Suggestions/3rd-Dec-2005

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Closed Suggestions

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

3rd December, 2005

VOTING ENDS: 17th-Dec-2005

Last Seen Before Lights Out

Timestamp: 04:07, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Game mechanic change
Scope: Anything that runs out of AP
Description: Instead of having it so when you run out of AP you just get that blank "Exhausted, you can go no further." how about changing it so that you see the contents of the room as though you had >0 AP, but at the very end it says "Exhausted, you can go no further." And then, from then until you regain at least 1AP, it shows that same description, with a little notice showing when it was the last time that room was in that status. Or, just the part about showing you the room before you run out of AP, if the latter is too hard to implement. Nobody likes walking blindly into a building that could have other players (friend or foe) in it already.

Votes

  • Keep - It doesn't make sense that a survivor would just walk into a building full of zombies and go to sleep without noticing. They might be too exhausted to go back out again, but they'd at least see the zeds.--'STER 04:09, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This idea just makes sense to implement, you should know what you just walked into. I thought the AP's represented general fatigue and exhaustion, not immediately passing out. If you are asleep, then any attack would hit, wouldn't it? ---shadow9 11:17, 2 Dec 2005 (EST)
  • Re - Yeah, you're not asleep. I just couldn't think of any other way to say it. (And it does seem like that would be the only way to explain why you can't see anything once you run out of AP) I put the edit in italics. Riktar 04:40, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --Lord Evans 04:41, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yeah this would be kinda nice, even though people should budget this into their AP cost. - Jedaz 06:33, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Re - Yeah, I considered that before making the suggestion - but sometimes you have to make an emergency pit-stop when things don't work out, as I found out the hard way, and the way it is now made it almost a gamble to enter a lower-barricaded building. Everything around me was heavily barricaded, and I was in foreign territory. How would I know if say, perhaps, the locals used this very strongly building as a prison for zulus? (It's happened to me before.) Riktar 07:26, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Makes sense. Zero AP means, well, that I can't do any action items! Right now I'd like to know how many rounds were in the Pistol I found, to enter the data into SearchOdds:PoliceStation but I can't cuz (D'uh!) I'm "asleep". And if, later on, there was some use for "Asleep" as the consequence of something, a down-side, well then there we go; the code would already be there on the shelf ready. --Rohstun 06:56, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - After thinking abotu it and reading comments, iot would indeed be scarier. - --Fullemtaled 07:37, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Re - Nothing. What's scary about seeing what's in the 3x3 blocks around your position? How about the building you're in while you still have AP? That's right, same answer. Not everything has to be scary. (And to be honest, none of this is really scary. Not knowing what's in the building you're looking for safehaven isn't scary; it's annoying because you know you're going to have to log in 30 minutes later to make sure you didn't walk into a death trap) Riktar 10:52, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yep. I would like to see what's going on in the room I'm going to go to sleep in. Even if it's a horde of zombies throwing a pyjama party. --Vair 09:30, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Why not? --Kulatu 12:43, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Makes sense, you should at least know what the last thing you saw is before you go to sleep, you wouldn't close your eyes, blunder into a building and then fall asleep. Besides, I think it would be more scary to enter a room, and read (for example) "You enter the building, around you are 10 zombies. However, you are exhausted and can go no futher." Then the sweat would arrive! --BauulBen 18:12, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Unless your character is a somnambulist, I doubt you're going to walk into the building already asleep. Besides, I would find actually knowing I walked into a safehouse full of zombies and such way more frightening than the way it stands now. -- Tabs 19:13, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Although I'd like to know, I rather think that things were changed to be like this for server load reasons. --Shadowstar 20:19, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Acceptable.--Zaruthustra 20:34, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I agree with Shadowstar on this one. I think it does it like it does for load reasons. — g026r 20:38, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like how it used to be; I just walked into a building today and have no idea who's in it. Better go check, it's been an hour. :) --Squashua 22:20, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - "Look at me! I walk into a building full of zombies, eat a hearty dinner and then go to sleep to let them munch on my brains! Duhhhhhhhhhh! I'm stupid!" (Keep already!) --Carfan7 22:52, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It always annoyed me that I always end with "You cannot think any more." You should be able to see where you are, even if you cannot act. And why is it that non-I.T. people have opinions about server loads in half these threads? At the end of your turn you've just make 50x database calls in a row, one more won't make any difference. And half the people chack back in half-hour anyway, so the extra call is still made. --Duke Ferris 23:20, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re Er, I am IT, thanks, don't assume about other people. One extra call done 50937 times is a lot. Sorry for Re'ing. --Shadowstar 04:23, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Server load isn't an issue if it only shows info the turn you actually run out of AP, like mentioned as an option in the suggestion. --Dashiva 23:27, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It makes sense and would make it a bit more interesting. Maybe vary the flavor text - you are tired so you may not see everything accurately (if there are ten zeds, you might see "You see 10 zombies before you fall asleep" othertimes you might see "You see 10 figures, but cannot identify them"). Mikm 04:12, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - geez people can't you wait half an hour? - Skarmory 16:07, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill budget your AP to make sure you have something to see with. this takes away the feer of the game. so what if you spent 49ap instead of 50ap. search once.--Spellbinder 16:15, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill If it truly bothers you that much, budget a mere one extra AP for this purpose. --LouisB3 19:57, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I too am in IT and I agree with Shadowstar, server load adds up and does make a big difference in game playability, and the game has been slowing down over the past few days as it is. However for game consistiecy a better suggestion may be to change the text to read: As you <insert last action> the world fades to black and you slump to the ground from exhaustion. I don't know how the game is coded, but I suspect the last action would variable should still be in memory requiring minimal coding to implement. --Atrayo 01:47, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Many reasons for keeping have already been stated, but I'd like to tack on one last one. In horror movies in general, when the character sees the monster/murderer after looking around becuase they wondered who/what was there, don't they generally wish they hadn't looked? It's scarier to see what's about to kill you than when you're killed by something you didn't know was there. Besides, the latter is more annoying, and last time I checked scary > annoying in horror-based games and movies. It's hard for me to fear something in a room that can kill me when it kills me while I'm asleep before I can even see it! Yes, it scares the onlookers (audience), but it doesn't scare the victim (me)! --Volke 04:43, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - if the server can handle it, im all for it. --Firemanstan 01:12, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - As per Volke's comments. Only display this AS you run out of AP, constantly redisplaying it when people reload is a rotten idea. After that last glance, reloads or logins should just say that you're asleep. unless 23:23, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Kevan changed this in the first place to lessen the load on the server. I don't want to experience any more server blackouts just 'cause you're lousy with your AP budget. This suggestion is especially lame if the suggestor hasn't donated. --Jack Destruct 02:06, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)

