Suggestions/21st-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

21st December, 2005

VOTING ENDS: 4th-Jan-2006

Multiple Use of Actions

Timestamp: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 at 00:51:01
Type: Improvement
Scope: Universal
Description: Often I find myself wanting to use a single attack X number of times. I have to click the button (usually Attack) and wait a minute or so before getting a response. I think it would be useful to have an option that allows a player to perform an action X times, providing the conditions exist for the player to be eligible to do so that many times. If attacking, it would use attacks of the type specified against the same target, and stop when X attacks have been performed, the target is gone/dead, ammo has been depleted or no APs remain.

Votes

  • Keep - Author vote. I believe it would be very handy. --Zirik Wednesday, December 21, 2005 at 00:56:36
  • Kill - This has already been suggested. The problem with Attack X Times is that it instantaneously would kill the target without giving them time to respond. --Jon Pyre 01:03, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - For some things, perhaps. For example, I think it's ridiculous that it takes 2 actions to reload a shotgun with 2 shells. But I don't know about attacks. --Coreyo 01:38, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -Jon pyre has it right. Coreyo, this is about just about attacks, multiple searches and quickloading all have been suggested before and are other proposals, this doesn't change that.--Vista 02:00, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • KILL - Maybe if there was an inherant 5 minute delay between repetitions? Giltwist 02:08, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill That would be completely unfair (largely to zombies) in realtime combat. Why not just make attacks take 10 AP and do 15 damage each? --Zaruthustra 02:14, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - if this is all about attacks, definitely unfair to both sides. --Shadowstar 02:48, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - i think it a good idea --Kcold 14:06, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like it when you and an opponent have a stand up fight, whaling away at each other, chipping down the HP. Plus, if you'd stacked up on pistols & clips, it'd be like a 6-shot burst of an SMG. --WibbleBRAINS 16:45, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Not only has this idea been suggested so many times in the past (not on the wiki, but on the forums), but it's a terrible idea when it says 'Attack X times'. This gives a survivor/zombie no chance to run away if they are being attacked. Instakill time! Performing non-combat actions like search multiple times is fine, though. --Daxx 16:50, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What Jon Pyre and others have said. --Dickie Fux 18:23, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Too similar to Search X Times. no signature --Deathnut 05:07, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I am sorry but it give the zed/survivor NO chance to run just like Daxx said--revoso 03:11, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Not only does this remove the chance of running away by the guy ur trying to kill, but also this removes the whole idea that searching takes time. Barbariandude
  • Kill - Wow, the birth hour of pistolero-ninjas! --Father Gregoriy 22:54, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Raping other people in the butt

Suggestions this bad make baby jesus cry. Thank god for spamination. --Zaruthustra 02:49, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Moved Discussion to Discussion Page. --Contaminated 04:32, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Zombie Mob

Timestamp: 01:55, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: putting more mob in zombies
Scope: zombies
Description: Ok! I�ll give it a try to make zombieplay more interesting. I think zombies should have this character of an always dangerous mass and horde always hungering for brains.But in the moment humans have more horde qualities. They can talk, they, can, heal each other etc, and so work well in groups. Zombies are just many loners together. And standing in groups like xp-cattle isn�t very dangerous. Here comes the idea: Zombies can get a skill (I call it hunger) that can be activated and deactivated for APs. as long it's activated the zombie can't do anything else (like moving or fighting) but therefore he gives any other zombie in his block a bonus to hit (like 2% or 5%). This skill has two main features first: it gives zombies a skill to choose that helps the zombie-comunity in general. And second: large zombie mobs could defend themself more easily against farmers. Because one active zombie in a mob of many inactive zombies with skill has a very high hit rate. You shouldn�t be able to walk fearless in a 50+ Zombie-Mob farm some zombies and go home to the mall. The Hunger skill could so simulate that zombies don't sleep and always hunger for fresh brains.

Ok, thats the idea, sorry for bad english

Votes

  • Kill - I really like the idea of makings a lingering mob of zombies dangerous. The problem I see with this method is server load. When a zombie attacked, the server would need to check every other zombie in a location in order to determine what that attack percentage is. Could get really messy for large groups. Find a different method and I'd keep. --Bloarg 06:00, 19 Dec 2005 (PST)
  • Kill - Zombies need something along those lines but this is to much load on the server. If you can find a different method then I'll vote keep.--The General 08:46, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No 100% hit rates and this would kill the server and dance on it's grave. Also, post at the BOTTOM of the page, I had to move your suggestion to the right place --Kryten 13:03, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Every zombie in a horde would spend its last AP to activate this and log out, then log in a day later, spend one AP to deactivate it, and keep doing that. Also, if the bonus stacks, it gives 100% to hit. Both of those results would be bad. --Dickie Fux 18:27, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You think outside the box and making zombie hordes stronger is good, but keep in mind they are hordes, multiply the action of your suggestion by a thousand and see what it does before you post it. most of the time you'll find it's broken. That's why so few zombie skill get past peer review. but I hope somebody takes your view of making zombies co�perate more without much interaction and thus leaving the mindless horde (in implemented game mechanics that is, forums and meta gaming =good)in tact--Vista 20:39, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • humor - quote: "TYPE:puting more MOB in zombies" lmho thats a good pun there ha!--revoso 03:14, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

View all as Toggle

Timestamp: 02:44, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Interface Change
Scope: All
Description: Instead of having that "view all" button as a one time thing, thus meaning you can't heal or attack people at the bottom of the lists without wasting lots of IP hits, make it a toggle. (Uh, to those who haven't seen it yet, this is in response to the new version of the map where survivors are cut off, along with the people in the lists for attacking, healing.) A note: you can use the back button to do this in part. I'd still rather have a way to toggle it when you're in the building...

