Suggestions/2nd-Jul-2006

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

Necrotic Symbiotes (Revised)

Timestamp: 00:52, 2 July 2006 (BST)
Type: New Zombie Skill
Scope: Survivors & Zombies
Description: NECROTIC SYMBIOTES (Revised)
  • Introduction: Malton is far from being a Zombie Apocalypse at the moment. We won’t get more zombies by changing the balance and forcing more survivors to spend time undead, but by adding features that 1) generate interest among veteran zombies and 2) make the game easier for younger zombies. Hence this suggestion...
  • A New Skill For Veteran Rotters: Brain-Rotted Zombies above Level 10 can acquire Necrotic Symbiotes. These are symbiotic bacteria which have evolved in a brand-new environment - persistently undead corpses. The bacteria don't harm their zombie hosts but they can infect nearby survivors and cause Necrotic Fever.
  • Infecting Survivors: The zombie can launch a Necrotic Infection attack at 30% to hit, 40% max with Tangle. If it hits the attack does no damage, but it gives the survivor Necrotic Fever. This disease is not fatal but it drastically weakens its victims and it's contagious.
  • Effects Of The Fever:
    • Every time a survivor with Necrotic Fever spends 1 AP on a Strenuous action (moving, barricading, or attacking) he takes 3 damage. All other actions, such as searching and speaking, are non-Strenuous.
    • The disease is nonfatal. If Necrotic Fever damage would kill a survivor, he is damaged down to 1 HP instead. An Infection can still kill him.
    • A survivor with both Necrotic Fever and Infection takes 3 damage for Strenuous actions, and 1 for non-Strenuous Actions.
  • Catching The Fever: The disease is extremely contagious. Non-Feverish survivors have a 0.1% chance per patient of catching the disease every time they spend an AP in the same Location as one or more Fever patients (i.e. three patients in the area = 0.3% chance every time you do an action there).
    • This may seem small, but consider the example of a survivor who spends 50 action points (i.e., one "day") in a mall with 100 other survivors, 5 of whom have Necrotic Fever. His base chance is only 0.5%, but by the end of the day his chance of remaining healthy is (99.5%^50) or only 78%. There is a 22% chance that he has caught the fever. By the end of the day, the epidemic will have spread from 5 to 26 people. Within three days (assuming no efforts to contain the epidemic) the entire mall will have the disease. The main danger of the fever is its contagiousness.
  • Effects Upon Death: The Necrotic Fever tag stays when the survivor dies and is revivified. However, while undead the disease is Dormant, meaning it does no damage and other players can't catch it from you. This is because the bacteria are symbiotic in undead corpses.
  • Curing The Fever: Unlike an Infection, advanced medical training is necessary to properly treat and cure Necrotic Fever. Only survivors with the Surgery skill can cure the disease, by applying a First Aid Kit (this need not be in a powered hospital). The FAK has a 50% chance of curing Necrotic Fever; 50% of the time it will apply otherwise normally (healing HP, curing any Infection present, etc.) but the Necrotic Fever will remain uncured.
  • Further Medical Training: This suggestion would work well with the peer reviewed suggestion Prognosis, which would allow medically trained survivors to spot Fever cases.

