Suggestions/22nd-Dec-2005

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to 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 Suggestions • Suggestions up for Voting • Clothes Suggestions
Cycling Suggestions • Peer Reviewed • Undecided • Peer Rejected • Humorous
Suggestion Advice • Topics to Avoid and Why • Help, Developing and Editing

22nd December, 2005

VOTING ENDS: 5th-Jan-2006

A Solution to the XP | AP | Death | Standup Problem

Timestamp: 00:03, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Game Mechanic
Scope: Survivors and Zombies
Description:

For the purposes of this suggestion, Zombie and Survivor are referred to as Status. A character's Status is either Zombie or Survivor depending on what the character currently is.

I humbly request that if you cannot comprehend this entire suggestion, that you refrain from voting. For those who are simply skimming this suggestion, read the WHAT THIS MEANS sections.


The Problem
There is no true challenge to this game. Read on. Unless a penalty is assessed to each character when they are killed, there will never be a true challenge to survive in this game. Survivors gain XP, die, become Zombies, gain XP, resurrect, become Survivors, etc. All Characters are neverending XP buckets. There is currently absolutely NO PENALTY for getting killed, becoming a zombie, or getting revived - other than for role-playing purposes, no one has any reason to be challenged or scared by character death. Eventually, except for those who have taken Brain Rot, everyone will become homogenous. And quickly. The longer one can stave off homogenaity, the longer this game can last and the more interesting and challenging it will seem.


The History
The problem as it stands is that we are continually gaining experience and swapping Status. A (failed) attempt to fix this problem was implemented by Kevan - he created Headshot to remove experience. This caused a backlash with Zombies, who found it somewhat impossible to increase in experience. The additional attempt to fix Headshot, by removing additional AP per death, is somewhat unbalancing as well.


The Solution
This is a proposal to change the manner in which Experience is handled, in an attempt to balance the system. This Suggestion primarily requires curbing advancement, but the following combination of alterations to fundamental game mechanics should make this game more challenging and more... fair to every player. Please consider the following alterations.


Item 1: Change "Stand Up" to "Pay Death Penalty"
CURRENT STATE - When any character, Survivor or Zombie, dies or is revived, they are penalized by a 1, 6, 10, or 15 AP cost to stand up depending on whether they have Ankle Grab or were killed by a Head Shot. This gives them anywhere from 35-49 AP to spend for the rest of the day. When the player clicks "Stand Up", the AP cost is subtracted from their character and they are standing up and vulnerable.
PROPOSED CHANGE - Instead of seeing a "Stand Up" button, the player is presented with a "Pay Penalty" button. This button subtracts the AP cost (1, 6, 10, 15) from the player's AP total. The key here is that the character is not standing up after the button is pressed. The character is still a body and therefore is NOT vulnerable. His next move, whatever it is, is treated as a normal move; he will no longer appear as a body and may move around. This gives the player the option to stay as a body for the time it takes to re-acquire the lost APs he just spent paying the penalty for dying without the threat of getting killed again and penalized again.
WHAT THIS MEANS - Someone can get killed. Then he can sign in and pay the penalty and not worry about getting to a safehouse. Then he can sign in later and play with his full 50 APs. All death becomes then is simply a delay from gameplay. Read on to see the actual penalty of death.


Item 2: Separate Survivor Experience from Zombie Experience
CURRENT STATE - A Survivor can kill a bunch of Zombies, jump out a window, stand up, and spend his experience on his Zombie character. In most games of this sort, XP is meant to represent knowledge and growth gained from use of abilities, and should only be spendable on the abilities that were exercised. Logically, any life experience a Survivor character has should not be passed on to a Zombie and any "death" experience a Zombie character has should not pass on to his life as a Survivor. There is no reason a Survivor should be able to kill 30 Zombies, gain the experience, jump out of a window, and then spend his XP gained as a Survivor become an instant mega-Zombie.
PROPOSED CHANGE - Along with Separate Zombie and Survivor Levels, enforce and maintain separate Survivor and Zombie Experience Pools. XP gained as a Survivor goes into the Survivor XP Pool and XP gained as a Zombie goes into the Zombie XP Pool.
WHAT THIS MEANS - Experience/Penalties as a Zombie can only be spent/assesed on your Zombie character, and Experience/Penalties as a Survivor can only be spent/assessed on your Survivor character. This currently does not mean much unless the additional Items explained below are enacted, but a brand new, Level 1 Survivor who gains 50 XP and then jumps out of a window becomes a Level 1 Zombie with 0 XP and no access to the XP gained as a Survivor. And vice-versa.
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUE - If this was to be enacted, a decision would need to be made on current character experience. There are only three options, and I prefer option 1:

  1. Keep XP as total for current Status, leaving opposite Status with 0 XP - this will keep those with Brain Rot happy.
  2. Split XP evenly between Survivor and Zombie pools, putting any leftover into current Status - not good for Brain Rotters.
  3. Reset everyone's XP to 0 - this would not make anyone happy.


Item 3: Any Death/Revive Causes a % of XP to be Lost
CURRENT STATE - When a character dies or is revived, he is penalized by an AP loss to stand up. This is a completely recoverable penalty with absolutely no effort required on the part of the player. If anything, this requires a bit of luck at not being found again. Death does not mean anything to a Survivor/Zombie. It needs to be at least somewhat painful so that the Survivor/Zombie takes care not to leave himself exposed to death/revives.
PROPOSED CHANGE - Whenever a Survivor or Zombie is killed or revived, in addition to the standard AP penalty, he loses a percentage of the experience points from his current Status XP pool. The actual percentage amount lost depends on (1) whether the character was a Survivor or a Zombie and (2) the circumstances surrounding his death. The percentages lost are as follows, and are not set in stone:

  • Survivor is killed by a Zombie - A Survivor killed by a Zombie loses 50% of the XP in his pool, rounded up. A Survivor with 150 XP is killed and his Survivor XP Pool is reduced to 75 XP.
  • Zombie is killed by a Survivor - A Zombie killed by a Survivor loses 25% of the XP in his pool, rounded up. Zombies die more often than Survivors, therefore lose a smaller percentage. A Level 8 Zombie with 80 XP is killed and his Zombie XP Pool is reduced to 60 XP.
  • Survivor Commits Suicide - A Survivor that commits suicide by jumping off a building loses 10% of the XP in his Survivor Pool, rounded up. This character obviously wants to become a Zombie, hence the penalty does not affect the Zombie XP Pool.
  • Zombie is Revived - A Zombie that is revived loses 10% of the XP in his Zombie Pool, rounded up.
  • Survivor is killed by a Survivor - A Survivor killed by a Survivor loses 10% of the XP in his Survivor XP Pool, rounded up.
  • Zombie is killed by a Zombie - A Zombie killed by a Zombie loses 10% of the XP in his Zombie Pool, rounded up. Zombies kill each other to heal up, but they should instead be pushed to strive to heal through Skill-based means.
  • Head Shot - Head Shot adds +15% to the XP penalty. This totals to 40%, which is still less than Survivors lose, and figuratively less of an XP loss than old Headshot caused. A Level 8 Zombie with 80 XP is killed and his Zombie XP Pool is reduced to 48 XP. (Old Headshot would have taken away 40 XP, not 32 XP).
  • Brain Rot - As an incentive for characters to take Brain Rot, Zombies with Brain Rot either (1) automatically take -10% XP Loss or (2) have access to a new SubSkill of Brain Rot that grants them a -10% XP Loss. This works against any Zombie death, including death by another Zombie.

WHAT THIS MEANS - All characters will attempt to avoid getting killed, but death does not mean that they will lose all their XP. A percentage loss means that a character's XP total will never be reduced to 0 XP (unless he had 1 XP). Headshot no longer becomes an anomaly of a Skill, but an alteration to a basic game function. There is a true incentive to take Brain Rot.
PERCENTAGE LOSS vs. XP LOSS FROM OLD HEADSHOT - The problem with the old Headshot implementation is that it caused Zombies to potentially lose ALL XP. You lost 5 * Level. With this proposal, yes, both sides do lose XP on death, but neither side will ever lose ALL of their XP.


Item 4: Base the XP Bonus for Killing on the Target's Level
CURRENT STATE - XP is gained through damage caused, and if a target is killed, the attacker gains a flat +10 XP bonus. Other than a target having a different defense, there is no incentive to attack a higher level character vs. a lower level character.
PROPOSED CHANGE - The XP bonus for killing is based on the target's Level. If a Zombie kills a Level 5 Survivor, he gains a bonus +5XP. A PK'er does not get any bonus for killing one of his own. If a Survivor kills a Level 5 Survivor, he gains 0 additional XP.
WHAT THIS MEANS - Higher level characters become valuable targets. Attackers will go after those targets who have the highest level in a group, rather than just joe-blow target. PK'ers are also curbed.
ZOMBIE INDIVIDUALITY ISSUE - This is more of a bonus for Zombies than Survivors, since Zombies are not individually selectable. Zombies would need to be made distinguishable in order for this to be more beneficial to Survivors.

NOTE: Contrary to what some may think, implementing all of the above does not, in any way, require a server/game reset.