Votes

  • Kill I think if this could be coded it would have been. Unless somebody familiar with the game script can give me a convincing alternative code I'm sticking with kill. --Zaruthustra 02:43, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I've seen what you are talking about, but this is to reduce server load, this only occurs when there is a large number of survivors present. (This was probably implemented due to the strike and everyone being in the same area, or mabey due to Cagier Mall) Any way, there is an extra 10 server hits or so that you have. So click the list, take note on who needs healing and by how much and then do your work. Simple. - Jedaz 02:48, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT) - EDIT - I would also like to note that this whole thing may have been cause by us as a suggestion which limits what can be seen was in the peer reviewed suggestions. Show Only Number Of Survivors - Jedaz 00:32, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. You need to click the view all thing every time you want to heal someone who's not on the list. If you want to heal ten people, it's ten extra hits. One for each character not on the list. If you want to use infected bite on ten people (and they're not in the top few) it's ten extra hits. I realize this was done for server load... but this is going to make a number of tactics impossible. (Or rather, impossible for anyone who doesn't use exclusively paid accounts.) --Shadowstar 02:53, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep It is a must have for medics. Toggle. You cant target people on the bottom of the list unless its open. So even if you know their names, it appears pointless unless you waste IP hits.--[[User:CowboyUp 02:49, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)]]
  • Keep For reasons stated by CowboyUp. Maybe put the full list (with HP if you have diagnosis) in the drop down menus but not in the window itself. --C tiger 02:56, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Ever try loading 50 kits in a Fort of 150+? The dropdowns are what lags the room I think. Solution: KEVAN! IMPLEMENT YOUR OWN ITEM COMBINER! --CowboyUp 03:03, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT) Sorry, CU, author responses only. (Though, that probably IS the way to do it, instead of having survivors with 50 slots of names...)
  • Kill - Leave it alone. If you really want to see the list, you can see the list. Some people don't care, and those people help save on server wear and tear. Bentley Foss 05:19, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - If they don't care, they won't leave it on-- It's nice not to see 1000 names in a room if you don't have to. This nerfs infection and diagnosis for unpaid characters, as well as strategies like killing all humans with headshot/nectech skills. --Shadowstar 10:51, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Maybe I'm not reading this right, but couldn't you just open the list in one window, leave it open, and play in the other window? Just tab to the list window to see who is low on HP or whatever? --WibbleBRAINS 16:51, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - That is what I do, WibbleBRAINS. It works quite well. Or, shock horror, you might want to pay for your characters. --Daxx 16:56, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Medics definately need this. Keeping another tab open with the list does not help medics or infections, because the drop-down menus are closed to the 50 people, plus the person you last acted upon. Being able to see who is there in another tab doesn't help with targeting them. Also, shock horror, some of us can't pay for our characters! Gasp! Nekoabyss 20:33, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I believe this is a good idea. So far, it seems the popular Kill vote reasons (and my own only concerns) involve programming difficulty and server load, both of which are bad reasons, per the voting guidelines. --Reverend Loki 20:44, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -moving around and finding people to thank them for a heal or a revive? too costly. feeling part of a group because you operate in the same place? gone. Seeing people with bad intentions and moving on? nice meeting mr pk'er. A toggle? not that a good an idea is it? --Vista 20:56, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Medics need it.--Felix Fitzpatrick 21:43, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT) moved up to here since it was placed on top of the suggestion below. --Deathnut 05:11, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

A suggestion that you should read first and not judge by it’s name

Timestamp: 02:53, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Class change (Zombies)
Scope: Zombies
Description: I’ve just recently converted one of my Survivors into a zombie and I have found that even starting with 400 XP and spending that on skills they are still unable to kill a human in one round of 50AP which I think is terriable as Survivors (with 4 skills) are able to kill more then 2 Zombies in 50AP. What I’m purposing is that Zombies get 10% more on all of their base attacks as well as 5% higher on attacking barricades. The reason that this should be implemented is that if a zombie is close enough to attack someone/something then they are not very likely to miss. This also helps new zombies as they are the ones who are most likely to become frustrated and quit because they cannot kill anything. Heck even I'm becoming willing to join the strike.

Votes

  • Kill Zombies have the highest average damage in the game already I think. Suggest real changes to the class itself instead of making ham fisted attempts to buff things that don't need help. --A guy who plays a zombie, agrees they need help, but doesn't think just buffing damage is going to make them fun. 03:01, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombies need a barricade destruction boost, but not a combat boost. Factoring in the amount of AP it takes to gather ammo, maxed claws are generally more efficient than firearms, and maxed bite is on par with the axe (and has special effects). Furthermore, the logic of "if you can get close enough to hit, you shouldn't miss" should also apply to human melee attacks. In any case, there have been better suggestions along the same lines, like this one. - KingRaptor 03:06, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Zombies need a higher hit percentage against humans. Barricades are pretty much fine, IMO. I don't have any problems killing people with mine. Zombies have a high damage IF they have a survivor outside, but hitting barricades is much like searching. We have pistols and shotguns, I think they do need to be a little bit higher. Maybe a damage modifier that increases the attack strength inside or something? (I'm killing because there's no change. Get rid of the 5% barrricade part and I'll keep.) --Shadowstar 03:07, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Actually, I changed my mind. I want two ponies. The game rules just got changed. the raw numbers suggest the zombies would be better off. If they are worse of now, I expect it has more to do with a statistically significant number of zombies having stopped playing, making it much tougher for those who are. I refuse to draw any conclusions from the in-game data until the strike ends, as teh source data is being skewed by the strike. Rhialto 03:10, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The only reason why a lvl 4 survivor can kill two zeds in 50 AP is because he/she has to spend AP beforehand stocking up on ammo. The average AP survivors have to spend per kill isn't nearly as low as all these zed-combat buffs try to imply. --VoidDragon 03:31, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Trust me, survivors spend more than their share of 50 AP stocking up on all the ammo required to kill two zombies in one playing session. It very much balances out. This is unnecessary. Re-read Multiply it by a Billion Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots and get back with us. Bentley Foss 05:21, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Exactly what Bentley Foss, Zaruthustra and VoidDragon said. It's the gun/axe trade off. --Daxx 12:33, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -combat is balanced, player fun isn't, so balance that, instead on focussing on making zombies one man armies.--Vista 21:01, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Im surprised nobody pointed out that the whole zombie idea is that survivors are SUPPOSED to be able to kill them easily. This makes the zombies need backup, hence the whole zombie horde thing (and also the reasoning behind feeding groan, which btw is an EXTREMELY useful skill. barbariandude 12:27, 21 dec 2005 (gmt)

Scent Death

Timestamp: 03:39, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: This skill would allow zombies to tell if suvivors were killed inside a building they are in front of. Zombies would get a message along these lines: "You smelled freshly spilled blood from inside 5 times since you last logged in." It indicates number of times a zombie killed a suvivor inside since your last turn, not the number of bodies inside. This skill would exist to let zombies that are sieging a building to know if their overall effort is making any gains. Suvivors don't need a skill like this to sense zombie deaths outdoors since killing a zombie is unimportant. But killing suvivors is the whole point of zombie activities. It'd be nice to let them know how the fight is going if they themselves don't make it past the barricades.