Votes

  1. Keep - Rock on with your bad self! this suggestion is rock awsome to the max! - Deadeye207 00:53, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - Too powerful and this fails the make it fun rule. - Jedaz 00:57, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  3. Author Keep - I spent a while revising this including a discussion on the talk page. Basically the skill is intended to do several things. It gives something new for Rotted zombies to do, but unlike Infection, it's actually very useful for the zombie cause because it has synergy with Feeding Drag. It adds the element of disease to large-population situations (such as mall sieges) with survivors needing to get an organized "curing squad" running or risk seeing the area overrun by the epidemic. --Rheingold 00:59, 2 July 2006 (BST).
    Struck out the invalid part of the vote. If you want to make such coments about the suggestion, add a note at the end of the suggestion's description. Votes are not the place to discuss suggestions. --Matthew Fahrenheit 01:13, 2 July 2006 (BST)
    Unstruck, but edited for brevity. I've seen plenty of users use Author Votes to further discuss the idea behind their suggestion. Police all or none please. --Rheingold 01:33, 2 July 2006 (BST).
    Only Moderators may strike out votes.--The General-W! P! Mod23:00, 3 July 2006 (BST)
  4. Spam - Its too powerful, and it nerfs survivors without adding any fun factor for zombies, or even experience. I don't think you can fix it without starting from scratch, so i spam. --Matthew Fahrenheit 01:03, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  5. Spam - Unfun and too powerful. People not only get a disease out of thin air, they get one 3 times more powerful than the current infection from it, that can't be cured unless you are a high-level survivor (because few low-level survivors use xp on a skill that diminish their xp income), and sticks around to kill you in a few turns after you are revived. Where's the WCDZ when you need 'em? I should kick the closest of those lazy bums--McArrowni 01:14, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  6. Keep - My only problem is rotting being a pre-req; that defeats a good chunk of the stated purpose of attracting more players to the zombie side, since my character is a competent zombie and survivor who I intend to never give brain rot. Besides that, I love this suggestion. I will find it very fun as a survivor, since it will increase the mayhem and panic I expected from this game, and get rid of the cake-walk I'm having now. If we find that this is incredibly over powered, humans can always just 'build immunity' and then it could disappear, but please, let's give this a chance.--Burgan 01:19, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill this is ridiculous. It is far too powerful, and I don't like the possibility of being reduced to 1HP not for batteling a zombie, but for simply staying inside. Who is this fun for? The Zombie who doesn't see the result of his actions, or the mall full of infected survivors who don't have a chance once a handful of people catch the disease? Ybbor 01:25, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep - this has to be among my top 10 favorite suggestions. Keep them coming --Sig.PNGtalk 01:26, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill - It's an interesting idea, but it's too powerful. The fever should not damage someone beyond 12 HP, and it should only do 1 damage (non-infected), or 2 damage total (fever+infection) for "strenuous" actions. –Bob Hammero T•W!•P! 01:29, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  10. Keep - May bring back old players and help out new ones. Sonny Corleone WTF 01:46, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  11. Keep - Wow an actuall skill that puts fear into humans.. And look they are voting it down.. How typical... --Technerd 01:53, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  12. Keep - Nice job Rheingold. --Canuhearmenow 02:00, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  13. Kill - too much at once, I think. Massive damage and infectious? One or the other. Incremental changes are more likely to find the 'balance point' of the game. I liked the version you had on the discussion page better. BTW - last I checked the stats, the imbalance begins to turn around at the higher levels as it is, what you want is something for lower level zombies... Jenny D'ArcT 02:09, 2 July 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 6 Keep, 4 Kill. Suggestion withdrawn for further revision, but I'll leave the page up so people can continue to add coments as to how you'd like to see this revised. --Rheingold 02:45, 2 July 2006 (BST).
    Tally' - 6 Keep, 4 Kill, 2 Spam. You don't get to ignore our spam votes, thank you (I'm too lazy to count the votes below this line) --McArrowni 14:59, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - Hellah overpowered. --Jon Pyre 06:00, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  15. Keep - Interesting... --Abi79 AB 09:02, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  16. Kill - Like Burgan said. Helping make zombies fun, esp for newbs is a good goal, but this doesn't really do that, IMO. It's a super infection only available to high level rotters. --Raystanwick 10:09, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  17. Keep - I like the idea, but I still think that this attack is useless because it doesn't give you any XP. Can this not be incorporated into an existing attack such as bite? --Otware 11:02, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  18. Kill - Strong Kill. Is it only me who checks the stats page? Zombie numbers are rising, all it would take to severly decrease Survivor numbers is one n00b catching the fever, heading to a mall and infecting everyone there. Also it would put one hell of a strain on the server, just no. --John Z. Delorean 13:12, 2 July 2006 (BST) 13:15, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  19. Keep - I love this suggestion. Instead lowering HP consider the possibility of losing action points: one additional action point for every strenuous action. I agree with Burgan that the zombie level to acquire the skill is to high. Hope sincerely that this suggestion will come in. Tico 14:54, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  20. Kill - Overpowered. --Niilomaan 15:42, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  21. Keep-I see no problem with this game becoming a zombie apoc.--ShadowScope 16:17, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  22. Spam - We won’t get more zombies by changing the balance and forcing more survivors to spend time undead, but by adding features that 1) generate interest among veteran zombies and 2) make the game easier for younger zombies. Clicking a new button doesn't make things more interesting. Removing targets does not make the game easier. This suggest thus spectacularly fails at life. And it's overpowered. David Malfisto 22:33, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  23. Kill - per above. -- Mettaur 12:44, 10 July 2006 (BST)

Viral Contagion (V 2.0)