Votes

  • Keep - Author vote. --Squashua 00:05, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re I'll refrain from voting, but although I understand why you did it this way, I think the overall suggestion is too complicated and should be broken into smaller digestable chunks. Item 2 to me is obvious and now that you said it should have always been this way, but it would be a major revision to the game. --Unlife 00:37, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No, I like how it is currently and things should be worked around with what is already there. also, it would require a reset of the game.Edit: Yes, i did read it, it would be unfair to those who joined after this was impimented, please read the suggestiond does and don'ts. Have you ever tryed to knock down a barracde as a zombie, it si pretty damn hard as it is, we do not need to be forsed to play zombies to level up, we should be able to level up as we please. - --Fullemtaled 00:16, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re It is obvious that you did not read it. It would not require a reset of the game. --Squashua 00:20, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - There is plenty of penalty for survivors getting killed. The amount of AP required to find a revive point then return to where you were can be massive. Plus, other survivors use a large amount of AP to find a syringe, travel to the RP, and return. I don't think XP should be reduced upon death either - zombies complained about the headshot being overpowered, making it hard to level up. Plus, if everybody loses XP on death, it is unfair to the new players - everybody else (aside from zombies) didn't have the XP penalty and thus could level up quicker. Plus, if it is a "punishment" for dying, it won't affect high-level players. I do think the XP bonus for target level is good, although I would rather see the base XP be the same as it is now and tack on XP for the level difference. Mikm 00:22, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It doesn't really bother me that there's no significant penalty for dying. Also, all forms of XP loss are crappy. --Dickie Fux 00:30, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Riktar 00:44, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Think of it like pinball. You can't WIN the game since there isn't any specific end goal except to keep going as long as possible and rack up as many points (XP) as you can. Except here if you lose you get to play as the ball. --Jon Pyre 01:01, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -the effect of item one has been better suggested by raising the AP limit of the dead by the amount it would cost to stand up, without killing the flavor. I voted to kill it then too. Item three, has its good points, the fact that both lose XP when dying is workable as long as you make sure that the amount of XP loss is the same, but as my main survivor character was never killed before he maxed out on skills that just doesn't seem possible. also losing XP on dying on anything else then death due to the opposite side is grieving. Bringing headshot back as XP killer so soon after it has been changed is not something I'd advocate. Item two and four I liked and would've voted Keep on as both are balanced and make sense. you really should have split them into 4 different proposals as they don't necessarily form a whole. They work separately just as well (and in my case, better) a missed opportunity.--Vista 01:03, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Item 1 - Raising the AP limit of the dead is not better, APs are a factor in game usage, not an aspect of character, and should be treated as such. Item 3 - Your main character never dying before maxxing out justifies a higher % XP loss for survivors getting killed. Headshot would not be an XP killer - as stated in the proposal, it was originally an anomaly - now it would be an enhancement. Items 2 and 3 are a single proposal - there is really no reason for Item 2 without Item 3. --Squashua 03:43, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • re - I'm off to the discussion page.--Vista 09:57, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You had me up to the xp loss. We just KILLED the xp loss to Headshot, don't bring it back. And, of course... death dosn't mean that much to zombies because IT SHOULDN'T.--Arathen 01:51, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - We just got rid of the prime unfun part of the game. Don't bring it back. Rhialto 02:16, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - there is nothing unfun about losing XP - it is a part of the challenge. As it stands, there are no longer any challenges to this game other than luck and time. --Squashua 03:39, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Losing XP, especially in the amounts you describe, is horrendous. Not to mention, separate zombie/survivor XP pools? I'm sure survivors-turned-zombies will love that one. In fact, that only encourages survivors to remain survivors. Have you ever tried leveling up with a 20% chance to hit for 1 damage? And then face the risk of losing 25% of your XP when you die on top of that? No. This suggestion is bad. Kill, kill, kill. Bentley Foss 05:24, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re Thank you for your highly educated notice of the scalability of the percentages. You would think that by now with the number of votes that you post to these suggestions that no % is ever set in stone, and this proposal says as much. In death, what else is there to lose? --Squashua 14:13, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • Re - Blah blah blah. "Percentages can be changed" etc. etc. No amount of swapping percentages will make this a good idea. Aside from all the various other problems this suggestion has, it chiefly completely discourages survivors to try to live as zombies, and vice versa. It is, for all practical purposes, impossible to level up as a zombie with no zombie skills. (Humans can, at least, search for first aid kits...it's painfully slow, trust me, as I've done it, but it's a lot faster than swinging 20% for 1 damage). If there's no XP to carry over (separate pools), then all you do is discourage people from switching sides. Not to mention, you penalize new players for starting after this "let's tremendously slow down XP gain" suggestion was implemeneted. Remember a little thing called Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Don.27t_Suggest_Something_That_Requires_a_Reset? Unless you want to punish new players or somehow magically divine how much XP everybody should currently have, then no. Throw this one out, it stinks. Bentley Foss 17:16, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Let me get this straight... We just got our wish of changing a skill that griefed by taking away XP, and now, not only do you want the general idea back, but you want EVERYONE to suffer from it? --Volke 05:33, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Correct. I'm all for adding some form of challenge to this game. All the game is right now is a drain of time and pure luck. --Squashua 14:21, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • Okay, in that case, I'll specify my reasonings a bit more. You see, while I don't see a problem in servivors losing a few if they die since they have so many ways of gaining XP (though the amount you noted to take is a bit much), zombies die pretty much on a daily basis. They shouldn't be made to suffer for something that's just a part of their daily lives! Also, reviving shouldn't take away XP, either. If it was intended to discourage reviving, its going to prove counter-effective as people would prefer to lose 10% XP once than lose 25% of it daily. Also, seperating zombie and survivor XP will prove counter-effective as well, as survivors enjoy spending their excess XP on some zombie skills. That caused them to have a little fun munching on brains before getting revived (and some even choose not to get revived, finding being dead more fun), and this takes away that ability. There's a method to the killing madness here. And besides, death is SUPPOSED to just be a minor inconveniance to zombies, and survivors have to deal with switching sides until spending X amount of AP finding a revive point. The MK3 syringes would fix the problem, really. --Volke 19:21, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Ever heard of EQ? nobody liked losing XP. But in EQ you die all the time. My characters are in the line of fire all the time.. and never die. I've died, what, twice in the two months I've played as a survivor? Once with each of my two main characters? And what, like six times as a zombie? Squasha, it is my opinion that those who voted kill here are all afraid of the big bad XP-loss monster. I feel that they want to have two maxed characters, are getting those selfsame maxed characters through Survivor means and suiciding, going to rev points, etc. Dumb. I also doubt they read the suggestion thoroughly, or else they lack your sense of fun/style. Anyway, I like it. I vote keep TWICE. --paincake
    • Re - It is my understanding as well that the majority of these voters do not comprehend proper game mechanics and are voting based on kneejerk reactions from seeing the XP loss. Kevan attempted to fix the problem by adding an XP reductor - my claim is (and his retraction of it proved) that he added it incorrectly via Headshot. He added Stand Up AP cost, Headshot, and Ankle Grab were all added late in the game as patches to fix problems that he saw. This is a complete and simple reworking of the concept he was going after. Presuming this does not pass, I'll be re-proposing this later, possibly as 3 separate items: Item 1, Item 2-3, and Item 4. Waah, griefing. - bull$#!+. --Squashua 14:13, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --Brizth 09:12, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- Interesting. McArrowni 14:09, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Comment - As it is, it's a well-written suggestion, and one that I can appreciate . . . I just don't know if I'd want to see it implemented. I want to keep it because it makes sense, but I kinda want to kill it too, so . . . I really don't know how to vote on this. --John Taggart 14:14, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Then vote Keep. Firstly, with the # of Kills this already has, it won't pass no matter what. Secondly, you're voting for an iteration of this to be presented to Kevan; he won't implement all suggestions, but if you find that this is a fair assessment and makes sense to implement, then go for it. --Squashua 14:21, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Interesting suggestion. I don't think this is the right way to tackle the problem, however. This adds a kind of friction to the XP gain emphasizing the economy of staying alive, however unless there is some gameplay mechanic (read; world event) implemented which requires one to stay alive in the end death will remain just as meaningless. If anything this would be a minor annoyance. --Phaserlight 14:29, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- And don't do it again. -- Tabby 15:52, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill i understand what your trying to do here, and it IS well written so, props on that, BUT a blanket XP penalty isn't going to be balanced, even if survivors get a 75% penalty and zombies get a 1% penalty, i have a suvivor i've been playing for 3months, he's never died, i have a zombie i've been playing exactly the same amount of time, he's died more than 30 times. In summation, the only penalty i feel a zombie should take for death is AP (i might get behind a suggestion to pay a little more AP in order to stay laying as a corpse, but deffinately not for the standard stand-up cost. -- P0p0 16:59, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like the separate xp pools and levels, though. --Tyroney 17:13, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Many of these suggestions are very well thought out, and I'd like to see some of them implemented. But that doesn't get away from the fact that (from my personal experience, and from checking the profiles of the 80 or so zombie buddies in my horde), zombies can expect to get headshot every two days. Even with the reduced XP-loss (compared to the old Headshot) you suggest, zombies' ability to gain skills would be severely limited once again. You may argue that survivors dying less often is balanced by the AP expended to revive them, but don't forget that the person wielding the syringe gets XP.--WibbleBRAINS 18:09, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It sounds nice in theory, but it really isn't. It mostly screws over zombies. And it looks like you went out of your way to take a stupid approach to a few aspects, such as still losing XP from being revived and jumping out of windows--actually more between the two than if you were just killed. I think that the goals you were going for would have been better served with just survivor XP being drained whenever a zombie kills one, and no zombie XP drain. Even so, bad thinking. --Brickman 19:45, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This is an amazing idea, and was presented very well. I think most people just dont want a challenge and are lazy. Though some tweaking here and there is in line, you have my vote. --Mr. Mcdoogles 22:30, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re Thanks. I see someone else understands the thinking behind it and noticed that I actually did not "take a stupid approach". Philistines. --Squashua 22:47, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Very good idea. Proposes changes for both the zombies and the survivors (since it's a balance issue, you can't buff or nerf just one side and be fair), and adds some well-needed complexity to the way the game works, without changing anyone's combat capabilities. UrbanDead is currently too simple and predictable to remain fun for long, so I think this idea is really welcome. My only concern it that it would take a hell lot of programming and much more server calculations to get it done. --Omega2 02:44, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, nice try, but Headshot is finally balanced and you want to change it? Also, killing a max-level player would give out 44 experience by itself? Methinks you need to rework those mechanics. Overall, it's a good idea, but a flawed execution. --LibrarianBrent 06:56, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - this is the second uninformed post by a supposed experienced suggestion voter. Don't you know by now that any multiplier/number proposed in a suggestion is not set in stone but simply a suggestion for implementation? The suggestion is to "Base the XP Bonus on Target Level". That could mean level * 1, level * .5, level * 2, or level * 3.247834234234234234. Get with it. --Squashua 14:42, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Im voting keep cuz i completely agree with all ur points, and this game does have a huge problem with "xp buckets" but i honestly have no idea how ur going to do this, as this is a major switch-around, basically rebuilding the game from the ground up! i'm voting keep in the hopes youll find a way. barbariandude 5:46, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Bently raises some good points regarding encouraging people to switch sides but I'm not sure how much of a probblem that would really be (do people really switch sides a lot now). Obviously this couldn't be implemented without adjustments in other places but the core idea is sound and the numbers presented, while they probably could use tweaking by someone more informed than I, make more sense than the issues presented with the old version of headshot. --Thelabrat 04:21, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Ransack