Votes

  • Kill - There have been better suggestions to allow zombies to "see" inside barricades, which is a dodgy proposition at best, since it effectively nerfs survivors' abilities to use barricades as a decoy. -- Ethan Frome 05:27, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - However for this to work the decoy must have already failed since a zombie has to have not only entered the building but killed a suvivor. And it does not let them know how many people are inside if any. For all the zombie outside knows there was a single suvivor inside and they were killed. This is very different than a barricade nerfing ability that allows a zombie to walk door to door and peek inside. Because of this it would be used more for battle information than anything else.--Jon Pyre 07:01, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - There have been a lot of Xray vision ideas lately but I think this is one of the better ones. My suggestion is tweek this so it is Scent Corpse so you don't actually smell deaths but corpses from inside a building Giltwist 05:28, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Seems pretty pointless, especially because if we're sieging something then there's proably metagamming involved and if the siege is working the metagaming will report it.--Terrgn33u 05:31, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - As described, this skill seems pointless. Dead bodies seldom stay inside a building long enough to matter. Rhialto 11:12, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - That's not how it was described. It would tell you suvivors killed since your last turn, not the number of corpses present in a building. I added a line to clarify. --Jon Pyre 14:27, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • That's even less useful than I thought then. Rhialto 15:29, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • keep -As long as Pk'ing doesn't set it off. (the skill would be to easy to abuse then) and the zombie doesn't get the notice if he dies before log in. I was going to vote kill for it being an X-ray skill, untill you hit on the war report aspect of it. That would give zombies a huge incentive during sieges, add tremendous fun and schadenfreude to the zombie side as they notice that they're having an effect, without changing any combat skills. The off chance that a zombie learns a survivor location due to the fact that an other zombie broke in and killed a survivor, while standing in the same block and living trough the night is minimal enough. and definitly worth the fun it would give the horde.--Vista 21:22, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Author voting keep for no other reason than to tie Kills and Keeps. Thank you Vista for explaining my reason for this suggestion better than I did myself. --Jon Pyre 23:13, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - great skill,useless but o so great i heart it --revoso 03:17, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Corpse Feed

Duplicate, original completely rejected. --Brizth 08:39, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)


The Many (or there's safety in numbers)

Timestamp: 04:37, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Mood enhancer, game balance
Scope: Everyone
Description: How could a lone survivor pass through a horde of zombies, without so much as a scratch? When large numbers of zombies gather in a single location, it should become increasingly difficult, perhaps even hazardous, to pass through their midst. You are trying to get through and one grabs your coat, you turn down an alley to find a dozen shambling your way. You panic and take the only clear exit you can find!

Survivors in the same location as a large number of zombies have a chance, equal to the number of zombies-5 (max 65%) that they do not move to the square they intended, and quite possibly aren't able to escape at all. 10% NW, 10% N, etc, 10% stuck, 10% enter building (or stuck if you can't).

Votes

  • Keep - Self-vote. Additional chance (#zeds-30, max %25) of taking a few points of damage and/or becoming infected? --Gilant 04:41, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Almost a dupe from some older stuff I think. At any rate this is punishment to scientists who already have trouble farming XP with their DNA taggers. Also its just kind of irritating to wrest control of the character away from the user imo. --Zaruthustra 04:55, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • kill --Rolland CW 05:06, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • kill As much as I like to eat scientists when killing everyone in NT building, this would is too harsh on them. They have trouble getting XP as is. --Contaminated 05:12, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This suggestion pops up every other week. Do we need to bother to provide the dupe link, really? Bentley Foss 05:22, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • KIll - I'd ratehr this was a flat increase in AP based on the number of zombies present to move rather than making the guy move in a random direction. Rhialto 05:50, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like the base idea, but not the implementation. See "Dificult Passage" below. --Jstoller 07:58, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Not moving at all is too harsh. --Shadowstar 13:26, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -It mainly targets scientists, who are the weakest survivor class already, and don't need more troubles getting XP.--Vista 21:27, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - the mere FACT that this shows up every other week means that there is an overall problem or concept that needs to be addressed, and that problem is not "this keeps getting suggested". --Squashua 20:34, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Paralytic Bite

Timestamp: 05:56, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies with infectious bite
Description: The infectious bite of a zombie has mutated in such a way that in addition to causing normal infections, any players who die as the result of a paralyzing bite cannot be revived during their next 100 or so AP, due to the neurological paralysis from the zombie's venom (or whatever it is that zombies have, diseases, let's say). This is basically a temporary brain-rot-inducer and would fall after infectious bite in the skill-tree. Just looking to swell the ranks of zombies, and this seemed like a cool idea. It doesn't cause *too* much hassle--it can't permanently zombify players, but it can make them stay zombies for a while. An AP cost as opposed to time cost prevents players from just waiting it out. Don't know if an AP counter that ticks down (like infectious bite wounds tick hp down) would be too much DB processing or not...

Votes

  • Kill Got grief? --Zaruthustra 06:17, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If you don't want to play a zombie, you'll just walk up and down for 100 APs before going to your revive point of choice. All this suggestion will do is artificially boost zombie numbers. Rhialto 06:25, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill What Zaru said. There's nothing more to it. --Volke 07:12, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill This seems like it's been said before. --Shadowstar 10:53, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What they said. --Daxx 12:31, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It'd swell the ranks of zeds alright, with zombies who don't want to play as zombies. I dont think creating a shooting-gallery of the unwilling is helpful, and what if the poor fella get's re-infection killed by a ZKer at the end of those two days? They'd be wandering in limbo until the player just gave up the character in disgust.--WibbleBRAINS 17:01, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It's not a bad idea, but 100 AP is too long, I think. Also, this is too strong for an always-on ability. Maybe make it an upgraded infectious bite, and if they die from the infection, not the bite, or if it had a (small) percetage chanceto kick in, I may be in favor of it. --Reverend Loki 20:17, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -if you want more zombies, focus on making zombies more fun, not making survivors miserable. Forced brainrot? really...--Vista 21:31, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Sewer Surfin' Zombies

Timestamp: 06:56, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Zombie ability
Scope: All zombies. Not a skill.
Description: Zombies can enter sewers to sneak into any building. This is an action that takes 10 AP to perform and requires three game-time ticks (so at least an hour, up to an hour and a half) to accomplish. While a zombie is sewer surfin', it is vulnerable to attack from survivors within the building, who will receive the message "There is a zombie in the sewers here!". Said zombie can be killed and thrown out the door like usual, and can't do anything until it's out of the sewers.