Timestamp: 01:19, 2 July 2006 (BST)
Type: New Skill.
Scope: Brain Rot Zombies.
Description: This is to give Brain Rot zombies a new 100XP skill called Viral Contagion. It would be under Brain Rot and would also require Infectious Bite. Unlike Necrotic Symbiotes this would make it so, when one is infected by a zombie with this skill, they lose 2HP per AP spent instead of 1HP per AP spent. It would become a normal infection upon dying. Players who get infected would recieve this message "You have been infected by a new virulent strain of the zombie virus." This would give those playing Brain Rot zombies a new skill.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author Vote. --Canuhearmenow 01:19, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep - I voted Keep on the other one, and this one gets my Keep as well --Sig.PNGtalk 01:28, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  3. KeepKill - Same reason I voted kill on v.1, I'd rather see the necrotic symbiotes implemented than this one. It's a more developed and interesting suggestion.--Burgan 01:30, 2 July 2006 (BST) Changing to keep since I've got no flaws with it besides liking the other one better. This stands on it's own merits and maintains the simple style of the game. --Burgan 02:22, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  4. Keep - Even better than before. –Bob Hammero T•W!•P! 01:30, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill Sorry, Jon convinced me... Rheingold 04:56, 3 July 2006 (BST) Keep I didn't intend for there to be rivalry between our suggestions... mine predates yours by quite a while, they're pretty different, and I hope both make it to PR so Kevan can choose what to implement (if anything). While this suggestion isn't very flavorful it gets a strong Keep from me because you addressed the issue of revivified infection victims. --Rheingold 01:34, 2 July 2006 (BST).
  6. Keep - Kill - So can we heal it? Don't make us vote on half finnished suggestions. - Jedaz 01:36, 2 July 2006 (BST) - Yeah I guess so. - Jedaz 02:56, 2 July 2006 (BST)
    • Re - It behaves like a normal infection except for the 2HP thing, so yes. --Canuhearmenow 02:01, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep - Noice. Sonny Corleone WTF 01:47, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep - It doesn't need to be any more complicated than this, people. --Mookiemookie 01:50, 2 July 2006 (BST) EDIT: OHHH BOO HOO HOO FOR THE PEOPLE THAT DON'T CARRY FAKS, OH MY GOSH THEY MAY ACTUALLY HAVE TO PLAY A GAME THAT'S CHALLENGING AND NOT A ZOMBIE CLICKY SHOOTING GALLERY! AHHHH BLOO BLOO BLOO!
  9. Keep - Hell Yeah! --Technerd 01:54, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  10. Keep - But only a question: does this new type of infection get totally healed with a FAK? --Matthew Fahrenheit Talk 02:17, 2 July 2006 (BST) Question aswered above, nevermind. --Matthew Fahrenheit Talk 02:18, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  11. Keep - much better than Necrotic Infection. Now if we can get someone to come up with a 1 HP contagious disease to act in parallel we've got something... Jenny D'ArcT 02:20, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill -I'm sorry, but some people don't always carry a FAK, and if this were implimented, you'd be dead unless there was a hospital next door.--Labine50 MHG|MalTel 03:07, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  13. Kill - Same reason as last time. Brain Rot is a lifestyle choice, not a typical skill. There's should be no reason to buy it unless you want to remain a zombie forever. --Jimmy 03:58, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  14. Keep - If you're too stupid not to carry at least one FAK with you, then you deserve to die. It's that simple. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 04:31, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  15. Kill Brain Rot shouldn't be a prerequisite to be a powerful zombie. Brain Rot is just required to not be revived pretty much ever. Also the idea is pretty uncreative. It's just "MAKE THIS SKILL 2X POWERFUL". I'd rather something original and fun. --Jon Pyre 08:03, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  16. Keep - I voted keep on the first one, but the message for infectee's suck. Why can't it be this; A Zombie bit you for 2 damage. The bite is leaking green liquid and pus every time the player moves he/she gets this message Your head aches as the virus takes effect. you lose 2hp. or something like that. --John Z. Delorean 08:30, 2 July 2006 (BST) 08:30, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  17. Keep - I like it. If you don't have a FAK, then die. They are very easy to find, no? --Abi79 AB 09:04, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  18. Kill - as Jon Pyre said. There have been many suggestions like this; more 'improved infections' are not needed in Peer Reviewed. The problem of making zombies more fun is not about better attacks against survivors, IMO.(esp for rotters who are already dedicated zombies...) New ways to attack cades to get to humans, and a new way for zombies to communicate would be more helpful for encouraging new zombies. --Raystanwick 10:27, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  19. Kill - Brain Rot should not be needed for anything. If someone can't decide between zombie and survivor, you shouldn't force them to. --Niilomaan 15:36, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  20. Keep - Unlike most people here, I -love- the idea of having Brain Rot as something that leads to a stronger zombie. Not the most original skill, but simplicity is good. -- Tirion529 16:13, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  21. Keep-KISS. Not orignal, but it will do.--ShadowScope 16:20, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  22. Keep-Good idea KyleTravis 20:44, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  23. Keep - I've seen much better ideas, but I can't agree with Labine50 twice in a row. David Malfisto 22:36, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  24. Kill -I'm not sure Brain Rot should be a requirement (seems that 90% of all zombie suggestions have Brain Rot as a requirment). And Jon Pyre "original and fun" tends to get zombie suggestions shot down, but I DO agree. Raystanwick, the wiki only has 2 "improved infections" in Peer Review and, regardless, Infection DOES need to be made stronger.--Pesatyel 00:38, 3 July 2006 (BST)
  25. Kill - Skills under Brain Rot hurt characters who play as both human and zombie. --Toejam 00:48, 3 July 2006 (BST)
  26. Keep - This is something nice for those who have decided to play dedicated zombie.. Gives them more of a reason to play zombie. I personally would like to see more things along this line of thinking.. --Steel Hammer 05:42, 3 July 2006 (BST)
  27. Kill per Jon. -- Mettaur 12:47, 10 July 2006 (BST)

Necrotic Fever

Timestamp: 02:36, 2 July 2006 (BST)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors & Zombies
Description: Zombies above level 10 who already have Infectious Bite can buy Necrotic Fever for 100 XP.

This skill represents a varient strain of the Feverpathogen contained in the Infectious Bite of some zombies, which operates exactly like it _except_ that it can pass from Survivor to Survivor. Each time an uninfected survivor spends an AP in the same location as an individual infected with Necrotic Fever there is a 0.1% chance of them contracting the disease. EDIT: Clarification. Replaced the word 'Fever' above to make it clearer that the Infectious Bite skill is the one being referenced. Jenny D'ArcT 15:04, 2 July 2006 (BST)