'Alternate Food Source'

Timestamp: 04:56, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: 'New Skill'
Scope: 'Zombies'
Description: 'Taken from the Undecided section.

It isn't beyond the realm of possibility that some animals would not still be in the city. Zombies need another outlet for XP and going after animals is not outside the realm of zombie genre (ROTLD 2, Resident Evil, Shaun of the Dead). The suggestion is to add a button for zombies to "Hunt Small Prey" (or just "Hunt Rat"). The skill would have a 15% chance of locating a rat in a Cemetery, Park, Wasteland, Junkyard, Warehouse or Railway Station. Cost would be 2 AP (until acquiring Lurching Gait, then 1 AP).

Effects: Zombie gains 1-3 XP (thinking 2, actually) and has a 50% chance of regaining 1 HP (managed to grab a big, plump rat).

Survivors: Survivors could hunt also (same locations/odds), then use the animal as a distraction (it would go into their inventory as "rat"). The zombie could choose to use 2 AP (or 1 with Lurching Gait) to automatically catch and 1 AP (total 3 or 2 AP) to eat the animal to gain the XP (and the possible healing) OR ignore it and go after the survivor. In a horde situation it would, obviously, be "first come first served" in catching the rat if multiple zombies try for it (unless more than one rat is released). I'm aware there IS a possibility for abuse with this part. Counters could be:

1) Survivors could only use it if at 20 HP or less (to try and escape). 2) Forgetting the survivor part entirely.

Benefits: Zombies get an extra XP source (and, maybe healing). Use for areas like the Cemetery (that currently have no uses).

Possible changes: Instead of 50% chance, just automatically gets 1 HP.'