This change is designed for the benefit of FERAL zombies. If three people in a building are asleep, they should be expected to be chewed on by the time they wake up. This will GREATLY increase the amount of fear in this game and provide a new zombie ability- which is what everyone is clamoring for these days.

Votes

  • Keep Author, suggestion, you know the drill. Slicer 06:56, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Wait what? Does it come up through the toliet? Logic issues aside a skill that allows outright ignoring of barricades is bad. --Jon Pyre 07:07, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Why wouldn't survivors be able to travel through the sewers too? Needs more clarification.--Pesatyel 08:33, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This suggestion does not deserve to live. Zombies in sewers? Coming up through the plughole like spiders? No thanks. --Daxx 12:30, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - And what would stop a horde from going down to the sewers and destroying everyone in every building? You need some kind of defensive part to this... --Shadowstar 13:28, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - But the idea of a zombie's claws shooting out the toilet and ravaging some poor survivors buttocks must be in the next zombie movie. --WibbleBRAINS 17:05, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Unwieldy to wait a full hour and a half (you'd probly just not time it right and come back to a shot up zombie) and totally bypasses barricades. In the end only ferals would really benefit from this and they'd usually just be killed. --Zaruthustra 18:57, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -It got a chuckle ot of me --Vista 21:39, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombie ninjas? How exotic! So do they just kinda get very slim and squish through all the pipes, out of the toilet, into the building? -- Father Gregoriy 23:04, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Barricade v2.0

Timestamp: 07:34, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Balance Change
Scope: Survivors & Zombies (benefits the latter more). Gameplay alteration.
Description: Barricades are a pain for zombie players because they're a pain to take down, especially if alone. We all know this by now. What if, however, something were done to limit that? Only X materials within a building at once to barricade with, and as the zombies tear them down, they're pulled out into the street, making them unusable until someone drags them back inside (probably when there are no zombies on the street.) This might be noted for anyone passing by as "Piles of furniture/metal/wood/etc. are scattered about the street."

Yes, there's already a limiting factor as the barricades grow, but this is just another attempt at some slight chance for a re-balance. More will probably be needed to make this perfect, but think of it not as some instant fix, but a step in the right direction, when voting.

Votes

  • Keep - I'm not just the president, I'm a customer as well. --Dr. Fletch 07:34, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Barricades are fine as it is. This only makes it so that once barricades are breached, there's no point in trying to defend the building anymore. This makes it IMPOSSIBLE for a survivor group to defend anything anything of value since the limited barricades are easily taken down by the outside horde! This isn't a step in the right direction, it overpowers zombies! --Volke 07:44, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Re - Well, no. Not as a zombie barricades aren't fine. And also, this is really only going to hurt those people who were either:

1) Just attacked recently (and are low on ammo/medkits/AP), or 2) Have been swarmed by some UNGODLY number of zombies. (ie, a horde. The kind of thing that SHOULD be able to overrun a barricade instead of having to go up against The Infinite Wall of God.) Otherwise, you can just pull in the barricaded materials after a skirmish and start rebuilding for one or two AP extra. All it'll do is increase tension some. If there's an "overpowering" here, I'm missing it, and would love to know how so. --Dr. Fletch 07:57, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Yes, barricades stop zombies, but that's their point! Look at Caiger, Giddings, the fort seiges, those all lasted a good amount of time and were exciting to fight in! Implement this and zombies will always win, period. Out of 6 months, the survivors have only bested the undead ONCE! Sometimes David has to beat Goliath, otherwise, big sieges won't matter since once people see that the amount of zombies outside will take out all the things to barricade with, they'll just leave since the zombies can't be stopped until they decide to go away, which only happened at Caiger due to survivor organization that happened to include usage of barricades, and barricades from the ones before Caiger didn't even make a difference in the end! Make it so that large hordes need not fear barricades anymore, and the tides will shift to where survivors will need the boost! --Volke 08:15, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I think that someone should be able to pull in the barricade material by popping outside in the middle of a siege when the barricade is at VS or lower, but otherwise this suggestion works. --JeffL 08:10, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - but I'd make that Lightly or lower - that would give three delineations of barricade strength, Lightly, Strongly, Heavily, and make each mean something. Plus it'd give the ferals a chance to break in over the course of two days or so. --RSquared 15:01, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill This would just mean zombie hordes would almost always win. Another "OMH TEH CAIGER MALLZOR" skill. --Zaruthustra 17:15, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Yeah, it's true. Caiger was the only place humans have ever held out. --Daxx 17:16, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -Yes the zombie count is low and Caiger was a blow to their pride. but lets the survivors have their chance at a siege. only when they were at 70% of the pop count and highly organised did the humans manage a win. why make it so that they cant win when they are 70% of the game? Just think what that mean when the zombie count normalizes to 40, 50 or 60 percent. increase the zombie count and humans don't stand a chance already.--Vista 21:50, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Zombie Smash!

Timestamp: 07:50, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Way to assist zombies
Scope: zombies
Description: Horrible referance aside, zombies who get this skill get a +10% chance of breaking through barricade levels when alone, +5% when with 5-9 others, and is negated when with hordes of 10 or more. This is a loose suggestion, and could be changed in many ways. For example, it could require Brain Rot in order to get (since with minor brain power, they will rely soly on strength). I tried to keep it simple and keep it open without being overpowered, so tell me what is good and what is bad about it! EDIT: This is to make it so that zombies can choose to travel alone or in small groups, and be able to last without having to be in a hoarde. Its nothing game-breaking, but it allows two roads for a zombie to pick from.