OK- Author dupe.... LAnkou 02:58, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Moan

Timestamp: 01:26, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: There have been a number of "let zombies talk the same way suvivors can" suggestions recently and I personally don't like the concept. People have argued that it's unfair that zombies can't organize and that they should be able to converse by buying a subskill of Death Rattle, etc. As I said, I don't like it. I think suvivors talking and zombies being dumb is a vital part of the game. However here's an idea that I think would give would be zombie-organizers a carrot while preserving the mindless quality of the undead. Moan would be a subskill of Death Rattle and allow zombies to talk without their speech being garbled. Here's the catch though: they would only be able to speak a limited number of characters. I don't want zombies having eloquent debates and strategy sessions in-game but I wouldn't be opposed to one being able to say "kill" as a sign to other zombies that there were humans in a building or "in mall" to signal that people had moved back into the nearby mall, not to mention the classic "brainsss..". I suggest a limit between five and ten characters, including spaces. Zombies would still be able to speak in Death Rattle code instead; this skill would not replace that dialogue entry box but make a new one that would exist below it.

Votes

  • Kill Not necessary. Most serious zombies have already mastered the art of being intelligible through Death Rattle. Slicer 01:53, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Having two different filters to choose from is redundant. Jirtan 02:05, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombie Speech Translators. They're on the main page of the wiki.--Zacharias Cross 19:09, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Assuming people should go to extra measures outside the realm of play rather than have something at their disposal in-game sucks. -- Amazing 04:37, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombies shouldn't have any kind of communication amongst themselves the way humans do. The most they should be able to do is what they do currently (Graagh! Grr!, etc.). A possible compromise would be to include additional zombie-speak words, but that have universal meaning (like "Mrh?" being universal for requesting a revive, but with a more macabre meaning).--Declan 04:47, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Kill, because there's already a simpler means to do this--namely, message boards. That'll keep the load off the UD server. Bentley Foss 05:35, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - While not exactly like this, there is Feeding Groan, which I'm sure zombie organizers will be using to signal attacks, retreats, and the like. --John Taggart 13:44, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Wait...feeding groan? That's new. WOW! I think Kevan implemented my Howl suggestion! Or idependantly came up with an idea that was identical! But if it's the first then a suggestion from the suggestion page was actually accepted!!! --Jon Pyre 14:38, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -I liked the other one better--Vista 23:45, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Woulda voted spam, but i dont want to annoy the guy who quite possibly came up with feeding moan :D barbariandude 5:49, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)

An entirely new way of playing Urban Dead

Timestamp: 01:42, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Game Re-creation
Scope: Everything
Description: Okay, people- let's face it. The game, as it is, is simply not scary. Or much fun. Therefore, I propose we modify it in the following way:

Quarantine will be broken in a month. No one can create new characters; newbies will be automatically e-mailed for the next incarnation of Urban Dead. Revivification is impossible. Once you're a zombie, you stay that way for the rest of the game.

Once quarantine is broken, survivors have THREE DAYS to get to an evac point on the outskirts of the city, or they will be killed in the ensuing nuclear blast! No more Malton.

After the game ends, everyone gets to play again as whatever they want, and keep their names and all their old skills because (let's face it) nobody wants to lose what they've gained. Again, no mid-game character creation. Quarantine will last for about two months or so each 'run' of Urban Dead; people who actually survived Malton, and notorious zombies, are listed on Hall of Fame pages.

This game overhaul puts the fear back into the game, gives everyone a clear goal, and makes people actually WORRIED about their characters and their safehouses again.

Votes

  • Kill - Ew, people having to wait to join the game. Ew, zombies not having time to build up numbers around a building. And I need three days to reach the border of the city? Heck, I can do it in one. --Jon Pyre 01:49, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Interesting idea, but honestly, what challenge is there in getting to a safe point? At 48 APs a day, a survivor can cross the entire map with plenty extra to spare for hiding out and barricading themselves in like a mofo in a three day period. The zombies will have to play a guessing game as to where to mob and stop the survivors, and be more or less unable to stop this regardless. While characters could be maintained, they cannot be revived, so eventually it will end up with a lot of (abandoned?) high level zombies anyway as luck runs out. Plus, it will be hard to generate a new player base if new players cannot join a round in progress.-- S Kruger
  • Keep - perhaps fine tuning is needed, but this is the right way. Seriously nearly any game that you can�t win or loose is a boring game --Allevil 02:02, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Honestly, I don't think this is that kind of game. --Shadowstar 03:55, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Interesting idea, but I have to vote kill because it does make the game a little too easy for the survivors (150AP over 3 days, not to mention the month or so leading up to the breaking of quarantine, gives the survivors a large advantage). Additionally, it calls for players being forced to play for a side they don't want, and it calls for the game being reset, which are both bad things. I like this suggestion quite a bit (just needs to be changed a bit), but it violates the do's and don'ts. --Declan 04:36, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This would make the game unplayable. Take a look at how long it takes to progress through the levels. You'd have thousands of people burning APs, missing and doing nothing. Survivors would grab barricade and zombies would be left out in the cold. In such a war of attrition, the survivors would win against the underpowered hordes. No. Sorry. Bentley Foss 05:26, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - very bad idea --Kcold 12:54, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I agree this game does need some long term goals, but I like the UD:Apocalypse suggestion much better --Phaserlight 14:06, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -perhaps as on offshot game, runned independently, it might have merit--Vista 23:48, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I agree with the person above me. It could be fun, but I wouldn't want Urban Dead to be replaced with it. Also, why should you keep all your skills after the 'run' of Urban Dead is over? I don't like that idea. You should be restarting. --Zaknrfama 19:20, 22 Dec 2005 (EST)
  • kill - this would get my keep vote except THAT WOULD RUIN THE GAME sorry if i flamed--revoso 02:35, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - WAAAAAY too easy for those filthy harmanz. damn freerunning. barbariandude 5:52, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Unhindered Rise

Timestamp: 01:48, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: (Yeah yeah, bad name. I'm open to suggestions). Subskill of Ankle Grab. If a zombie with Unhindered Rise is killed by a suvivor with headshot it only costs them 3 AP to stand provided they are not in a square with a standing zombie. If a standing zombie is there it costs them the normal headshot 6 AP to stand. The only purpose of this skill is to aid feral zombies. A lone zombie on the street in a lightly zombied suburb has no defense against being attacked. Zombies besieging buildings would be unaided by this skill (Unless suvivors killed all the zombies outside and the first one to stand had this skill. Then only a single zombie out of many would get any benefit. And if suvivors are killing zombies quickly enough that there are never any standing outside and they all get this benefit upon standing, well, I doubt suvivors in such a militarily secure position would be hurt by this much). This is a rare suggestion that would help zombies without hurting suvivors.