Votes

  1. Author (adaptor) Keep - With thanks and credit to Rheingold. I couldn't vote for your version, for the reasons I stated above, but this part of it was just too cool not to see it get a chance of it's own. Jenny D'ArcT 02:36, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - I can revise my own suggestions, thanks ;) --Rheingold 02:40, 2 July 2006 (BST).
    • Re - cool. If you post your revised version, I'll retract this one. Jenny D'ArcT 02:51, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill - Just a bad idea, it doesn't explain the mechanics of how it would all work. (Such as curing the fever ect.) - Jedaz 02:45, 2 July 2006 (BST)
    • Re - I specified that everything except for the human to human transition would work like Infectious Bite. So a simple FAK would cure it. Jenny D'ArcT 02:51, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  4. Keep - if it can be healed with a FAK--Sig.PNGtalk 02:48, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  5. Dupe -Why do I not have a link? look up.--Labine50 MHG|MalTel 03:08, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  6. Keep - How is this a dupe if it improves the original? DURRRR....TELL ME ABOUT THE RABBITS, GEORGE --Mookiemookie 03:18, 2 July 2006 (BST)
    • Re Thanks, Mookie, but no rabbits, please? Jenny D'ArcT 14:45, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep - Same reason as why I voted keep last time. It's good. "We gonna buy a small little house with a nice fat stove. And we gonna live off the fat of the land. And we'll get cages for the rabbits. And have some alfalfa to feed to them rabbits." Sonny Corleone WTF 04:33, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - As someone who's pulled suggestions on and off this page myself, I really don't like the idea of people revising other people's ideas without the consent of the original author. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 04:35, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  9. Spam - As the suggestion's Dos and Do Nots says, Don't connect suggestions. Even if thats not enough for you, at least make sure to have the consent of the author before resubmiting someone else's ideas. And even if all that is still not enough for you, as i said in the previous version i think this suggestion is overpowered, not fun for survivors , doesn't add fun to zombies at all and its beyond saving. --Matthew Fahrenheit Talk 04:50, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  10. Spam ^Suggestions should be independant and standalone. Also contagious ideas are poorly designed. Free infections forever! I think not. --Jon Pyre 07:57, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  11. Spam - Don't connect suggestions. –Bob Hammero T•W!•P! 09:37, 2 July 2006 (BST)
    • Re - AFAICT 'don't connect suggestions' means dont make a suggestion dependant on another which is not in play. The text of this suggestion references only a skill which is in play, not another suggestion. Jenny D'ArcT 14:45, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  12. Keep - Complicates things for humans, in a way that I think might be fun for them. The reactino will be that they will spread out, making them easier target for zombies. The only problem I see is for newbies, who have a limited number of buildings in which they can hide already, and can't relocate if it gets too crowded/infected. --McArrowni 15:10, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  13. Keep-I think this will be good. See above.--ShadowScope 16:22, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - MBB. David Malfisto 22:37, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  15. Kill - how do you cure it? Would it be like this? --Raystanwick 01:14, 3 July 2006 (BST)
  16. Kill - Agree with above, mechanics not completely thought out. --Steel Hammer 05:43, 3 July 2006 (BST)

Resistance and Immunity

Removed by author, nerfs infection to much --Canuhearmenow 02:43, 2 July 2006 (BST)

Power Stations V3.0

Spaminated with 12 Spams, 3 Kills, 1 author Keep, and 1 illegal attempt by the author to vote Spam under a different name. Most voters thought that the suggestion was unbalanced, overly complicated, and irredeemably flawed, and should not be attempted again. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 18:38, 2 July 2006 (BST)

Most voters are also resigned to the fact that it probably will be revised again, and are preparing themselves for the worst. Cyberbob  Talk  18:47, 2 July 2006 (BST)

...But are secure in their knowledge that unless it is substantially revised, they can safely vote Dupe (here is the link: [[S/PR#Power_Stations_V3.0|link title]]). –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 20:10, 2 July 2006 (BST)
I hope it just dies quickly next time. Everyone will vote Spam right?--Sig.PNGtalk 01:20, 3 July 2006 (BST)

Feeding Groan revised

Timestamp: 08:23, 2 July 2006 (BST)
Type: Skill expansion
Scope: Zombies who have feeding groan
Description: This is my first suggestion but here goes; it's very simple. Feeding groan currently allows zombies only to groan for reinforcements when they encounter survivors. But why not make it so zombies can groan after they encounter/hit barricades down to a certain level (maybe quite strongly barricaded or lightly barricaded), but they don't have very many AP left. It makes sense because a zombie is of course excited if it is so close to achieving its goal. I feel this modification will have certain benefits for both zombies AND survivors, so it won't overpower zombies by a whole bunch.
  • Benefits for zombies:
    • It allows feral zombies to gather and attack barricades without relying on metagaming to organize coordinated attacks on barricades. This modification also has the interesting aspect of working against a zombie, since the groans could alert survivors who to breaks in barricades. It just depends on who signs on and hears the groans first, a survivor or a zombie. This modification makes the game a bit more of a gamble for zombies: groan or wait for AP to replenish.
  • Benefits for survivors:
    • Survivors may use this modification to their advantage and barricade dummy buildings only up to quite strongly or lightly barricaded, luring zombies away from real safehouses. Of course, zombies could just as easily ignore these buildings or work on the buildings themselves to see if there are any survivors inside before groaning. Smart zombies would only groan after they're relatively certain there are people inside a building and after they've broken down that building's barricades to that certain low level. Zombies who only luckily stumble upon a building that has weak barricades, instead of wearing them down themselves, may put themselves at a disadvantage if they choose to groan, and it may be better to just attack the barricades alone instead of calling for help. In sum, I think this modification would allow people more opportunities to think strategically, it would make the game more interesting and I don't think it's a pointless change that really does nothing, nor does it overpower any one side.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author Vote. --Haroldharold 08:42, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - Because your new I'll tell you this. Read the suggestions Do and Don'ts and skim through the previous days suggestions. This idea would create too much message spam. - Jedaz 08:26, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill - Unnecessary, and would have too much potential to nerf feeding groan for zombies. –Bob Hammero T•W!•P! 08:32, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill Huge nerf to feeding groan's usefulness. --Rheingold 08:34, 2 July 2006 (BST).
  5. Kill - As Bob Hammero, as Rheingold. –Xoid 08:35, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  6. Spam - OMFG YOU NERFED FEEDING GROAN!--Sig.PNGtalk 10:11, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - It would not help strategy because why would a zombie care if others come along to help with the barricades/ not want help. It nerfs the use of feeding groan- you can't feed on barricades can you? --Marie 10:35, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - There are barricades all over the place. This suggestion would lure young zombies into wasting their AP. --Max Grivas JG,T,P! 11:21, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill - Nice idea, but barricade groans would be heard all over the place => spam. --Nob666 12:14, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - The "only useable when you find survivors" option is what makes feeding groan so fantastic. If you hear a recent groan, you are almost garaunteed to find some tasty survivors at its location (chances decreasing dramatically the older a groan is). Otherwise zombies would be dragged all over the place by people groaning at lightly barricaded buildings that contain no people. That said... if any of those "scent prey" or similar suggestions ever get implemented, it would make sense that a zombie could groan outside a barricaded building when in-game mechanics let him know for a fact that there is someone inside --Gene Splicer 12:37, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill - What Gene splicer said. If you intend on making a version that works, you need to do the following: Have a different message for frustrated groans (those done with barricades) and for feeding groans. You should also only allow frustrated groans when there is light inside the building, or maybe when a scent has brought you there. The later is giving me evil ideas. (Also, don't nerf Jon Pyre's skill)--McArrowni 15:32, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill Don't nerf my skill. --Jon Pyre 16:01, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  13. Kill - As everyone has said. --Matthew Fahrenheit Talk Damn, sorry, missed a "~". --Matthew Fahrenheit Talk 20:27, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - As every other Kill vote above. David Malfisto 22:39, 2 July 2006 (BST)