Votes

  • Kill - Sorry. The flavor's not bad, but this would affect mechanics in a bad way. It'd be too easy for zombies to gain XP without ever going near humans. That rather defeats the purpose of the game. Maybe if you made it so that zombies only recover HP, I'd vote to keep it. X1M43 06:20, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Like how Survivors get XP for tagging, reading, DNA extraction, healing and dumping bodies?--Pesatyel 06:39, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • keep - Maybe if they can only be found in curtain buildings and it is a 10% chance of getting xp like a book. Edit: I would like to add, that humans have the book and beer and wine, I think zombies deserve the same thing. - --Fullemtaled 07:09, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • kill - I'll change my vote if you remove the part about the survivors. Plus any way, if you were a zombie would you go for the rat or the juicy person? And have a 10% chance to get exp - Jedaz 06:38, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Like what Fullemtaled said, but try this on for size: Have it natural for zombies, but the small animals will turn up when they search outside of buildings. In alleyways or some such. Maybe in warehouses too. And then, like Fullemtaled said, 10% chance like a book. And Jedaz - I'd go for whatever was easiest. =P (yeah I'd be a lazy zombie) Riktar 07:44, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I quite like the idea of having animals to eat but the way you've described it makes it far to complicated to fit in easily with this game. Despite what people say about not having NPCs in the game, it would be a lot simpler just to have the odd rat or urban fox wander around with 10-15 hit points to give fledgling, or down at heel zombies something to earn a few XP on. HP to be earned only if the zombie in question has the digestion skill. --Vair 09:36, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombies don't need non-human XP anymore than survivors do. --PatrickDark 09:49, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No one deserves free and easy XP. Bentley Foss 11:40, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Like how Survivors get XP for tagging, reading, DNA extraction, healing and dumping bodies?--Pesatyel 06:39, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Remove the Survivors part and make it so that the zombies have a LOW % chance of getting >1< XP and >1< HP (I suggest making it the same percentage for simplicity) and then you've got yourself a deal. --Kulatu 12:40, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It's too complicated in it's current form. However, something similar to the human book item for HP would work. Two stages, 1: search for small animal (10% success), 2: Eat animal (25% of gaining 1 HP). --BauulBen 18:17, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - no comment. --Squashua 22:19, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - See "zombies get xp from tearing down barricades" for a constructive (ha, ha) way to introduce alternate xp gain for zombies. Saves the complication of introducing all the other mechanics mentioned, and idea seems too complicated anyhow. --Dashiva 23:30, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - But drop the bit about humans using dead rats, and zombie healing only applies if they have digestion skill. Yes, it is XP for zombies without interaction with humans, but the XP gain rate in this model is lower even than zombie on zombie lovebites. Rhialto 10:01, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep the name is horrable. but what would you call this, hunt rat?--Spellbinder 16:12, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I can't imagine searching an area as a human and seeing "You find a plump sewer rat, and casually stuff it into your pocket, now you are a eunuch." I would think any rat that a human had in his inventory would attack the human giving him rabies, unless he had a cage to hold it in, too complicated. Anyone who ever tried to catch a squirel or stray cat as a child knows that birds 4 legged critters move much faster than 2 legged humans. Its very hard for a normal humans to catch critters without tools or weapons(Thats why we evolved with big brains not big teeth and claws). I think it would be impossible for slow brain numbed zombie to catch a mouse, cat, etc outside on a city block. As far as the Resident evil animals, they got infected by killing/eating infected humans or being shot, not the other way around. Maybe if trapped in a small pantry or bathroom a zombie might... but no, too complicated, too unrealistic, Kill It--Atrayo 02:19, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT) (oops didnt realize I was yelling, revised --Atrayo 11:05, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT))
  • Kill - I don't like the flavor. --Biscuit 03:28, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Paralytic Bite (Not a repeat, just thought the name applies)

Timestamp: 06:41, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: A skill that has Infectious Bite as a prerequisite. If a zombie with Paralytic Bite attacks an already infected suvivor their maximum AP is reduced to 49 until they are healed with a First Aid Kit. Every time when I'm bitten and infected the infection doesn't matter to me because I'll heal the damage immediately and obliterate the infection. Logging in and finding I only recovered up to 49 would actually hurt me in a small way that wouldn't inconvenience me too much. However if a zombie does this to ten people in a safehouse it's equivalent to losing 1/5th of a fully rested person for the day. Not too shabby. This is a way of making bite attacks have some small penalty for suvivors that aren't foolish enough to go around without a health kit. It wouldn't unbalance the game too much because many suvivors don't wait for full AP and they would be unaffected. It can help zombies as a whole out without greviously harming any one suvivor.

