basher 23:40, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - In an apocalyptic zombie plague it would indeed be hard to produce enough, the justification of why the old syringes (the mark one) works equally well with introducing this syringe "Due to the incredibly high demand for revivification syringes and near zero profit margin, Necrotech will now only airdrop the Mark III Revivification Syringe; It being the most cost effective and simple to produce solution." --Matthew-Stewart 23:46, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Not bad, not bad at all... This is one of the better suggestions I've seen. AllStarZ 00:23, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I like this idea. It gives zombies a better edge vs revives, and takes away the "revive weapon" claims. --YuriRuler90 01:49, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This, or Mk3b. Either way.--Zeek 02:18, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I honestly believe that this is the best suggestion on this Wiki. Except maybe the Aristocrat ones. Anonymous4401 02:33, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Can't spite this one bit. Fat Charlie 02:48, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Jumping from the tops of buildings would make sense for zombies too! ... actually, can zombies do that in a building? I've never actually looked on my zombie character's screen. If it's not possible, it'd be better to allow it. Edit: was told they can, but they don't die. They'd have to be killable like that if this suggestion went through... I wouldn't want to have to waste 50-60AP before I could actually revive myself. --Shadowstar 03:03, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

re- Yeah, zombies can't kill themselves, at least not very quickly, but others could kill them. The "wasted ap" wasn't really intended to slow down revives, but may not be a bad thing, since it currently seems hard for zombies to make sure people stay ded. If it was TOO slow, Kevan could just raise the syringe find rate again. And obviosly, it really doesn't matter to zombies that would rather stay zombies... --Swiers 03:29, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Keep - I like this idea. It will make me and my hoard of Mark II syringes that much more popular. X1M43 06:16, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - If they're at least slightly more common than the Mark II's. God I hate spending half my time dumping books, extractors, and GPS units. -_- Riktar 06:30, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - But only if they completely replace Mk2 syringes in the NT Buildings. It would be a lot better if people couldnt tell affected zombies apart from regular zombies (And the syringe just bypasses affected ones in the pile to get the next, be they a brain rotter or not). --Grim s 06:44, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Excellent idea! Change the name though, Mk3 to me implies an improvent, not a downgrade. Also, there is no reason to eliminate Mk2s from being found with these around, just make them extremely rare in comparison to these (something maybe like if the current chance to find a mk2 (if you find an item at all) is 20%

then the mk3's would be found 19% of the time, and the mk2's only 1%. Or something... --Zarquon 06:59, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Keep - This is a good idea!However,I don't understand if they rise with FULL HP or the HP that they had when they were de-necrotized. --Penance 15:08, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

re- They would rise with half of thier full HP, just as they currently do. The only chnge the Mark 3 makes to the Mark 2 is in how quickly it turns a zombie into a corpse; once the zombie finally falls over as a propper corpse, they work exactly the same. --Swiers 00:48, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Keep Yeah, a 1% chance of Mk2's and the 14-19% chance of finding Mk3's would be good. I don't think removal of the Mk2's is needed, but they should at least be rare enough so that people won't want to use them as an offensive weapon, and instead only use them during dire situations. Of course, I know that rare does not equal balenced, however, this is for a healing item, not a kind of all-powerful weapon (since it'd be better to use the extremely rare Mk2 on an ally rather than risk wasting it on a possible brain-rotten enemy). --Volke 22:51, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)*"Keep" - anything which weakens the massively overbalanced art of revivificaiton gets my thumbs up [[ User: urbanfred] 03.34 18/12/05
  • Keep - Nice, very nice. Regarding the other users comment on the Game News flavour text, i have one possible idea which doesn't make NecroTech appear weaker, whilst making the dead appear more powerful. It is along the same lines as the Infectious Bite one. *coughs* *'The virus has been mutating and adapting in the brains of the infected. The Necrotech syringes are becoming less effective. (NecroTech syringes now require the recipient to die before becoming human, and take one HP away per action). -- Andrew McM 20:20, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sound great. This way, you could also hunt down those that try to revive you before turning human without being accused of PKing or spying. My only question is what happens if the zombie gets KILLED while de-necrotizing? --Duranna 15:49, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

re- Per the original suggestion text above- When they finally drop dead (from this damage, or other causes), THEN they will be able to stand up again as human.' Killed while de-nectortizing = dropped to 0HP = stand up again as a living survivor. --Swiers 02:43, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Keep - Good job.--The General 16:52, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - You, sir, are a legend. I salute you. Best suggestion in the wiki by a clear million miles. --Throctukes 16:53, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This sounds good. --Comrade Morgan 20:09, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Not only is this a good idea, but the author signed it. Gets my vote. --Blobmorf 17:15, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - *jumps for joy* yay! 100% keep! thats gotta be a record! *shakes swiers' hand* barbariandude 12:00, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)

}}


Revival Syringe, Mark 3.0b

  • Removed by creator.

Personal tools
advertisements