Votes

  • Keep I'm voting Keep on any reasonable help-zombies suggestion. Slicer 01:52, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Only because the current incarnation ofheadshot is already stupid. The way to fix it is by getting rid of it, not by adding a new skill to counteract it. --S Kruger
    • Re - I think the new headshot is fairly balanced. It gives suvivors a way of defending themselves from future attacks if no zombies have entered and the barricades are up. It's fair against crowds. --Jon Pyre 02:01, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - There's no useful data to determine whether the current situation is balanced, because the strike has skewed available information. Edit: Ankle grab is a skill, headshot is essentially a counter skill now, this will be a counter-counter skill. Where does it end? Rhialto 01:58, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If anything, it's too weak. And I'd rather see Headshot axed, not counterbalanced by another skill.--Arathen 02:00, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - I don't think we should have skills that completely negate other skills, which I why I suggested it still cost extra AP to stand. --Jon Pyre 02:02, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill. - Riktar 03:45, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'm all for helping ferals, and I think headshot is probably fine at this point with regards to hordes. For RP purposes, we might say that they have to crawl out from under a much smaller pile of bodies. I do worry, however, that this might be open to zerging efforts by humans... --Shadowstar 04:16, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Very cool idea. Adds another [very helpful] zombie skill while not directly negating any current skills, and helps to mitigate the current objections to Head Shot (which, honestly, should have some sort of penalty for zombies).--Declan 04:44, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill rework it abit and I will vote keep. I would prefer if it helped ferals more then hordes mostly - --Fullemtaled 05:13, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - It would only help feral zombies or those caught away from their hordes. Hording zombies would have to forgo the protection of a mob and leave their target, it isn't worth it for them. This would primarily just aid ferals. --Jon Pyre 06:44, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Put simply, I'm all for things that gives zombies a choice between being in hordes or in small groups/alone. Without seperate classes for the brain-eaters yet, its a good way to go for them to start having more variety. --Volke 05:23, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - A two-AP modification is so minor that I don't think it's worth it. Anything more would be overpowered. Bentley Foss 05:28, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Actually it cuts it by 3 since stand up cost after headshot w/ankle grab is 6. 50% reduced stand up cost is worthwhile. --Jon Pyre 06:44, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Either the skill helps to counter Headshot, or it doesn't. This would actually discourage zombies from working together. -Gtrmp 09:49, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What Gtrmp said. --Phaserlight 14:17, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill oh oh oh! lets make headshot entirely useless before its new incarnation is entirely tested! -- P0p0 17:05, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -Congrats on making the best headshot mod suggestion to date. But It's still to early to even know it is needed. personally , I don't think so. Lets both wait a little while to be sure?--Vista 23:51, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - great now sombodys helpin' the poor zeds and it is a skill!--revoso 02:38, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This doesnt sound right to me... not sure why, but i trust my gut. barbariandude 5:54, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Viral Surpression Boosters

Timestamp: 02:28, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: New item, requirement
Scope: Survivors
Description: Looks like the other suggestion was shot down because of RP purposes. Thus, to make things New and Exciting(!), I've changed the RP points of the suggestion but NOT the mechanics. This is functionally identical to my previous suggestion about Food Drops, but names and such have been changed.

The virus has been mutating such that virtually every survivor in Malton is infected by it. Although the virus does not zombify living tissue it instead weakens the tissue.

New item: Booster Shots (3). Every day a survivor must have a Booster Shot in his/her inventory, at perhaps the 160hit rollover. Upon this rollover one item of 'Booster Shot' is consumed (but not an AP consuming it) - thus a Booster Shots (3) will last 3 days. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE any shots, your maximum health goes down by 15 per day down to 5 HP after 3 days. This can be rectified by 'using' a Booster Shot like any other item to restore your maximum health, spending 1 AP.

Booster shots may only be found in Necrotech buildings and in the supply crates that are being dropped. I don't like the way the supply crates were implemented (so rare that it's kind of pointless), so I'm also proposing a change to that: more crates be dropped (with location explicitly advertised), and changed such that the crate is 'searchable' for up to an hour after it's opened for additional random goodies, though zombies can still destroy the crate entirely.

What this does, simply put, is tether survivors to a lifeline and give zombies an opportunity to cut off that lifeline and depopulate a suburb without being forced to clear every barricade and every block.

EDIT: To give time to adapt all survivors would have 2 Booster Shots (3) placed into their inventory if this is implemented.

Votes

  • Kill Overpowers zombies. Plus, survivors shouldn't be dependent on searching for items in order to survive. Mikm 02:36, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It got shot down last time because we didn't like the IDEA --Lord Evans 02:52, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Bad idea, plus the food one made more sense, but still it's a bad idea. - Jedaz 03:32, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - By corollary, I guess we should take 15HP off of a zombie's maximum everyday down to 5HP after 3 days because their flesh is rotting. It wasn't the fact that it was food when you brought it up the first time, it's just that, as Mikm said, a survivor shouldn't need to go searching for items just for continued survival.--Declan 04:42, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill We shot this down before because this isn't the Sims where characters need to do normal everyday things just to live. That's a lot of maintenance and will reduce the game's overall "fun factor" for survivors. If this was your point, then you should be aware that making one side less fun won't make the other more fun. --Volke 05:20, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Forcing players to behave in a certain way (a.k.a., waste their time looking for these booster shots) is always a bad idea. Bentley Foss 05:29, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like it. --Frosty 14:35, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - dude, this was shot down before because forcing people to find these booster shots would make the game less fun...not because of rp purposes. --dragonboy218 16:57, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Did you just replace the word "Food Rations" With "Booster shots" ? Still a no. --Matson Jade 17:51, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - As others have said, it's a bit dull forcing every single survivors to traipse to the NT for their flu shots. Also, I could see the zombie hordes meta-gaming the hell out of this : ignore all other targets, get control of the NT buildings. 3 days later, the game is over. --WibbleBRAINS 18:28, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Heaven forbid we catch a cold!--Arathen 20:01, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -Actually I'd call dupe, but it is marginally different, but just as bad.--Vista 00:12, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - nice try though. i don't fault you for being persistent. everyone else already explained why not, so i'll just sign now... --Firemanstan 02:38, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Coherence Fix

Spaminated (2 spam votes plus my vote). It was just a general suggestion to make zombies more powerful rather than a specific change/request. Mikm 04:28, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Yet Another Molotov Cocktail

Removed for duplicate suggestion with three unapposed spam votes. This will not go into peer rejected as it's already been in peer reviewed so I'm sure he'll see it. --ALIENwolve 03:43, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Right Reverend Roys Rhodenbank Revival t-shirts

Spaminated and that's the curtain call. --ALIENwolve 03:58, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

XP Gain Increase

Timestamp: 03:15, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: XP Balance Fix
Scope: Survivors
Description: EDIT: Please ignore this suggestion. I won't delete it so that people can see it, anyway. I discovered that you already gain 5 XP for attacking a zombie. I'd been attacking Zombie Spies in the Caiger Mall, which are survivors being a spy for the zombies. You only gain 2 XP for attacking a survivor. Interesting. --Zacharias Cross 19:03, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I propose that firearms should only give 2 XP per successful hit, no matter what gun it is. However, once you have mastered that weapon (i.e.- Advanced Shotgun Training), the amount of XP gained should be 5 per hit. You've worked hard to get to that level, why not give the player a bit more XP, rather than just a simple 10% hit increase? You may argue that this will unbalance the game, but it won't. There are many more survivor skills than zombie skills. This will even out the speed at which they can be gained.

Votes

  • Keep - Well, it's mine . . . --Zacharias Cross 03:15, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm a bit confused, is it that for each bit of HP you remove you get 2XP, 5XP for the highest level, or is it that if you hit the enemy then you get 2XP, or 5XP for the highest level? Please clarify. - Jedaz 03:28, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE: . . . No. If you have the ability to use a firearm, each hit gives you 2 XP as the normal amount. If you have the highest skill of the firearm (Advance ____ Training), you gain 5 XP instead of 2. --Zacharias Cross 03:31, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Once you've got the skills, the bonus xp is kind of irrelevant. Rhialto 03:39, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE: Not when there are so many other skills to get . . . TO get the Advanced _____ Training, that's only three skills out of over 15 . . . --Zacharias Cross 03:56, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Hurts newbies way too badly, and doesn't address the main causes of the imbalance (barricades and Headshot). - KingRaptor 04:00, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - High level players don't have a problem gaining exp. Low level players do. --Shadowstar 04:20, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - All this does is stop new cops/privates/etc. from gaining XP. The XP gain from these items is quite fine the way it is, once you take into account the need to search for ammo. Bentley Foss 05:31, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - this would make firearms obsolete so the only ok starting class would be firefighter...definitly a kill --dragonboy218 17:00, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -Sign, combat works fine Combat XP works fine.--Vista 00:22, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

After the Massacre

Timestamp: 04:16, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Realism (if that is a real word!)
Scope: Buildings, Survivors
Description: The Scenario: A horde of Zombies bust down the doors of a building and kill several survivors within.

What Happens: After the massacre the Zombies run away before the crowd can retaliate. The surviving survivors re-barricade the doors and continue their cowering vigil. What Should Change: If a high number of survivors are killed in such a swoop (let's say ten killed within 15 minutes), the building becomes uninhabitable due to disease for a certain length of time (let's say 5 days). Every Survivor Action within the building during this period takes 1 hit point. Survivors must immediately evacuate the premises or face fines of up to $100 or lose a favored limb. (Okay, not so much that last one.) Why: This forces survivors to keep moving instead of hiding under the beds like the meat-filled cowards they are! Also, it adds a nice touch of realism without going overboard, I think. Survivors may still enter the building and perform functions, if they don't mind the hit point cost. They will be warned before entering that the stench of putrefaction is strong within.