Votes

  • KILL - --Fullemtaled 06:46, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Sorry to do this, but this would just cause griefing. Plus how many zombies would take a bite out of each person instead of gnawing on the same one? - Jedaz 07:15, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Does "Don't mess with AP" sound familiar? Bentley Foss 11:29, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - As to what Jedaz said, high level zombies with infectious bites are the ones who take a bite out of each person instead of gnawing on the same one. Far more effective from a tactical standpoint. --Kulatu 12:39, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Would prefer a Zombie Skill that affects a Survivor in such a way as to force him to move at 2 AP per move until healed, which is not unreasonable considering that noob Zombies start the game moving at 2 AP per move. --Squashua 22:18, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What Squashua said. --Dashiva 23:34, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill For one, i'm just against everything that damages AP. second, and more importantly, wouldn't this place bite on an uneven level above claws?--Spellbinder 16:08, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - AP damage doesn't sit well with me. - Penance 0:20, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Insatiable Hunger

Timestamp: 06:50, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: Uses Digestion as a prerequisite. Allows a zombie to use digestion to exceed their normal health by a small amount. A zombie that would come back to life with 50hp after dying could use Digestion to raise their life a bit above their base health. Maybe 5 higher? One with bodybuilding could go a little bit over 60. I don't think it's unbalancing and it lets zombies prepare for imminent beatings. Yay skill progression?

Votes

  • Kill - You are zombies, you can return to life for a mear 10 ap at most. I think that is enough. - --Fullemtaled 07:12, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm just not feeling it. Doesn't seem to me like this would add a whole lot of fun to teh game. --Vair 09:39, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombies are powerful enough without making them harder to kill. With Ankle Grab, re-death is a joke, and this just makes it even worse. --PatrickDark 09:52, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombies do not need more hit points. Bentley Foss 11:29, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What they said, but I also don't get how 'Insatiable Hunger' and 'Digestion' lead to more HP. --Kulatu 12:42, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Nah. --Zaruthustra 20:32, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No helpful comments, just casting a vote. --ThunderJoe 21:23, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - a bonus 10 HP is not unreasonable; zombie being affected by a FAK gets moved to standard maximum and not further. --Squashua 22:16, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill sadly, with a flak jacket, bodybuilding, and ankle grab- your pretty damn hard to kill allready. 10 more hp really dosen't MATTER. --Spellbinder 23:09, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep zeds need a boost, the slaughter at caiger is proof of that. -- P0p0 08:26, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombies need more tactical options, not better buffs. --Drakkenmaw 19:08, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Drop Items at Death

Timestamp: 1117 GMT, December 3, 2005
Type: Game Mechanic
Scope: Survivors
Description: Drop Items at Death
  • Functionality: When a survivor is killed, the survivor loses all items in his or her inventory.
    • Possible Flak Jacket Exception: This suggestion is grounded in the idea that zombies aren't going to go out of their way to carry bags of items since they likely lack the competency and cognitive thinking to do so (hence their inability to use the items). Since a flak jacket is already on the player, however, the zombie would likely not have the competency to go out of its way to take it off.
  • Reasons for Implementation:
    • Role Play and Realism: It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that a survivor who is killed and zombified would still carry around his duffel bags of guns that he cannot use, first aid kits he cannot heal with, and newspapers he cannot read. Again, this is subject to the possible Flak Jacket exception described above.
    • Does not Unduly Weaken Survivors: This suggestion would obviously weaken survivors, but not to an undue degree. Survivors should rightly suffer a penalty at death beyond the current 20AP loss penalty (to stand up as a zombie and to stand up when revived)--something to give further reward to those survivors that are able to survive. Items are replenishible, and this consequence can be avoided by not dying. It is thus an avoidable consequence that is co-extensive with the survivors' defined goal of survival.
    • Does not give Undue Boon to Zombies: Zombies would benefit from this suggestion, but again, not to any undue degree. Zombies would still face the main sources of their angst in full force, namely individual weakness, effective barricades, Zombie Hunters, etc. Zombies would not suddenly receive a reprieve from revived characters immediately jumping back into battle since freshly revived survivors often have to take a day or so to rest up and heal HP/charge up AP anyway. The difference this suggestion would make would not be one of kind, but merely one of degree.