Votes

  • Keep - of a suggestion still on the page, even! "A suggestion that you should read first and not judge by it’s name." --Shadowstar 10:55, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT) zombies who get this skill get a +10% chance of breaking through barricade levels when alone and +5% while in a horde of 10 or more. != zombies get 10% more on all of their base attacks as well as 5% higher on attacking barricades. -- but you can see how I was fooled. The suggestion LOOKS the same. Anyways. Okay, reading more carefully, I agree wiht the alone part, might even raise it a little, but a horde of 10 or more shouldn't have trouble breaking down barricades as is, except at large strongholds like Caiger, where it SHOULD be difficult. --Shadowstar 19:09, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT) On the basis that this is supposed to allow some power for lone zombies, changed vote.
    • Sorry for wording it so badly. Yeah, I wanted to make it easier on feral zombies, but last time someone suggested that loners get an upgrade, everyone voted kill because they didn't understand why being alone helped them. I'd rather it just be a +10% against barricades while alone, but... Its designed to be flexable. --Volke 20:09, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Dupe - Hooray! You saved me the bother of having to provide a link, because it's already on this page! (I know that the other suggestion also incorporates attack bonuses, but it's practically exactly the same thing, everyone knows that upping zombie attack percentages won't solve the problem.) --Daxx 12:25, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • This isn't the same thing. This gives ferals a boost, while that one overpowers hordes. I put this in becauses I believe hordes should be optional, not a requirement! Not only that, but now that I think about it, this COULD help make zombies more interesting! With this, you can play as a lone or small-group zombie, while your other option is to be in a big horde! That's two possible roads for zombies to take, and can work out well in either case! --Volke 20:18, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Not a dupe. "A suggestion that you should read first and not judge by it’s name" also suggests increasing attack percentage. - Jedaz 12:49, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Funny how people will vote Dupe even when there's only one facet that overlaps another suggestion. That's not how it works, folks. -- Amazing 18:09, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Not a dupe, at least not a dupe of "A suggestion...". And everyone knows barricades are too hard to take down by anyone but griefers with a crowbar. Zombies shouldn't require spies to survive. --Hexedian 18:54, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It's a good idea. I most certainly do n0t think that it's a dupe. (OMG, this suggestion uses letters! This other suggestion also uses letters! It must be a dupe!) --Reverend Loki 20:06, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • kill -I really don't think barricades are overpowered. sure it's tough that a feral can't get too the fleshy goodness inside, but the life of a loner is hard... just eat stupid survivors of the street--Vista 22:00, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • This isn't suggesting that barricades are overpowered, its suggesting that zombies can choose to be loner ferals in small groups, or in powerful hordes. Its only two options, but at least its better than only having one like they do now. Besides, a small group won't last against the large force that's generally residing in a PD, FD, Necrotech, or hostpial. They'll just get one kill and maybe some infections before getting kicked out, which should allow for a good rate of levelling themselves up. I'll change the initial suggestion to reflect this. --Volke 22:10, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - LtMile 15:34, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Difficult Passage

Timestamp: 07:55, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Game Mechanics
Scope: Universal Gameplay
Description: This is a suggested re-write of "the Many" suggestion posted above.

For every zombie beyond ten in a square, there is an additional 2% chance that it will take 2 AP to pass through the square. So, if I'm in a square with 25 zombies, and I try to leave, there's a 30% chance that it'll cost me 2 AP. In most cases this is a minor nuisance, but if a survivor doesn't plan well, this extra AP could mean the difference between getting to shelter or falling asleep outside.

  • Clarification - This rule applies only to survivors. A survivor moving through a sea of zombies must tread carefully and try not to get too close, lest they get pulled down and eaten. A zombie moving through a sea of survivors doesn't care how close he gets to them. In fact, zombies want to get close so they can eat your brains. --Jstoller 19:41, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Clarification - This rule only goes into effect when you pass through a square. You can always enter a square without any penalty, but if you try to leave it, there's a chance it might cost you some extra AP. Likewise, you can go in and out of a building without any penalty. The assumption being that when you step outside, you're staying close to the door, and it's not until you try to walk to the next block that you have to pass through the hoard. If Kevan thinks it's appropriate, I could see this penalty also applying to someone trying to leave a building with a hoard of zombies inside it, but again, it's only when you leave the affected area that you need to worry. --Jstoller 21:26, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Optional - Some people seem to want this to have an even bigger impact. As written, once there are 60 zombies in a square it will automatically take 2 AP to leave that square. If Kevan wishes to extend this rule, then I recommend the following: Fore every zombie beyond 60 in a square, there is a cumulative 1% chance that it will take 3 AP to pass through that square. Thus, at 160 zombies it will automatically take 3 AP. This could potentially go on forever, but I personally would cap it at 3 AP (and really capping it at 2 AP would be fine). Any more and it could unbalance the game. --Jstoller 21:26, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Votes

  • Keep - It makes sense that avoiding a zombie swarm might take a little extra effort, and I like the touch of unpredictability it adds. --Jstoller 07:55, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - As-is, navigating the city resembles the opening scene in Shaun Of The Dead- wandering aimlessly from place to place, sauntering safely and casually through hordes of zombies. --JeffL 08:12, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sounds good, though it might need to be punched up a bit, AP-wise, in regards to larger hordes. What about 100 zombies? 200? --Aesir 03:21, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Jirtan 08:23, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This one actually makes sense. - KingRaptor 08:34, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Definitely a good deal of logic to this. I approve. --Dr. Fletch 08:37, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like the idea. However, as Aesir said, the AP might need to be changed. The more zombies, the harder. Not only should the chance of having to spend more AP go up, but so should the AP itself. 30 zombies have a 40% chance of causing the survivor to spend 3 AP, 40 zombies 60% chance to spend 4 AP. Something like that.--Pesatyel 08:41, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yay! I was planning on suggesting something like this myself. --Brizth 08:43, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It needs a cap of some percentage, I think... other than that, it looks good. --Shadowstar 10:57, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I assume you mean to move out of the square. Perhaps it should apply even if you are inside of a building. Also, you'd probably need to add a description to the square, something like, "It might be difficult to get past all those zombies." --Daxx 12:28, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Would add an element of difficulty of getting through the hoard, as it makes no sense walking up to a building under seige and just hoping in through the window with no penalty --Chineselegolas 12:57, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I have to agree with Pesatyel and Aesir, about the % cap, I think 100% is a good cap (that's 60 zombies), also 1 extra AP per 100 zombies (round up) instead of the flat 2 would be nice. --Contaminated 15:03, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - If a cap were to be instituted it should be 80-90%. It's fine as is though. --Antrobus178 17:39, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - good suggestion. --Firemanstan 17:55, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sounds reasonable enough. --Hexedian 18:48, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If this applies to humans, how harder should it be for a mindless zombie to leave a horde? and having zombies trapped in their own horde would be ridiculous--Angelina merde 20:22, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -reluctantly, I have to admit that this makes sense and makes a horde more interesting. even if it is griefing (a bit) as the zombies do not do spend any AP and still cause a negative effect for survivors. But for now I'm leaning towards keep--Vista 22:09, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Echoing what Pesatye said, I liked the 'interdiction' version of this a lot better: if there's more than 60 zombies in a single square, survivors cannot leave that square. It's a cool idea, but there would be better ways of implementing it. --Phaserlight 22:41, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nice point. I'd take away more AP when the chance goes beyond 50% (so 35+ zombies = more than 2AP to move through, exact numbers to be crunched later), but the idea is already good as it is. --Omega2 21:23, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yes. --Blobmorf 18:19, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Then let us pray zombies don't swarm outside of the building we are in. --Penance 16:55, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Another "Zombie Mob" Suggestion, Albeit a Better One

Timestamp: 11:28, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Balance change, Game mechanics
Scope: Zombie
Description: Okay, we've all seen the movies. A lone zombie is NOT scary. It's the horde shambling in the streets, hundreds of rending teeth seen through the mall's glass doors, 20 grasping arms coming through the boards nailed over the window--these scenes strike terror into the hearts of survivors.