Edit: The main differences between this Suggestion and Ransacked is that cleaning up your room was boring when you were 10 and is still boring today, even if it is accomplished by easy clicking; this Suggestion puts more Adventure into the game by forcing people out of their comfort zone and making them seek shelter elsewhere, riskily exposing themselves. When on earth did you lot transform from Survivors into Maids? ;)

Votes

  • Kill - Destroys seiges once and for all. That's kind of sad. Once so many are killed, everyone rebarricades and then leaves, meaning that only the zombies online to kill at that time get experience... Zombies would kind of win by default... but it'd be a pretty hollow victory, I think... Suggestion: make it a percentage of the survivors in the building instead. With a minimum, of course, as we wouldn't want a building with one dead survivor to become uninhabitable! --Shadowstar 04:25, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I don't what kind of horde you hang with, but in the Minions of the Apocalypse, we EVERYONE in the building. We do this safely because we kill all the Headhunter and Revivers first so we can just wait for a second helpings. (Mmmm-mmm-mmm, talon licking good!) Ransack is a better suggestion for this concept. --Contaminated 04:33, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill — I just feel that Ransack is a better solution. — Bartle 04:48, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Ransack is ever so much better. Plus, this is a technically poorly-developed idea that requires a lot of state-tracking that I don't think should be bothered with. Bentley Foss 05:33, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Face fines? Who's going to be levying these fines? "Hi. I'm here with Health and Human Services, you're being cited for squatting in a condemned building." The original idea of Ransack was better, this is junk. -- S Kruger
  • Kill -wauw getting two of my pet peaves in one go, using decease wierdly against survivors. and forcing people away from safehouse out on the street without a fight.--Vista 00:38, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - as presented, this is too much like ransack. i don't know about anyone else - but i personally would vote keep on the idea of quarantined buildings if it was a matter of a % chance (say 5% - 10% or so) of being infected while performing actions inside a building that has just housed a considerable amount of butchery (or even if bodies are not dumped outside 24 hours after death) in the last few days (i'd say 1 - 3 days though... anything more just starts getting ridiculous and annoying). --Firemanstan 02:53, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Zombie Mob Building Trashing

Timestamp: 00:59, 22 Dec 2005 (EST)
Type: Game Mechanic
Scope: Zombies (in mobs)
Description: When a critical mass of zombies (50 or more) enters a building, they cause enough damage to it to neutralize it. It is considered "trashed". A building that is trashed has the following limitations:

1) It cannot be barricaded past Very Strong (or less, this is negotiable) 2) It cannot be searched for items.

The building remains 'completely trashed' as long as the zombie mob keeps the critical mass. Once the mob leaves, the building does not immediately regenerate. It remains 'completely trashed' for seven real-life days. This simulates small fires, and structural damage and other inhibiting factors. While the building is in the 'completely trashed' stage, nothing can be done for it. It can be inhabited, but to little benefit beyond resecuring the area.

After the seven days have past, the building then becomes 'heavily trashed'. During this time, survivors with the construction skill can work on the building to reduce its 'trashed' level from heavily trashed, to very trashed, to lightly trashed, and then not trashed. Only when the building is brought to the not trashed stage can it be more heavily barricaded and searched for items.

This would allow zombie mobs to leave some level of destruction in their wake. It would also give more incentive to attack Necrotech centers, Police Stations, and actually knock them out of comission for short periods. This gives more purpose to the zombie hordes, since survivors who flee their comfy nest in the face of an advancing zombie mob will have trouble just waltzing back into their home once the horde moves through.

Votes

  • Kill - Rework it so humans with some ehavy Ap spending or less spending but items needed to reduce the time. Or reduce the time to 1 day maybe 2 at most, I will vote keep.... On second thought retwike it abit and resubmit it and I wil consider it. as is.... no. - --Fullemtaled 06:38, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm loving the creator of Ransack more and more! Time based area effects just... aren't a good idea, imo. --Shadowstar 11:20, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No, no, no. The peer-reviewed version of Ransack is still infinitely much better. That guy got it right on the first try. Bentley Foss 17:10, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -We should kill the concept of safe houses!, and sieges too! without any AP cost to zombies to boot! for an insane amount of time! that be a good idea! Guess what? it isn't. --Vista 00:44, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - what Bentley Floss said. plus 7 days (not counting rebuilding time) is WAY too long for an effect like this, zombies could take out entire suburbs by hitting the pd's and hospitals - and all survivors are fuct for a week at the least - no ammo and no FAK's. add that effect to all suburbs and the survivors go on strike like the zombies. --Firemanstan 03:12, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It doesn't work like that... if a building is trashed, you can rebuild the structure, but whatever was inside and got destroyed by the zombies won't reappear magically. Ransack still does the job better. --Omega2 13:40, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Scent Prey

Timestamp: 06:56, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: The zombie has keen enough smell to detect if living meat is nearby. The zombie would be able to smell the air for 1AP to receive a message telling it approximately how many suvivors are in that suburb. Since this relies on smell and is inexact the zombie would only receive a number rounded to the nearest 10. A message would appear like this: "You smell around 70 humans nearby." It would not give away individual hiding places and considering the size of a suburb could not possibly be used to infer suvivor positions. To prevent taxing the server the number of suvivors per suburb could be counted only once per half-hour. This skill would serve several purposes:
  • 1. It would let zombies know if the suburb is worth their time. If they count 10 suvivors in the suburb and they want to get meat they might want to move on rather than randomly attack mostly empty buildings.
  • 2. It would let zombies keep track of overall change in suvivor levels, from being killed by zombies and from humans moving into the area/getting revived.
  • 3. For heavily zombified suburbs like Ridleybank it would serve as a general alarm of humans in the area.

Votes

  • Kill - Nah. Not especially useful. Humans may complain about a dearth of zombies to hunt, but zombies shouldn't have a hard time finding survivors - remember the numbers imbalance everybody complains about? There have been much better "zombie can sense survivors" skills proposed. -CWD 07:15, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Maybe if you changed it to # of survivors on the street. =) --paincake
  • Kill - I like my scent life skill better. Besides, getting info on the entire suburb is hardly useful. It only narrows things down to one of 100 blocks, several of which (resource buildings) are almost certain to contain survivors anyway. Rhialto 10:25, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - as above, not useful. Now, within a smaller radius, this might work out. --Shadowstar 11:21, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What they said. --Dickie Fux 13:50, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombies can already easily figure out where survivors are hidden. They're called Hospitals, Police and Fire Stations, and Malls. Bentley Foss 17:09, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill change it to only cover the block your in, and you got my vote -- P0p0 17:20, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - A pointless waste of AP. You know there are survivors in every suburb anyway, it's just a matter of finding them.--WibbleBRAINS 18:49, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I prefered the Scent life suggestion.--The General 20:11, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This is about as useful as Knife Combat.--Arathen 20:20, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -What is it with zombie smell, don't they have any other sense? the skill itself doesn't make any sense. This just doesn't add anything good for gameplay--Vista 00:50, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Chance of Supply Drops Directly Proportional to Number of Lit Buildings

Timestamp: 08:42, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: balance change/improvement
Scope: Crate appearance %
Description: The new mysterious helicopters should be more likely to drop crates in suburbs with lit buildings and less likely to drop crates in suburbs that have few/none lit buildings. The more/fewer powered buildings in a suburb there are the more/less likely it should be. This makes sense logic-wise as the helicopters would want to drop their care packages in areas that seem inhabited and they would be able to see the lights from the air. But more importantly game-wise it would give generators a purpose to be set up and fueled in any and every building! This way if suvivors want crates they need to put a little bit of work into getting them sent and it makes generators useful for more than just hospitals.

Votes

  • Keep - Makes sense. Good job! *thumbs up* - --Fullemtaled 08:45, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sensible idea. This also adds a further level of strategy, since Zombies then have a reason NOT to destroy generators: fooling helicopters into giving them goodies (or destroying crates so Survivors don't get at them). --Carnival H 08:56, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This makes generators much more useful without being overpowering. -Gtrmp 09:46, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Why didn't I think of that? Good job!--The General 10:48, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - If I were a supply helicopter pilot, I'd be on the lookout for clusters of lit bouldings - it would suggest that there are a lot of survivors nearby, and that the supplies would be put to good use. --John Taggart 13:51, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nice. --Dickie Fux 13:52, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It makes sense from an RP standpoint, but I disagree with what this would do in terms of game mechanics. Right now I like how crates encourage exploration, and increasing the percentage of crates in highly populated areas would countermand this. --Phaserlight 14:13, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - However there would still be an incentive to explore outwards because while there would be more crates in a heavily populated suburb a only small percentage of the overall population would actually get one. Someone's odds of finding a crate might be better in a mostly dark nearly uninhabited suburb than a brightly lit populous one simply because you'll have less competition. --Jon Pyre 18:04, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - i personally love this idea,good job --dragonboy218 17:05, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Finally a reason to use this generator I have in my backpack. --Matson Jade 17:54, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -More "brave" survivors wandering the streets means a higher potential of survivors getting stuck outside, thus feeding to poor, poor starving feral zombies. Since going out is a gamble and only one survivor can "win" it doesn't over power survivors, besides we zombies can just kill all the generators if we don't like it. --Contaminated 18:25, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - In fact this change would also give zombies a reason to destroy generators besides pride of conquest. Right now destroying a non-hospital generator has no tactical purpose for a zombie. --Jon Pyre 18:28, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'd be very interested to see what effect this has on the city. Would trashed suburbs remain uninhabited wastelands, where zombies roam free? Would pockets of human resistance be targeted more often? Can't wait to find out. --WibbleBRAINS 18:54, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep This means that survivors and zombies alike are capable of knowing where they'll land. Definetly be interesting, and might even start some skirmishes over the crates! --Volke 19:00, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I was worried I wasn't going to see anything good in today's suggestions, but I was wrong. Thank you for instilling hope in me that the wiki community is not stupid. --Brickman 19:52, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Aye, I like the sound of this. Perhaps also make it so certain buildings give a bigger bonus. I mean, a lit Tower can probably be seen a lot farther away. And don't some of those towers have beacons at the top? Could use those to "signal" helos, figuratively speaking. Riktar 20:06, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Makes sense to me. I second what Riktar said, as well; I had the same idea when reading this.--Arathen 20:24, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Very nice. --JeffL 20:41, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Erm, like, how close to perfection is this idea?! Simple, efficient, and logical! I love it! ANd it doesn't really favour one side or the other! Yeah, the survivors may get a better chance of getting a crate, but the zeds also know the lit suburbs are going to be a good feeding ground! --RitchieB 21:40, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Excellent idea. --TheBigT 00:45, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -good, small change that make sense. But really aren't supply drops just too marginal to consider tweeking?--Vista 00:54, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Makes sense, and sounds useful.--Omega2 02:54, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sounds good. --Signal9 04:50, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This works. Well. --JediMastaYoda 06:43, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yay! higher chances of humans pking eachother over supply crates! BARHAH!! barbariandude 6:30, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it. As it stands it takes a retaded amount of AP and luck to find a crate. Good going. --Deakan 5:55, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yes. --Blobmorf 18:24, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - LtMile 15:46, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep - Jirtan