Votes

  • Keep - Same complaint about authors voting on their own proposals, though I continue to do it because of my profound respect for precedent. I also feel compelled to note that I play exclusively survivor characters and am not trying to advance a secret zombie agenda. I fully expect this measure to fail, however, since we survivors outnumber the zombies 72:28, and most of us survivors will immediately reject this weakening, but balancing measure. --SCOS OJ, Legion Consul for Life 1117 GMT, December 3, 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Only to make death more serious. But I'm not entirely sure... because you could have a backpack strapped to your back which would be easier to carry and therefore not be able to get it off as easily. Mabye drop the 1st half of your items? - Jedaz 11:31, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I do not want to lose most of my inventory. Perticularly ammo which can be hard to come by at times. - --Fullemtaled 11:37, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE - Then don't die. Ammo is supposed to be hard to come by. Life is also supposed to be hard to retain. - --SCOS OJ, Legion Consul for Life 1147 GMT, December 3, 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - 1) Don't argue "realism" in a game about zombies. 2) Survivors already suffer a penalty, known as "Who knows when I'll get a revive?" 3) Zombies would get a huge boon, especially against firearm-using survivors. Stocking up on ammo can easily take two or three days' worth of dedicated searching. 4) Nobody should be ridiculously crippled by death. It spoils the fun. Bentley Foss 11:39, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE - (1) Don't argue realism? That's what 50% of peoples' vote comments are generally on! The guidelines for suggestions even say to keep realism in mind. But alright, realism doesn't count for anything? Let me start my proposal writeup on the Super Ninja Jesus Bomber (he stealthily planted his satchels FOR YOUR SINS); (2) The existence of one penalty doesn't obviate the need to give further reward those who stay alive; (3) Zombies would still face the many survivors who didn't die, plus the death and revival are so attenuated as to render any boon to the zombies nugatory; (4) This is hardly "ridiculously crippl[ing]," newbie players are in worse shape at the beginning of the game than the hypothetical mid level player who would drop his items. --SCOS OJ, Legion Consul for Life 1147 GMT, December 3, 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like this. It's not difficult to restock items, just inconvenient - I think death should be inconvenient... ---- McMurray 12:30, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Make the Flak Jacket stay and make it a number of items instead of all of your items. Realistically people are probably wearing all of this junk or storing it in a well-secured backpack. Make them lose a small number (somewhere between 1 and 3) and I'll vote Keep. --Kulatu 12:37, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - See Kulatu's comments. - KingRaptor 12:52, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - McMurray somes it up for me. Jean Gregoire 13:40, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If you expect to lose well-holstered weapons, the stuff in your daypack, and the clips and shells in the pockets of your flak vest, I don't see why you shouldn't lose the flak vest as well. --VoidDragon 13:53, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - At present, when a player manually "drops" an item, what they're really doing is deleting it. The game just calls the deletion "dropping" for purposes of flavor. The item doesn't relocate to the floor of the block the character is standing on, it's consigned to oblivion. I'm not in favor of completely deleting items from inventory at death. Inventories are presently as inviolable as AP (each player may only alter his or her own), and, in the absence of a trading system or a change in game mechanics that redefines "dropping", I'm in favor of keeping them that way. --Natalya Zveda 14:02, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No Lord Evans 15:37, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • KeepYes. EDIT- loss of 1 random item is much better. bbrraaiinnss 15:38, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I've been in-game a few weeks already, and it is freaking hard to get items. I can't even find a gun. Sure, I've found some ammo, but nothing to shoot it with. As a scientist, it's hard to get XP when everything in your area is already scanned before you log in. I've been trying to reach 150 XP all week, and I'm only halfway there. I can't even hit anything. My highest accurracy: 10% with an axe for 3 damage. Hardly enough to do anything. If I die and my axe gets taken away, then I'm boned. Besides, zombies already have a way to make death non-too-bothering for them. Why should humans have it be extremely bothering? --TheTeeHeeMonster 16:36, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - So, lemme get this straight: zombies can lose a few days worth of XP and it's unfair; but a survivor's supposed to lose weeks of item gathering because he gets killed? Yeah, really fair. Maybe people should start thinking about how they would take this suggestion if they played for the other side. --Arcos 16:59, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Lose all your items? Zombies would lose crowbars-- despite the fact that they can currently use them. Death is serious for most survivors, especially for ones that aren't in a group. 