Weather

Timestamp: 10:24, 2 July 2006 (BST)
Type: Game mechanic
Scope: Everyone
Description: First off, I acknowledge that this would be hard for Kevan to implement. This is something I'd like added, not something that needs to be added.

Anyway.
There would be three states that the weather could be in; Sunny, Cloudy, or Raining. The current weather we've been having in Malton is Cloudy. Yes, for the past year. Malton's in England, is it really that hard to believe? Cloudy means everythign is how it is right now. When it's cloudy, every tick (I'm assuming the game knows when AP is given out) has a 0.5% chance of the weather turning to Sunny or Raining (0.25% chance for each). If the weather turns Raining, all firearms- pistols and shotguns- would suffer a -5% accuracy debuff. It's raining, after all- it's hard to see! Melee weapons would be unaffected. While Raining, it has a 1% chance of turning back to Cloudy. Then, say the clouds part and the weather is Sunny. While it's sunny, the heat begins to accelerate the decomposition of the zombie's bodies. This allows survivors to scent whether or not a large amount of zombies are in a building. A large amount would be 5 or more, so lone zombies are still safe. It has a 1% chance of turning back to Cloudy.
Weather would affect all of Malton, all at once. The 5% debuff on firearms while it's Raining would affect everyone- so unskilled people with guns have absolutely no chance of hitting. They really didn't anyway, but still. This cycle makes it possible for the weather to go, say, Raining-Cloudy-Raining-Cloudy-Raining, really indefinitely, though the chances of that are slim. When the weather changes, everyone would hear messages notifying them of the change. If it became sunny and you were outside, you might hear "Rays of sunlight touch the ground as the clouds part." Or, if you were inside and it began to rain, "You hear a tapping on the roof as the rain comes down." I feel this is balanced because it has a fairly even chance of hurting/helping either side- humans sometimes miss more, and zombies sometimes stink to high heaven.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author Vote. -Leeksoup 10:24, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - i don't see zombies being affected by this partically so it makes it unfair to surviors. Just because if its sunny how does that help surviors? --Marie 10:35, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill - I don't like the effects you've purposed and this is much better I reckon. - Jedaz 10:47, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - I like the idea, but the numbers are too low. The chances for change should be 12-16%, IMO. Also, I would rather see just the descriptions implemented, and any possible mechanical effects added later. I like your types(sunny, cloudy, or raining) better then the one's in the suggestion Jedaz mentioned(snow?). --Raystanwick 10:53, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - The percentage of weather changing is too low. I like the idea for flavor, but the effect on survivors is a stupid one. You might as well go off saying zombies can slip in a puddle and they have to spend ap to stand up again. Revise this suggestion. --Kamron 4:02, 2 July 2006 (PST)
    • Re - What, then, should weather do? Having it do nothing is just unrealistic. Haven't you ever been outside while it's raining, and you thought, 'Hey, it's hard to see!' --Leeksoup 18:42, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - Chances of weather changing are really small and I don't like weather affecting firearm accuracy. --Nob666 12:24, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - I like the weather changing mechanic for this better than the other one. A chance of switching between states every tick is interesting. Maybe expand it to allow for other factors? An entire semi-sensible and automated weather system could be set up, which ties in nicely with the Random Quest discussion on the talk page. A higher change rate would be better... actually, if you don't resubmit this with alteration, I may do it myself. But anyway, the reason I am voting kill is, your actual effects of weather are not great. Weather even as just flavour, though... --Gene Splicer 12:46, 2 July 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Again, what would it do? I'm open to suggestions before I revise this. --Leeksoup 18:42, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill Random penalties for no reason? Bad idea. --Jon Pyre 16:04, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill - don't revise this --Sig.PNGtalk 16:31, 2 July 2006 (BST)
    • Re - No. --Leeksoup 18:43, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - As Jon Pyre. –Xoid 16:54, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill - This does it better --Mookiemookie 17:20, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill - I wuold be amazed to see a flare gun with a hit success rate of -2.5% . --Matthew Fahrenheit Talk 19:15, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  13. Kill - The chances of the weather changing are too low -- 20% would be more reasonable. Also, I don't like the effects this suggestion has. Make them more "fun" and less "frustrating." –Bob Hammero T•W!•P! 20:03, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - Would people please stop suggesting bad ideas just to see how the game handles -2.5% to hit with a flare gun. I honestly see no other reason for this suggestion. David Malfisto 22:42, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  15. Kill - I don't like it. It makes no sense to make the game even harder for new players who have no firearm skills. --Sgt. 20m813 (MPD) 04:37, 3 July 2006 (BST)