Real Survivor Class

Timestamp: 11:42, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: new option of gameplay
Scope: Daring Players
Description: Why not make real a Class for REAL survivors. If you create a new survivor charakter you should have the option, to chose a interessting way to play - the Real Survivor Class. This class is more a class option that goes with any survivor class. if you choose it, your charakter cannot be zombified and of course not retriefed. If you�re dead - its over and the server can get the space back for your charakter. Everything else will be normal. This feature doesnt fixes any imbalances but doesnsnt either hurt anyone, and gives daring players back a feeling of horror and fear. Viva Las Vegas!

Votes

  • Kill - Kevan has said he doesn't want to allow the same names to be reused. I'm pretty sure this has been done before, but since I've been struck down on my last few dupe things as not being exactly the same, I won't dupe it. I'll just say that perma-death is generally not considered to be a good thing. --Shadowstar 12:19, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill ---Kcold 12:59, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill --Basher 13:41, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Permanent death is an awful idea. If you want that, get Kevan to run some sort of pay-only Hardcore server. Bentley Foss 17:08, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Daft idea, this sounds like PK-ers heaven, with a worrying touch of Russian Roulette thrown in. --WibbleBRAINS 18:59, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - PKers would wet themselves with glee at killing these "Real survivors"--Arathen 20:28, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - and you can�t stand people having fun? this would make at least 2 sorts of people happy, people that like risks and pkler. Can�t see why this troubles you. --Allevil 22:21, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If you want this, just abandon the character if he gets killed. Rhialto 00:25, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Allevil, nothing that makes RP'ers more happy is fun. Besides Rhialto is right. this is a solution looking for a problem.--Vista 00:58, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • KILL -Also where the MotA feeds no one would qualify for a "Survivor Class" because no one survives. :-P --Contaminated 03:00, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Call Horde

Timestamp: 6:19 am, 22 Dec 2005 (PST)
Type: zombie skill
Scope: zombies
Description: Malton is large, and it is easy to find a building on an abandoned block for survivors to duck into for the night, but can be difficult to find a mob of zombies to join for the night. I propose a skill called something like 'Call Horde' where the zombie basically 'pings' a certain area. Not sure of the scope of the ping, maybe only a few blocks. It will cost 1 AP for each 'ping', and doesnt require action from other zombies, it is just an automatic response such as 'a zombie from 1 block north and 3 blocks south answers your call'. Not sure if it should tell you if only a single zombie is found or a mob, but for sake of balance it seems more reasonable for a positive 'ping' to register no matter how many zombies are found. Obviously the scope of this 'zombie call' should be kept pretty limited, maybe just 3 or 4 blocks, so it finds zombies just out of view of the map.I think this may help slightly with balancing out zombies and survivors, since it is much easier for a survivor to find a place to hide than a zombie.

Votes

  • Keep - I like it (even though this might be a dupe of the zomdar suggestion)... would be helpful for lone zombies looking for hordes. I think it should at least give you an estimate of the number of zeds though, otherwise you could miss a group of 20 zombies for a lone feral. Also perhaps limit the 'ping' to other zeds who have this skill? --Phaserlight 14:39, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Check the news page. There's Feeding Groan now which zombies can use to organize. Besides, if a zombie doesn't want to be found we shouldn't ping them out of hiding. --Jon Pyre 15:39, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Yeah, now that Feeding Groan has been implemented, this isn't necessary. Not a bad idea, though. --Dickie Fux 15:48, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Take a look at the timestamp-- it's not real. Compare it to the others, and you'll see that for yourself. He's probably just posting this so he can lie and show it to his friends, "Hey look! I suggested something and they used it in the game!" Nice Try. FALSE SUGGESTION. Edit: Okay, I feel stupid now. Nevermind. I didn't realise that there were multiple timestamp formats. Until now, I've only seen one kind. <.< My bad. EDIT EDIT: Actually . . . None of the others have the "Am" stamp . . . And take a look at the one following this . . . It has the same time and was made by the same person . . . I stand by my initial statements. --Zacharias Cross 00:22, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re A. I had 2 suggestions at once, and B. I didnt know how to use the timestamp code *rolls eyes* I just now found it, so I will use it here. Resubmitting the suggestion with the timestamp would be spam, and if you look at everyone else's timestamps you will see I did put the proper time down as to when I submitted both Kita-dawg 04:46, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -useless, dupe etc. Zacharias Cross: Kevin already credited Jon Pyre for Feeding Groan, so anybody trying to get some glory out of this is just too late..--Vista 01:04, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Play Dead

With three Spam votes and no Keeps (not even from the author), this suggestion bites the dust. Spaminated. --Daxx 12:04, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Urban Dead 3D

Spaminated. While this was an interesting idea, it wasn't an idea for the UD game, but an idea for a UD spinoff. Mikm 18:46, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Hey! A 3D spinoff was my idea! Those bastards! *Rushes to patent office* --ALIENwolve 19:19, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Your idea? I doubt it. I'm sure that there are a great deal of people that have thought about this. Not everybody has vocalized it, however. And also, even though you were being sarcastic, you can not purchase a patent for an idea-- you must have a product.--Zacharias Cross 19:35, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Tell that to tech companies. Riktar 20:10, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • I love how this has taken a turn to a sarcastic dialogue. All failed suggestions should do this! Haha. --Zacharias Cross 00:30, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
In fact my dad thought of and should have patented MP3s. --ALIENwolve 01:05, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Yeah, and I came up with the idea for democracy. I KNEW I should have trademarked it! --JediMastaYoda 06:48, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Remember, people, the pictures on the radio are sometimes better than the ones on TV. -- Andrew McM 13:04, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Supplies Running Out

Timestamp: 13:39 22 Dec 2005 (EST)
Type: Balance Change
Scope: Search chance in buildings
Description: Thing is, The survivors have managed to pack themselves into a few small buildings and spend days searching for more ammo and things in their own little area. They don't even have to go outside at all unless they need to pounce some Zombie just trying to make an unliving. For example, there are 194 people inside the Fort Creedy Armory at the time of this suggestion all of them are at one point or another searching for ammo and weapons. My suggestion is to lower the percentage chance of finding anything in a building after it reaches a certain number of people. We've already got a script in there that gets rid of all the names after it reaches 50 people. We can also use that as one of the cutoff points for reducing search chances. At 50+ people in a building, cut the search chance in half. At 100 people, cut it by 75%, and at 150, reduce the chance by 90% or completely. If so you won't find 200 people in a police dept. Malls and multi block buildings should have the same rule, but for each cell of the building, so if there's a 4 cell mall, and there's 49 people in 2 of them and 59 people in the other 2, then the 2 cells with 50 or more would be reduced while the other 2 cells would be unaffected.