My idea is simple: When Y number of zombies assemble together, their individual hit percentages all increase by (Y x 2%), up to a maximum of 20%. For example, a crowd of 10 or more lvl 1 Zombies can increase their individual bite percentages up to 50% (30% default + 20% "horde bonus"). (I know the math is slightly skewed, algebra was never my strong suit, but you get the point.) If you need a logical reason for this: 20 arms are more likely to hit a target than 2. That's all. This change will encourage zombies to work together to overwhelm their cowering victims. This is only a loose suggestion and I'd gladly accept a tweaked version if concensus decrees it. (Suggest tweaks when you vote?)

I got this idea when I went over to help in the dismembering of a civilian, only to be yelled at, probably out of fear that he would lose the XP kill bonus. More rewards for zombies working together PLEASE Kevan thanks. :)

Votes

  • Keep - No more Zombie protests, singing "All we are asking, is give Zs a chance!" (Of course it came out as "aMNMN ZMHA arHA aRZBGARng, ARRZ gARBBHA zRZ a ZZhanZZHA!") --Carnival H 11:28, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Large Hordes are already very dangerous. I think it's the ferals we should try to boost, because it's hard for them to do ANYTHING. The large hordes (it seems to me, anyways) just need to time their attacks together. I think the large hordes are pretty effective at killing. It's the lone zombies who aren't... --Shadowstar 12:46, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Why does everybody keep talking about ferals? Have the words "zombie apocalypse" lost all meaning? Lone zombies aren't an apocalypse, they're a flippin tragedy. It's bad enough survivors outnumber zombies 3 to 1, now we have to encourage zombies to go it alone? Humans don't survive long when they're alone. Nor should zombies. I'm not annoyed, just bewildered. I don't think we watched the same movies growing up. --Carnival H 02:07, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I think Shadowstar got it right with that one. Yes, there need to be incentives for zombies to horde, but improving hit percentages isn't really it. --Daxx 14:28, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Hordes are the only zed strategy that actually works well. --Zaruthustra 18:50, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Not only does this overpower hordes, but I don't think that hordes should be required for zombies to survive! A lone zombie isn't threatening? How about we change that a bit? Not as powerful as a horde mind you, but at least strong enough to be self-sufficient! --Volke 20:24, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -Combat works fine, think outside the box if you want to increase co�peration between zombies. the to-hit % always fails the "Multiply It By A Billion" rule.--Vista 15:20, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT) no signature --Deathnut 05:01, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT) (sorry, fixed it.--Vista 15:20, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT))

More Costly Revivals

Timestamp: 14:32, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Balance Change
Scope: Zombies Who Hang Around At Revive Points Rather Than RPing Zombies
Description: One of the complaints I've heard a lot recently is that it's too easy to return to humanity, and too many people aren't RPing their zombies at all. Perhaps it's time to make dying serious, instead of something that requires wandering up to a revive point and standing around going 'Mrh?'. My idea is in two parts. Part the first: Being revived from a zombie state costs XP (based on the level of the character and/or the # of times revived) Part the second: If you don't have enough XP, the revivification fails entirely.

The idea here is obvious: it should be costly to come back from the dead, a cost that should be high enough to encourage playing as one of the dead, at least long enough to get the XP necessary to revive.

Votes

  • Kill - I dunno, I prefered the NecroTech syringe mark III -- Andrew McM 14:40, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You know, this isn't a bad idea in principle. But forcing people to play as zombies isn't necessarily a good thing, I kinda assumed it was something Kevan wanted to stay away from. Actually, all this skill does is encourage ZKing at revive points. --Daxx 14:50, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Revival Syringe, Mark 3.0 is better. --Contaminated 15:07, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - To meny survivers use syg's as instakills. - --Fullemtaled 15:52, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Noooooo. People complain about zombie grief and the only ideas they can come up with are survivor grief! Kevan has stated that being able to move back and forth smoothly between sides is part of the game. Revives already got nerfed by the introduction of books to nech fronts, so leave it be goit? --Zaruthustra 17:04, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Oh man. And so you'd make revivification an active combat skill that works like the old headshot did! NO WAY! --Shadowstar 17:11, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill First of all, syringes are NOT the cause of the low zombie population! Those who were mad got their wish when books were put into the necrotech buildings, lowering their find chances even more than they were before! Second, this is EXACTLY like headshot used to be, and I think we can all agree that that was a fairly useless grief skill... Lastly, griefing survivors doesn't help anyone! This is essentially forcing people to play as zombies, and lets face it, anything that requires that will result in ZKing or the abandonment of characters! --Volke 20:28, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - We do not ever need another XP draining ability. --Dickie Fux 22:09, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -Headshot for zombies and PK'ers? At least zombiehunters had to buy a level 10 skill to be that annoying.--Vista 22:17, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Communal Feeding

Timestamp: 14:41, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: XP Bonus Change
Scope: Zombies
Description: Please ignore the name, I couldn't come up with anything better. Obviously, it's difficult for a low-level zombie to kill a human on their own, unless they find a wounded one. In most cases, they will run out of AP before being able to finish the job.

The suggestion is to grant an XP bonus for when a survivor dies to all zombies that assisted in the kill. 5XP would go to each zombie that inflicted damage, and 10XP (as current) to the zombie which finished the survivor off. This would obviously be kept track of in the database, but remember the voting guidelines about server strain. If the survivor is healed to full health, then the zombies do not get the bonus (the tags in the database are erased).

This skill would allow lower level zombies to gain amounts of XP even if they are unable to completely finish off a survivor themselves. Yes, there is potential in a siege for one zombie to break in and attack lots of people (hoping to get the XP bonus for lots of survivors), but remember those people still have to be killed, and many might get healed.