Zombie Lord

Bleagh. See below skill to answer most of the reponses given. --Gene Splicer 16:03, 2 July 2006 (BST)

Zombie Lord skill, Lead Horde.

Timestamp: 16:45, 2 July 2006 (BST)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: A Zombie skill with the pre-reqs level 10 + Brain Rot. You gain the 1ap button "Gesture". Any zombie with Scent Trail who logs in after a zombie in this square has pressed it gets the message
  • A Zombie (link to profile) groans and gestures, then shuffles off (new location of zombie, as if it were a zombie survivor that had dna scanned/attacked them).

If it is someone on your profile, it changes to "A familiar Zombie" (or similar).

The pre-reqs are to stop lower level zombies buying it because "it looked cool" and then spamming up the screens, or survivors making quick and easy distractozerg characters. Since the profile is clickable, you can check to see if this is your horde leader (or at least someone with an interesting profile) and follow them to the next target in whatever tour of destruction your horde is engaged in. Or else ignore it.

  • Note: There is a skill in discussion called "Overlord(Can Rally Scourge). I am guessing it was similar, but has no description in it anymore, so I don't know what it was --Gene Splicer 17:17, 2 July 2006 (BST)
    • Found it in History. It sucksand is nothing like this >.> --Gene Splicer 17:24, 2 July 2006 (BST)
      • 'Overlord' was my suggestion - I have all the 'revised' versions and their votes saved in my user page (Click Here) --W3c 05:43, 3 July 2006 (BST)

Votes

  1. Keep - I guess. It doesn't sound like genious, but I'm always for skills that allow zombies more communication. --McArrowni 16:49, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - See Gage's vote. I'm certain that this is a dupe, regardless, I just don't like it. –Xoid 16:52, 2 July 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Any reason? --Gene Splicer 16:56, 2 July 2006 (BST)
      • Re: Damnit. Knew there was a reason but it slipped my mind until I saw Gage's vote. Come to think of it, no. –Xoid 19:37, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep - I like. Much better than all those other "Overlord" or "Zombie Leader" or whatever souper zmobie suggestions. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 17:37, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - Feeding groans. Use them. --Sig.PNGtalk 17:45, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill ^What he said. Also the idea of a zombie waving it's arms and dancing like a bee leading others to pollen is kind of out of genre. P.S. Way to delete our votes guy who wrote suggestion below. --Jon Pyre 17:46, 2 July 2006 (BST)
    • Re - I was thinking more along the lines of the big black guy from Land of the Dead, when he got that town to start following him --Gene Splicer 19:59, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - Nothing wrong with it, but it just seems useless when you have feeding groans and all that. --Otware 18:02, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - Feeding groans do all the useful things you can do with this skill already, without the not so useful ones. --Matthew Fahrenheit Talk 19:19, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - Feeding groan works well, so I don't see any use to this. --Nob666 19:51, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill - Interesting idea, but this implementation wouldn't really add anything. It should involve more than just gesturing and having other zombies know where you've gone. –Bob Hammero T•W!•P! 20:06, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - Feeding groan. Feeding groan and death rattle. David Malfisto 22:45, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill - Feeding groan is useful for bringing a group of zombies together, but it doesn't really keep them together. I imagine this is where this skill would come in handy. But I don't like that it requires Brain Rot, since it hurts characters who play as both zombie and survivor. --Toejam 01:54, 3 July 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill - The whole idea of zombie lords and overlords and kings, is just going the wrong way. Zombification is a bit of an equalizer, a mass of near mindless former-human animals. They aren't a team or highly trained ninjas gesticulating orders and hooting at each other. They're a shambling horde of the dead. --Rgon 22:38, 4 July 2006 (BST)

Magnum

Removed by Author, Pistols and Shotguns are good for now.--Canuhearmenow 17:57, 2 July 2006 (BST)

Slash

Timestamp: 18:23, 2 July 2006 (BST)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: This skill would require Rend Flesh. Basically, this skill gives zombies a 10% chance when attacking with hands to harm the eyes of the enemy. This leads to a 5% reduction in accuracy of melee attacks and a 10% reduction in firearms attacks until...(whichever comes first)
  • 'Slashed' player has been healed with a FAK.
  • 'Slashed' player is revived.

Of course, once an ememy is 'slashed' he/she cannot be 'slashed' again until the effects have been removed.