Votes

  • Kill - I think it would be better if the search percentages were lowered in buildings overall, to encourage humans to go out into the streets to look for ammo. -- Andrew McM 19:14, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It just wouldn't be a good idea. It could discourage new players when they are unable to find ammunition or firearms. As to the vote above me, I don't care for that idea. In a real zomocalypse, humans would find a place to barricade themselves in and use it as a base of operations, which is exactly what is going on now.--Zacharias Cross 19:34, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - As a bideadual player, I agree with pretty much any flavorful suggestion that thins out the survivor hordes, though your numbers may require a little tweaking (like syringe find %s...jeez, those have changed HOW many times?). Added benefit: it encourages Distributed Defense. --RSquared 20:15, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Author Vote, plus while I was trying to create a compromise, I honestly think that search percentages across the board should be going in the toilet since the way that the revive clinics go through syringes, the number of FAK's are used from just one hospital or mall, and considering that with the amount of ammo spent by pistol ninjas there should be nothing but shell casings all over Malton, certain areas have an ever replenishing milk cow, and a permanent advantage over the zombies. In a real Zombie apocalypse, supplies would be disappearing so fast that survivors would be thanking god that they managed to find a bullet, let alone a clip of them this late in the game. I also think people who use the excuse of killing an idea because it might discourage new survivors as a pretense to protect their own butts is pathetic. --Mad Dog Maddox 4:34, 22 Dec 2005 (EST)
  • RE: Insult your voters! Yeah! That's a good idea to get votes! --Zacharias Cross 00:38, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill We dont need this, but mostly you just violated rule number one, dont give away survivor positions--grassman 23:11, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill While this promotes PKing to keep building populations in the building smaller, (which is a good thing) I think ransack would be better for restoring survivor/zombie balance. --Contaminated 00:19, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Yet another sugestion designed to penalize groups of survivors. Care to explain how exactly this makes the game better? All I see this as is an attempt to ensure that the survivors can't possibly win the next siege. --Rolland CW 00:27 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -this would hurt survivor fun, it would kill of sieges. any zombie victory would be meaningless. and a whole lot of other things, without one positive effect on the game. If want do to do something for zombies suggest something that makes them more fun instead of destroying other peoples' (besides In a real Zombie apocalypse? In a real Zombie apocalypse they'd love to do our meanial work for free and rescue kittens stuck in trees... and create a perfect Happy fun disney world for us all. It's a game for zombie jesus' sake...it isn't about realism it's about fun. this kills fun)--Vista 01:22, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I'm not covering my own hide when I say this harms newbies. I say it because it really DOES! Yeah, I'm fine with my survivor just relying on his axe, but this makes it impossible for survivors to win another siege since they can't outnumber the zombies without killing their chances of finding valuable ammo and healing items. Besides, you know how many people are in malls? With this, you might as well suggest out-and-out removing the chances of being able to find anything at all in there! And anyways, finding items isn't as easy as you think it is. I can only find one syringe a day searching a NT building, and about 3-5 FAKs on average in a hospital, depending on my luck that day. --Volke 07:00, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill because i dont like your suggestion, but also cause you called me pathetic -- P0p0 08:01, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Pro-tip 12353 Insulting the voters' valid concerns is a not the most effective way to get them to vote "Keep" on your suggestion --Contaminated 13:10, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I play both sides of the game, and the human side really bores a lot more. That would be interesting. --Monstah 14:16, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Supplies running out make some sense but not really practical as the game is designed. If we were to be realistic. Supplies would run out, zombies would stay dead after head shot, and people would bleed to death and die from having thier guts, limbs and skull ripped up once the they were revived. Now where is the fun in that? More over Gas cans would be the ultimate anti zobmie weapon. Douse the horde and watch em burn, Woo hoo! And lets not forget Bull dozers. Of course if we were really realistic there would be no game cause afer 30 days, the whole city would have been nuked. Oh well as long as we are not being realistic lets keep supplies just as they are. --Tom mot 02:51, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Better Location Descriptions

Timestamp: 14:42 22 Dec 2005 (EST)
Type: Game Detail
Scope: Game Location Descriptions
Description: Remember the Infocom series? Zork, Infidel, Deadline...the great writing powered those games, breathed life into them. I think the unique and detailed descriptions of the environments and characters are what make text-based gameplay truly immersive. I love reading the descriptions people create for themselves. I'm tired of everywhere I go reading minor variations on the theme of: "A fire-damaged red-brick building surrounded by a large paved plaza. The building's doors have been left wide open." What about: "Built in 1938, the Cambridge Cinema was Malton's most famous independant cinema. The art deco facade is now illuminated only by several smoldering SUVs and a dumpster fire." I don't know, I just came up with that on the fly. Just a little flavor, is what I'm suggesting. Maybe implemented in small pieces, in different pockets of the city. Let's give Malton a story!

Votes

  • Keep - I love flavour suggestions. But maybe a smaller message than the one you suggested. -- Andrew McM 20:05, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'd love that. But, uh... I somehow don't think Kevan's got time to write them. I volunteer! Actually, I think the wikizens would all volunteer, if you'd like, Kevan! --Shadowstar 20:20, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT) (btw, can we put one for FCD3 in there? or the maze of twisty little passages, all alike?)
    • Re - I think inside jokes and obscure references would be great! Particulary the twisty little passages :) ...btw Infocom fans like Shadowstar may get a kick out of this book, which I stumbled across recently... --Tom Magnum 04:18, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Why not? Well, I know why. It would take a really long time. I bet the descriptions are so cookie cutter because they were created with a generator program. If there's some way of letting the wiki help it's possible but Kevan would need to create some sort of review and implementation process and I'm not sure how that would work. --Jon Pyre 20:22, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - While creating descriptions for 10,000 blocks may be nigh-impossible, this would be quite cool if it was implemented. Though the 10,000 is 100 suburbs x 100 blocks in a suburb, someone correct me if my math is off.--Arathen 20:33, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like this idea. In Yagoton, and maybe in other suburbs, a guy called Novelty has been creating descriptions of every building. He includes text about each one, like this: Ainslie_Auto_Repair. This could just be copied with a few changes. --Golddragon24 22:12, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I think Kevan has better things to do with his time than write building descriptions (Or read through them, as I'm sure he would have to do if he let someone else do it).--Hexedian 22:29, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - From the author. Cool, glad people like the idea! I volunteer to assist as well. Many hands make light work! --Tom Magnum 22:33, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --Lord Evans 23:33, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - NOTE: there are 10,000 spaces in Malton (more if you count the inside of buildings), that's a lot of work. --Contaminated 00:14, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • keep -a lot of work indeed, but that's what a fan base is all about isn't it?--Vista 01:30, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'm all for more depth into the game. That would prompt some people (me included, for sure) to actually explore the city a bit! --Omega2 03:03, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - good flavor. i'm with the other volunteers - i'd lend a hand for something like this. i certainly don't expect Kevan to be able to do it on his own... --Firemanstan 03:33, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - In UD, players can and do provide the flavor. Anything Kevan could add to buildings would get really old really fast. --Brickman 03:35, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm sorry, but I don't believe it's worth the time and effort to do this. You'd read the descriptions a couple of times, then take to ignoring them. Why? Because there would be 10,000 of them in the game. It would be overkill. Bentley Foss 06:20, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep tasty -- P0p0 08:03, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Murder on the server but it adds flavour. Also, did you really come up with that description on the fly, it's pretty good.--The General 08:37, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Thanks! :) --Tom Magnum 00:05, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - The suggestion doesn't call for every block to have extra description. But if you added it to various significant places from the game's history, it would certainly be an improvement. --Daxx 12:06, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Being the first person to suuport this suggestion, I give my support to making locations more interesting. -- Andrew McM 13:06, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - That's an interesting idea for the descriptions I hadn't considered...maybe writing the descriptions based on "historical events" that have happened in the game, major battles, etc. Very Tolkien-esque! :) --Tom Magnum 00:10, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Barricades Wear Out

Timestamp: 21:01, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: balance/realism
Scope: Barricades and all who care about them
Description: Let's face it - things wear out with use in the real world - so how come the same "strongly barricaded" building stays strongly barricaded even after people climbed over them 500 times? So I suggest that every entry and exit be treated as an attack on the barricade, having a 5% chance of successfully causing a part of it to collapse.

Votes

  • Keep - Author's vote. --Signal9 21:01, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - marginally though... I'm not sure about 10% though. I think the percentage should be significantly lower than for a survivor/zombie actively attacking the barricades (as opposed to approximately half the percentage chance)... maybe down to 5%, or a quarter of the expected chance? Although, you do realize this will make many survivors less willing to go outside and possibly be caught outside of a heavily barricaded safehouse, right? --Shadowstar 21:09, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - Okay, down to 5%. Survivors aren't too willing to go outside as it is - I doubt that this will change much. --Signal9 21:25, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Re: (to reply below) I don't like the idea of noobies or people without Construction actually harming people just by entering their shelter. This would just encourage high level players to barricade past very strong to keep people from entering save by free running. Right now for suvivors to harm other suvivors it requires active maliciousness. Allowing humans to hurt their allies through ignorance or inability is not a good game mechanic. Besides, I think barricades are fine as is. Just there needs to be more zombies beating on them, that's all. --Jon Pyre 21:30, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - "Oh no! I can't waste my one or two AP re-barricading for every TWENTY people that come through! We're DOOMED!!!" But seriously - Survivors are overpowered, and barricades are a major reason for it. --Signal9 21:40, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT) It's one level down for an average of 20 entries/exits, so I don't think it's too much trouble. --Signal9 22:47, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Degrading barricades would probably be a good idea, but this does nothing for unnoccupied buildings that are barricaded.--Arathen 21:53, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Makes sense, not overpowered, and I don't see any exploit to it. --Hexedian 22:26, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Looks like someone deleted my vote, so I'll vote again. To boil what I said earlier down, it can be easily exploited by having zombie spies repeatedly enter and exit a safehouse that a horde is just about to attack. I must vote "kill" on this one because of the ease of exploitation.--Declan 23:42, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Non-author Re - You can spend 1 AP to try to destroy a barricade at 5%, or 1 AP to try to dismantle a barricade with your crowbar, at 40% (or even bare fists at 20%). --Hexedian 23:50, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - As Hexedian said, it isn't an exploit because attacking the barricades is significantly more effective at destroying them. --Signal9 00:22, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Makes sense. Rhialto 00:15, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Makes high traffic areas significantly harder to defend. (Thats a bad thing) --Zaruthustra 00:58, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • kill -this isn't a game about realism, it's about fun. this is annoying and doesn't do very much at the same time. what does it add and why is it here? Besides giving the crowd that hates barricade something to coo about? Barricades work fine as it is.--Vista 01:36, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Makes high traffic areas significantly harder to defend. (thats a GOOD thing, game speaking) --Hagnat 01:43, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Ransack would solve the barricade imbalance without affecting barricades. Survivors would Barricade easier than zombies could break in but Zombies could Ransack easier than survivors could clean up, thus restoring AP balance. --Contaminated 02:04, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Makes sense, although I'd only drop the level of barricades above strongly barricaded, since relatively light barricades allow for people climbing in without having to step on any fragile part of it. --Omega2 12:43, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT) (sorry, my bad! forgot to sig it!)
  • Kill - I cannot and/or will not vote for "Hey the barricades fall apart all by themselves!" suggestions. This doesn't even address the common complaint, namely that almost all buildings are barricaded and uninhabited. At any rate, just leave them alone. They work fine as they are. Bentley Foss 06:23, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Barricades are fine. Besides, if you implement this, zombie spies will go over the same areas over and over again to try and weaken them while hordes attack from the outside. Essentially, this gives the zombies an additional 5% times however many spies they have on top of the chances they have of weakening a barricade. This would make them fall too much faster! --Volke 06:52, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill the percentage is too high, and.. eh.. i dunno. -- P0p0 08:07, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Change the percentages but its a good Idea. Howerver, there is one big problem with this discussion. Survivors don't Climb over barricades, they move THRU them. A barricaded door is a door that has a chair or table or stove preventing the door from being opened. every Barricade I have seen in Zombie movies required someone on the Inside to open up a section of the barricade to allow a survivor in. --Tom mot 03:10, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Give us an I