Votes

  • Keep - Author vote. I see this as a possible incentive to horde, and one possible way to help lower level zombies out. Just throwing it out there. --Daxx 14:41, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - A clever survivor could in theory receive pot shots from dozens of zombies over days or weeks, getting healed in-between, before finally getting overwhelmed. All those zombies would then inexplicably get XP at that time. No XP for actions you didn't do yourself. Rhialto 15:34, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE: - I hate to RE things, but it seems you didn't notice that if a survivor gets healed then the zombies don't get the XP. --Daxx 15:36, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill You already get XP for attacking, and you get a kill bonus for making the killing blow. Giving magic EXP to zombies for tagging survivors doesn't make much sense. --Zaruthustra 17:07, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It's a reasonable idea.--The General 17:21, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Noble idea, but easilly exploitable and not technically easy. --Hexedian 18:44, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Agree with Hexedian... --Shadowstar 19:12, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombie team work already includes high level zombies softening survivors so the lower level zombies can reap the bonus XP. Also potentially you could reap more than double XP if each zombie just make one claw attack against every survivor in a room and have a few high level clean up the few remaining HP on everyone, thus having 50 zombies potentially gaining about 130xp per Assault. --Contaminated 19:22, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -You still get normal XP for attacking, Bonus XP should be just that, a bonus, something you should feel lucky about recieving it.--Vista 22:21, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Sense Horde

 removed by the author - now groan has been implemented there's no need for this.



Bite 2

If your idea employs insta kills and admits that its griefing, you're probably going to find it on the spaminated list pretty quick. This game is played by people. So lets run through this one more time folks, griefing humans is not an acceptable substitute for actually coming up with good zombie skills. --Zaruthustra 18:46, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Zombie Alts Suggestion

Timestamp: 19:31, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Game Balance
Scope: All Players
Description: Allow zombie players to use attacks (successful or not) against humans to decrease their IP hits when playing human characters. Okay, wait, wait, don't instakill yet! Most survivors obviously aren't playing on the zombie side, so seem to have very little respect for zombies. I'm hoping that this would increase the number of zombies out there, even if they're just active alts. Can't make it IP free to encourage it, but... This requires a separation for IP hits of humans and zombies, though of course it would be combined when deciding whether or not you can keep playing. This might make some die-hard survivor types play zombies to increase their IP hits, thinking it's easy. In a way, they're earning the right to play thier human character by playing zombies elsewhere! It increases the number of IP hits if and only if you are playing on both sides of the fence. If you're only playing zombies, you don't get extra IP hits, if you're only playing humans, you don't get extra. It should, of course, have no effect on paid characters. (Okay, now you can instakill if you want. I think it's better than the 100XP before you can be revived suggestions for increasing the number of zombies, but I guess that's not saying all that much.)

Votes

  • Spam AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. All these skills are just stopgap solutions that try to force you to play zombie with some arbitrary reward or punishment. Instead of telling me which class I need to play to get special perks or avoid getting hardcore nerfed why don't we try to make both sides fun? --Zaruthustra 21:25, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT) --Zaruthustra 21:25, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re How does this punish players? You get a bonus for playing as zombie and human, not a punishment for not doing it... (That really wasn't an argument I was expecting.) --Shadowstar 21:30, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT) Playing a zombie can be fun, but many dedicated survivors never give it a chance... ah! To the discussion page with us (though, I'm leaving in about five minutes)!
  • kill -the reward for playing zombies should be that they are fun to play, not that you can play survivor for longer. But good news, due to the new headshot one of my high-level survivors is now actually a zombie. the zombie count is up by one...--Vista 22:51, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Points for good intentions, however, the problem with this is that people will create many zombie characters and use them to zerg survivors since this would mean that for every zombie character you have, you would get an almost free survivor each time. Sorry, but I see too much potential for abuse. --Volke 22:53, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Except that the zerging zombie has to attempt to kill humans... Well, I can accept that argument though. --Shadowstar 23:01, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Wooooo, the suggestion flew threw the roof. So I need to play zombie to be able to play survivor effiently? Yep, that's gold material right there! --Father Gregoriy 23:12, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)

New Scent Skill

This suggestion was removed for having way more than the three required dupe votes. --Daxx 23:22, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

The links are summed up by this one vote:


Practiced Speech

Timestamp: 20:15, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: Death Rattle is at the moment nearly useless. This would be a skill underneath Death Rattle, where the zombie now completely remembers how to talk. Only, though, there is a 1/3 chance of failing (number can be debated). Instead the zombies would see the message "A zombie tries to speak but utters something not understandable. Edit - Instead when the zombie fails the others hear the sentence in death rattle form.

Votes

  • Keep - I think it sounds good. But instead of "A zombie tries to speak but utters something not understandable," why not just run the speech through the Death Rattle filter when it fails? --Comrade Morgan 20:21, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'm all for communication, but as CM said, run it through the filter instead. --Shadowstar 20:22, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • ReGood idea. --APOCzombie 20:23, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I likes it --Angelina merde 20:31, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it, but don't think that it should be perfect speech. Perhaps certain rules are changed, but otherwise its normal? like, halfway between Death Rattle and normal human speech? Nekoabyss 20:43, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nice. --Dickie Fux 20:45, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -Must agree with running failed attempt through the zombie speech filter instead of out right nothing. Another idea is instead of this use another filter with less letters changed might be simpler to program for the Practiced Speech Skill. --Contaminated 20:46, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Something similar has been suggested before. Still a good idea though. --Hexedian 21:42, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I dislike it, I much perfer if zombies are able to get a larger verity of letters they can use but not the full alphabet, that way it is slightly more interesting and it does not waste ap. - --Fullemtaled 22:33, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -the edit. good for horde co�rdination, makes zombies more fun, simple, logical expansion. (This is the suggestion that just keeps giving)--Vista 22:56, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like the "Zeds understand, Humans don't" version better. --RSquared 23:26, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Though I prefer Grim S's ability, better. Zombies should be able to understand each other like those who talk in Japanese can understand others who talk in Japanese, or those who talk in Spanish can understand others who talk in Spanish! --Volke 23:28, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What RSquared said. --Blobmorf 18:21, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - They're zombies; they shouldn't be able to talk well. I prefer skills like Feeding Groan for zombie communication. --LtMile 15:37, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Ransack/Profanation Skill

Timestamp: 20:39, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Zombie Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: zombies get in furious anger when they find no humans in buildings and start ransacking them. it becomes quite difficult for survivors to barricade themselves in ransacked buildings cause all the things that could have been used to barricade doors, windows, etc... are so much destroyed that they have to look first for what they can use.