In some ways this is very similar to infections. However, this does not cost the recipient any HP, just a loss of accuracy. If the Prognosis suggestion is implimented, maybe it could also be used to check for this.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote. --Otware 18:23, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep - Sounds good. Where in the tree would this go? --Burgan 18:57, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill Random boost that doesn't enhance gameplay. Feeding Drag enhances gameplay by making a new thing zombies can do. This just boosts zombies for no reason. This type of thing is easy to make: "Zombie hands have 10% chance of causing concussion. 10% reduction in searching ability while concussed from dizziness." Justify this random boost right after zombies got a big one. --Jon Pyre 19:01, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - Temporary buffs are taboo in UD, and you should aim suggestions to make the game more fun for everyone, not less fun for one side. This is like the old headshot: doesn't give any advantage to the zombie hunters, but pisses off the poor zombies who gets headshot and lose their hard earned experience. --Matthew Fahrenheit Talk 19:28, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - Infectious bite is already the zombie's "gift that keeps on giving" and the fact that it's cured so easily makes it a joke. This isn't all that different. --Mookiemookie 19:37, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - As much as I love this as a zombie, I hate it as a survivor. --Nob666 19:52, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - Fails the "multiply it by a billion" test (see Suggestions Dos and Do Nots). Make the accuracy nerfs and the chance to slash lower. –Bob Hammero T•W!•P! 20:09, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill Would everyone PLEASE stop suggesting terrible ideas for the sole purpose of sending the Flare Gun into negative to hit chances. Ditto Jon. And it's an incomplete idea. - David Malfisto 22:47, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  9. Keep - I like. Sonny Corleone WTF 22:49, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill Farenheit FTW. --Rheingold 23:23, 2 July 2006 (BST).
  11. Kill - Specify wether the penalties are taken straight off of the to-hit chance (from 25% to 15%, for example), or just calculated after, making 10% of hits misses (from 25% to 22.5%, or from 65% to 58.5%). The former nerfs newbies for no good reason and kills kittens (those stray rounds have to go somewhere), and the WCDZ enforces it's monopoly on both markets --McArrowni 00:19, 3 July 2006 (BST)
  12. Keep - These are the kinds of skills zombies could use at this point -- status effects for victims instead of added damage. I'd love to hit a human with this in live combat. --Ember MBR 05:30, 3 July 2006 (BST)
  13. Keep - Good idea, but I don't dig the name. Makes it sound like you require a sword, and training as a knight in shining armor. Maybe change to a more rough equivalent. Maybe "Rip face" or "Facial tear" or some other such thing. Anyway though, good idea. --Rgon 22:43, 4 July 2006 (BST)

Triumphant Roar

Withdrawn by the author for revisions. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 19:53, 2 July 2006 (BST)

Triumphant Roar (Revised)

Timestamp: 19:12, 2 July 2006 (BST)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: This has been revised from the previous version. Changes are in bold. If there seems to be support for this idea I'll keep working on it (or leave it if it's accepted), otherwise I won't attempt it forever.

This is based upon the recently-suggested "Feeding Groan revised." I thought that the suggestion was flawed, but presented an interesting idea: the ability to let nearby zombies know when you have found a building with weak barricades.

"Triumphant Roar" (name changeable) would be available to zombies under Ransack, in the Memories of Life skill tree. Zombies with Triumphant Roar would be presented with a new button, "Roar," which would allow them to emit a roar to nearby zombies when they are standing in front of a building that is barricaded at Lightly, or below. Pressing the "Roar" button would cost 1 AP, unless there is no reason to roar (see below), in which case it would cost 0 AP. Zombies would not be able to roar at unbarricaded buildings.

The roar would have different characteristics, depending on the damage to the barricades (messages changeable):

  • You have no instinctive reason to roar. (The barricades still seem strong.) (> Lightly)
  • You give a loud and threatening roar. (Lightly, heard up to 2 blocks away)
  • You give a deafening roar of triumph. (Loosely, heard up to 3 blocks away)

Nearby zombies would see similar messages, but from their perspective (e.g., You heard a loud and threatening roar X blocks to the <direction>. (timestamp GMT)).

This would be a valuable skill for zombies to have in their arsenal, as it would allow them to alert other zombies when they are close to bringing down a building's barricades, and either need help finishing the job or want to alert other zombies to the building's weakness.

It also fits with the genre, since you would expect zombies in a horde to be attracted to the weakened building. Its placement under Ransack, however, would restrict it to more powerful zombies, preventing abuse from zergers, and reducing the number of zombies who could use it to those who are already experienced.