Timestamp: 21:07, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill Modification (Death Rattle)
Scope: zombie skill
Description: It'd be nice if "I" were added to the letters useable under Death rattle. As it stands, zombies can't even properly moan the word brains, and there's bound to be some joker out there that thinks they're after Cornflakes whenever he sees a bunch of zombies going on about "Braaanz".

Then they could say Zambah grab Brainz!!!"

(Edit: Removed "L" from the request. Having zombies say "Blarg" sounds silly anyways...)

Votes

  • Keep - Why do you need to say "blaarg?" I'd accept for 'I' though. --Shadowstar 21:10, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT) Yay, add the I! Let the zombies say BRAINS properly! --Shadowstar 01:37, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - I've seen a few comics and (admittedly bad) movies where zombies have said "blarg", mostly when attacking. If it's really an issue, then I'd be willing to part with the "L" to get the "I" --Dread Lime 21:33, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Mainly because the BRAAAAINS thing originally came from the Night of the Living Dead movies, and not the Romero films. Personal preferance. --RitchieB 21:47, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Return of the Living Dead actually, says me in a fit of pedantry. - Isambard 06:11, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - MAYBE keep just the I. I dunno. BRAAAAN! GRAAAAA!NZ!!--Arathen 21:56, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - As it is stated now, with just the I and not the L, I like. Seems some others did too, before the edit. --Reverend Loki 22:24, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill We already have an "i" you just have to be 1337 (or possess a bare minimum of imagination) to read it (examples: "M!N!ANZ-!!" or "BRA!NZ-!!") --Matthew-Stewart 23:47, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - These aren't Romero zombies. They aren't even NotLD zombies. They are Kevan zombies. Rhialto 00:14, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill ---Vista 01:37, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- I kinda like M!N!ANZ, but I still wish I could spell it with an "i". --Monstah 14:21, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • KEEP - Gimme a B! Gimme an R! Gimme an A! Gimme an I! Gimme an N! Gimme a Z! What have we got? BRAINZ! --John Taggart 00:49, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Rage

Timestamp: 21:27, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: A skill under "Vigor Mortis", which allows a zombie to inflict a "rage" attack. It will be listed in the attack drop-down menu, and will work as follows:

The server calculates how much damage N repeated hand attacks at +5% chance would inflict, where N is the attacker's current AP count. It then inflicts that ammount of damage to the target, and takes off all of the attacker's AP. An equivalent implementation can be made for a rage attack on barricades. This can reduce server load, and helps the zombie/survivor balance.

Votes

  • Keep - Author's vote. If you're unclear about details reply to this comment (mods - please don't delete replies to this comment) --Signal9 21:27, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Dupe - I've seen "multi-attack" suggestions sooooooooooooooo many times. Too lazy to dig one out. If someone could, that'd be great. --TheTeeHeeMonster 21:36, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - Hm... I don't remember seeing any... then again I wasn't actively searching for them. Anyway, mine's better. --Signal9 21:48, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • RE: - Yours is better, you say? You also said you hadn't seen any of the others. Ever heard of a fallacy? --Zacharias Cross 23:10, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
        • RE: - How about someone posting a link to one of them to make me remove this one? --Signal9 23:57, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I've got a cooler skill name for this. "Survivors never get to win in real time combat ever". Its already hard to beat zeds blow for blow, why is this neccesary? --Zaruthustra 22:40, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Amen Z. I went head to head with a zombie with Infectious Bite, Digestion and a flak jacket a short whiles ago. Using a pistol that was an exercise in going nowhere real fast. Fortunately I had been beating on it for a while before it woke up or I would have had to abandon the safehouse and all within to it. --Jon Pyre 22:47, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Yes, so not only does the zombie have the ability to make 50 attacks *at once*, but ALSO with a +5% chance to hit? Essentially you're giving zombies the ability to win in every single battle, no matter what. My vote's to kill. Additionally, I've seen similar suggestions, so this is also a dupe.--Declan 22:53, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This just allows the zombie to make multiple attacks in one click. Rhialto 00:12, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No multi-attacks for humans or zombies! --Shadowstar 01:39, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -I'm not voting keep unless you give the zombies frikking lasers on their heads too, I believe that zombies should eat survivor brains well done BHAHAHAHahahaHAHAha--Vista 01:42, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - I can add lasers if it's okay to give survivors those hand-held nukes from Starship Troopers. (Seriously, I don't think that rage is overpowering.) --Signal9 04:59, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Wow, that's an exploit waiting to happen. "A hundred level 1 zombies suddenly appear and decimate a safehouse in eight seconds". No. This is a bad idea both in terms of gameplay and technical whatnot. Bentley Foss 06:27, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Sorry, no multi-attacks. This is a duplicate, but I'm also too lazy to find the others. --Daxx 12:13, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Even as a zombie player, I think this zombie equivalent of a machine gun is bad.--WibbleBRAINS 17:17, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Zombie Search

Timestamp: 23:02, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: The zombie search skill allows zombie players to search an area the same way as humans. When you search an area a massage will appear, something like "you gaze around the building, nothing catches your eye" if you find something " you gaze around the building a steel pipe catches your eye". However there are two catches, the first you can only find knives, axes, pipes and crowbars and the second, it takes two AP.--Youto 23:02, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT).

Votes

  • Keep - I think it makes sense that a zombie would search for things that help them harm humans. --Hexedian 23:46, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - As was said to a suggestion I made long ago, zombies searching is illogical. What would compell them to search? How would they know what they were searching for? The mind of a zombie is limited. Searching is beyond their capabilities. Unless you can find a way to make the Memories of life section improved, then this will not work. And simply adding this as an extra skill will not work. When making a suggestion, think "Would this work in the real world?"--Zacharias Cross 00:16, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Don't argue realism in a game with zombies --Lord Evans 23:55, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It would make sense to put it as a skill under "Memories of life". --Signal9 00:00, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Remove knives, and axes (since zombies can't use them) and replace them with flak jackets. (in the appropriate locations); I do like the idea of zombies vacantly staring at stuff. --Contaminated 00:08, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombies have no need to search - none of those items are of any use to them. At ALL. At most, a zombie will want a flak jacket, and they'll probably get revived to grab Bodybuilding (at the very least) while they're at it.--Arathen 00:19, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'd rather have a zombie skill to get the flak jacket than have zombies searching. Searching zombies is not in genre. Consistent Nonsense, please. Rhialto 00:45, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Zombies aren't humans. --Zaruthustra 00:56, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Agree with Contaminated. Zombies can't use most of those things. --Shadowstar 01:40, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Rhialto is right.--Vista 01:44, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - ditto Arathen. you're bound to get revived sometime, use it to get the items you want and some crossover skills to boot. --Firemanstan 03:40, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombies are dead, the items of the flesh mean nothing to them. I mean hell, their teeth are stronger than a fire axe anyway. And giving them a way to find Flak Jackets is just another exploit of the system. Zombies cannot die, thus should not be worried about body armor. -- S Kruger
  • Kill - Zombies don't want things to hurt humans. They want brains. That's all. And they don't want flack jackets. They're effectively immortal, since when they die they just stand right back up. The thought that "if I put on this jacket humans won't be able to stop me as easily," or "searching for a bat might help me kill more people," is far too complex for a zombie's limited intellect. --Jstoller 08:03, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I wish people would stop saying, "Don't argue about realism in a game with zombies." Yes, I'm looking at you, Lord Evans. It's stupid to say that, because you're missing the point we are making. You have to suspend your disbelief and include, for a moment, the existence of zombies within the 'real' world. Now, from what we know about zombies they are essentially mindless, and so therefore it would be unrealistic (i.e. not consistant with what we think and know about zombies in this game and in general) for them to scavenge for items. Seriously, will people stop being so obtuse as to think that we think zombies are actually real? It's called consistency, people. --Daxx 12:18, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • kill - Bravo! Bravo! well stated Daxx. --Tom mot 03:17, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/22nd-Dec-2005&oldid=1064573"