How it works:

  • basically it's the opposite of construction skill: when you get on a block it says "this building has been heavily ransacked" these sort of things. the major differences is that any player can still enter a building.
  • When a building is barricade, a player must attack its barricades (no changes for that) with miss possibilities and all that come with down to the level of open doors and then a zombie can ransack it (from the inside).
  • when a building is ransacked, a survivor can clean the mess (new action button) with some miss possibilities (maybe 60% of success) up to the level of open doors and then it get back to the construction skill

consequences:

  • the de-construction tactics become viable for zombies. RRF and other zombies hords can now ransack suburbs so getting in these places are really dangerous
  • this may concentrate fights on mid ransacked/barricaded zone
  • Take the example of a group of zombies attacking a safehouse, it will still be hard to get down the barricades down, but if they enter and ransack the place, it will be bette for the survivor to flee.
  • the construction tactic is still viable for survivors since nothing is change on it and once zombie had been killed they can spend AP barricading again
  • the major thing about ransack is that zombies must enter the building to do it

options:

  • changes percentage of finding objects in a ransacked place (but i don't really like it, forget it)
  • adapt the miss percentage when cleaning the mess
  • use 2 AP to clean the mess but is automatically a success

please vote and make some comments

Votes

  • Keep- Author vote. LAnkou 20:44, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -Ransack is a better idea (Note that version should be moved to peer reviewed) --Contaminated 20:51, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill] - Yes, I just noticed that too. I get the feeling none of those earlier ones were moved around... gah, maintenance........ --Shadowstar 20:52, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT) All right, fine, it's different by a little bit. But it's not as good as that one imo, and that one should still be in peer reviewed. --Shadowstar 21:09, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Its NOT a dupe of the old Ransack skill; that affected search chances, this affects barricade chances. Its also NOT a dupe of my old "Raze Building" suggestion- it has signifigantly more refined and restricted function. --Swiers 21:06, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I would very much like it if it could cross over. That way zombie spies would actualy be able to do something more then just heal the hordes, and bring down the barricades. - --Fullemtaled 22:38, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I liked the version of ransack that required suvivors to clean up a place before they could start searching again. I don't like a version that prevents barricading. Suvivors need the ability to barricade under any conditions because those are their only defense against being killed. --Jon Pyre 22:59, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -having zombies make it harder to barricade an abandond safe house thrashed by zoimbies is something I can get behind if handled correctly. But it should be nothing more then an inconveniance zombies shouldn't be able to force people to stay in the street. This is just too overpowered.--Vista 23:08, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE - as i wrote, people can still enter in the buildings, they are not forced to stay in the street
      • Unbaracaded buildings are the street.--Vista 15:26, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -that a good idea--spetznaz21 20:31, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Combine this with Peer_Reviewed_Suggestions#Ransack and you've got a deal :) --Blobmorf 18:23, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Ransack is indeed better. --LtMile 15:41, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Lights Out in the City

Timestamp: 22:49, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: game state adjustment
Scope: City of Malton
Description: Thank God we got the generators online, because the secondary power-grid, the one that was keeping the streetlights on, just failed. The smoke from burning buildings is so thick over Malton that it's always night. Fortunately, anybody can set up a generator outside and get the power to that streetlight on. Good thing too, because the Zombies seem to be able to detect us even in the dark. Now if only they didn't attack the generators.

Game effects: Survivors can only see the people and zombies in their current outdoor location. The eight surrounding squares are "dark" until somebody sets up a generator in that square. When dark, survivors can only see the building name, but not any occupants of the area (no change to indoor locations). When lit, things are as they are now. Zombies are unaffected by the dark, and can attack generators much like barricades.

What this does: Gives survivors and zombies something else to spend AP on. Gives Zombies a chance to hide outdoors. Possibly saves DB hits as if the square is dark, it doesn't need to get/display the names or zombie count for humans.

Votes

  • Kill - The generators would be destroyed too easily. Something like this idea might work better with the power plants, though I think it would still cripple suvivors too much. Also I don't like the always dark part. --Jon Pyre 22:56, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - Who said how easy the generators would be to destroy? That's a hidden variable and could be adjusted til balanced. Always dark is mostly put in to Keep It Simple.
  • Keep - Would make more sense as part of a Day Cycle, though. --Dickie Fux 23:15, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -With Day/night cycle. normal power coming from the powerstations, and generators as backup. I'd be for it. now it is just so much hassle that it is a fun killer--Vista 23:19, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I would prefer a day night cycle. Maybe 4 cycles a day, day for 3 horus then night for 3 then day exc. - --Fullemtaled 23:21, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sure, you can setup the generator outside - but as it reads, you can set them up inside buildings too, making them not so easily destroyed. --Reverend Loki 23:23, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Helps zombies in a different way than just boosting them. Possibly opens up playstyle (Stealth zombie?) --Kwil 03:24, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Learn to be human

Timestamp: 22:56, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: Currently, zombies cannot use weapons other than melee. Once bought, This skill, called "Learn to be human" for right now is inspired by that black guy from Day of the Dead. This skill would be under memories of life. It would allow zombies to access thier weapons and other items, excluding Medkits cuz they are already dead. However, the pistols and shotguns will experience a 15% reduction in thier chances of hitting. This will not encourage people to be zombies again, but will not disdain the newer people from quitting once dying. Also, once buying this skill, (i dont know if zombies can search the area or not, just leave me be) Zombies can search an area with a diminished percentage.

Votes

  • Kill - I like my humans as humans and my zombies as zombies. --Jon Pyre 22:57, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - We need interesting zombie abilities, not humans called "zombies." --Dickie Fux 23:01, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - ^ - --Fullemtaled 23:04, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - WHAAAaaaaaaa?--Vista 23:22, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Its my civic duty to totally assassinate abilities that bridge the gap between survivors and zombies! --Volke 23:23, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm not liking this one, sorry. Takes the fun out of being a Zed. --Reverend Loki 23:25, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -i dont see any problem with this idea, the zombie cant reload his gun, the zombie cant search for ammo, that will avoid any illegal use. the only way to fck the system is to be a human gho to level 24 (take a time) then die, restart all zombie skill, that will take you something like 1 year, even if you got a lot of cartbridge it would be useless, YOU CANT RELOAD!! you will never see a hord of shotgun zombie taking a police station, 1 or 2 max and when their barrel will be empty they will fight like real zombie, really i dont understand you guys, are you afraid by this little skill??COMMENT personally i will be more affraid by a skill who give the oportunity to a zombie to give 10 damage point!!--spetznaz21 20:31, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Skill to abusive. What would prevent zombies from being revived, stocking up on guns, then dieing and rocking the humans? --Father Gregoriy 23:21, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Personal tools
advertisements