Votes

  1. Author Keep - This should be better now. –Bob Hammero T•W!•P! 19:57, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep - Well, you made the changes i said, so as promised... =) --Matthew Fahrenheit Talk 20:01, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill I think zombies should have to hunt for their prey just a little bit. Besides, lightly takes what, 10AP to break through? Better some other zombie come along, break in with a fraction of their AP and groan if there's people, rather than dozens of zombies coming over when there's nobody there. --Jon Pyre 20:03, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  4. Keep - Nice. --Otware 20:53, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill Same reason I gave for the last one: The beauty of feeding groan is that, if you hear one, you KNOW there was tasty food available when the groan was made. This would lead to far too many zombies being dragged around by useless groans to empty buildings. --Gene Splicer 21:47, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - As Jon and Splicer. David Malfisto 22:49, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep - Why not? Sonny Corleone WTF 22:50, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep - I don't see why not, would be useful - HerrStefantheGreat 23:18, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill Why not? How about... Because anything that attracts zombies to a building that might not have humans is strictly inferior to Feeding Groan? Thus this is either a nerf to zombies (for the zombies dumb enough to follow these) or ineffectual (for the smart zombies, who will ignore roars). --Rheingold 23:20, 2 July 2006 (BST).
  10. Kill - We don't need a crappy version of Feeding Groan. Sorry, Bob. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 23:25, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  11. Keep - I wrote the original "feeding groan revised" suggestion. The reason this could be useful is that often, a zombie will spend so many AP tearing down a barricade and often will get weaken the barricade but run out of AP. This would allow zombies to get their foot in the door (no pun intended) without being as easily thwarted. I just thought it'd be nice to have SOMETHING to notify zombies in the area, since there is nothing now. -- Haroldharold 00:18, 3 July 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill - Feeding Groans. Use them. --Sig.PNGtalk 00:49, 3 July 2006 (BST)
  13. Kill - Not too bad. Make it so that it only works on loosely and set the "hearing" range to one distinct range rather than 3. I can see how this would be abused, but I can see how it would be useful and it isn't about "just use Feeding Groan" if the underlying premise of the skill is different (which you might want to work on...).--Pesatyel 00:54, 3 July 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - Though if you combined it with being able to hear buildings being ransacked, you'd have a very useful skill. --Toejam 02:31, 3 July 2006 (BST)
  15. Keep - Could work. Feeding Groan Lite for bringing zeds together to work those last few levels down. --Ember MBR 05:28, 3 July 2006 (BST)
  16. Keep - #Kill - I don't think this helps zombies or survivors. On first thought three blocks was pointless, now I'm thinking it could attract help to the appropriate corner in a mall seige. Max Grivas JG,T,P! 07:43, 3 July 2006 (BST)
  17. Kill - per Jon -- Mettaur 12:51, 10 July 2006 (BST)

Another Damn Rocket Launcher

Spaminated with 8 Spams, and 1 author Keep. Most voters thought that the suggestion was overpowered, out-of-genre, and violated too many Suggestions Dos and Do Nots rules. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 23:03, 2 July 2006 (BST)

Demolish

Timestamp: 23:56, 2 July 2006 (BST)
Type: New Skill.
Scope: Make Ransack more powerful.
Description: This is to make Ransack more useful. There would be a new 100XP skill under Ransack called Demolish (name open to renaming). This is what it does, first you must ransack the building normally for 1 AP, then you can "Heavily Ransack" the building for 2 AP. The message for a heavily ransacked building is "You are inside building so and so, The building has been heavily ransacked" (Message open to rewriting). While Heavily Ransacked the search rates are almost completely zero. The cost to completely fix the building would be 5 AP. This would give Ransack more meaning then just something to buy when you have extra XP.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author Vote.--Canuhearmenow 23:56, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - Not needed. To extreme. I don't like it. --Swmono talk - W! - P! - SGP 00:39, 3 July 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill - The cost for repairing it is too high. Make it 2 AP. Actually, don't. The whole idea is unneccessary. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 00:45, 3 July 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - Nah, unnecessary. --Nob666 00:48, 3 July 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep - I don't see any problem with it--Sig.PNGtalk 00:50, 3 July 2006 (BST)Spam - I tried this and search rates in a ransacked building are already 0--Sig.PNGtalk 01:09, 3 July 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - A bit too powerful, but it's nice to see my suggestion spawning some other Ransack-based ones. –Bob Hammero T•W!•P! 01:14, 3 July 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep - I actually think that destruction should be easier than repairing, and that survivors should pay more APs to regain a building that they lost --McArrowni 01:54, 3 July 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep - Even with the latest bonuses to Ransack, it's still not all that effective. The increased Ap cost is great. -- Tirion529 02:08, 3 July 2006 (BST)
  9. Spam - Ransack just got a boost. --Rheingold 02:23, 3 July 2006 (BST).
  10. Kill - Ransack is still crap, even with it's "boost". This suggestion doesn't do much to fix it. --Mookiemookie 02:34, 3 July 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill - The last ransack boost should be enough reason to ransack, and an overall good boost to the ransack action. --Matthew Fahrenheit Talk 03:01, 3 July 2006 (BST)
  12. Keep - I think it would be better to make it that with this skill harmanz would need a skill to fix it. But this is still a good step in the right direction. Sonny Corleone WTF 04:45, 3 July 2006 (BST)
  13. Keep - Zombies shouldn't have to hold a building (and give up eating tasty harmanz) for ransack to mean something. --Ember MBR 05:23, 3 July 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - Zombies should have to hold a building (and give up eating tasty harmanz) for ransack to mean something. --Jon Pyre 07:22, 3 July 2006 (BST)
  15. Keep - I agree with Mcarrowni, the repair should be more costly than the destruction. Go over to a bookshelf, tear all the books off as fast as possible. Now reorganize them on the shelves. Which step took longer? Exactly. Requiring two skills first, and a total 3/5 ratio of the turns required to destroy compared to fixing is a nice balance, I think. --Rgon 22:50, 4 July 2006 (BST)
  16. Kill - As Jon. David Malfisto 23:42, 4 July 2006 (BST)
  17. Spam - per Gage -- Mettaur 12:54, 10 July 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/2nd-Jul-2006&oldid=323914"