20AP loss is a lot, plus you have the 2AP shambling time spent going to a revive point which may be blocked by a rotted zombie, plus standing up at only half your HP, plus keeping infection status if you had it before you died, plus simply waiting for someone else to come around and revive you, with all the AP they spent finding the needle... If you tally it all up... okay, let's look at infected survivors. 20AP for standing, say 10AP for the NecTech who has to stick them with the needle, say they're 5 steps away from a revive point so another 10AP, then... FAKs to get to full health, you've got at least 6 required, so 6+search time is probably more like 15AP (if you're lucky and near a mall) => 55AP loss for the human side, more than a full day of AP. Now add lose all items, and you're up by a lot more, probably adding at least 100 more AP in searching time for a high level survivor near a mall, worse for low level survivors or ones in mall-less areas... You've got to be kidding. --Shadowstar 17:14, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Nice idea, but too extreme. What about simply dropping one random item when a human dies? Won't affect game play too much but would add the suspence of thinking "Damn I hope I don't drop my axe" or whatever. --BauulBen 18:26, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Ok, then. Where do zombies get their blunt weapons? - --ALIENwolve 18:28, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • KEEP - After Death Version 5.. this guy comes along... and pwns me... agreed... except you lose what you can't use. --Adrian 19:31, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Ouch. You say it won't seriously weaken survivors? Hells yes, it would. Items are not easy to come by. It will 'especially' weaken survivors who specialize in ranged weapons, and scientists. While melee survivors would barely feel a thing. And say goodbye to the shotgun ever being useful. You already spend three days just to find shells, and then load up your shotguns. And it is not easy to avoid death -- not even in low-hazard areas. Mostly luck is involved. What about the poor sap who just happened to move into the safehouse and log out just half an hour before the zeds tear down the barricade? Who are they going to bumrush first? You can say that survivors are supposed to work to keep themselves alive, but really it's just a crapshoot. Not to mention newbies and low-levels would be screwed. Riktar 20:08, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I am thoroughly ashamed of this wiki for the amount of people who voted keep on this. Dubya tee eff mate? --Zaruthustra 20:30, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill "Do not mess with a player's inventory"
  • Kill I understand what you are doing, making a penalty for death, but Bently Floss already said that the penalty is "who knows when I will get revived?" and also, Don't Mess With A Player's Inventory! What do you think this is, RuneScape? --ThunderJoe 21:27, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill as many times as it takes before it stays down! - Do you know what the chances of finding weaponry are? Anyone who voted keep are now in my most wanted list for being noobs. --APOCzombie 21:58, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - until such a time as the system is adjusted so that carrying more than 2 loaded shotguns at a time is unreasonable, I will vote Kill on this sort of concept. --Squashua 22:14, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Maybe, maybe if you only lost the last object you used with your hands (dropping it because it was still in your hands) I might briefly consider voting for this. Losing all items is unrealistic (are you just going to empty your pockets when you become a zombie?) and crippling for survivors.
  • Kill - I agree that you couldn't carry all your items upon death, but losing all? That seems a little unfair... How about you only lose items when you are carrying more than 25(Half the maximum, for those with might not know)? After, all, it seems logical that your first few items would be easier to carry; so if you are carrying over 25 items, then the game randomly picks any non-flak over 25 to drop. Edit My suggestion mostly helps newbies, since they're the most likely to not have a full inventory. Also: What about only dropping items you have duplicates of? Or only certain items, like a generator, which would be considered too 'big' to carry when dead? --Hexedian 23:46, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • KILLinated - This would make it that the game becomes very unbalanced. Some survivors spend weeks worth of AP to find ammo for their guns and also finding a gun. --Deathnut 01:39, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill While it's more realistic, it's annoying. Searching for items is costly (as far as APs go) and it already takes an indefinite amount of time to get revived. Perhaps, as Hexedian suggested, large items like generators and random duplicates if you have > 25 items would work Mikm 04:51, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Let me get this straight: survivors can knock a zombie down and have him immediately spring back up with full HP but a zombie knocks a survivor down and completely eliminates his ability to do any damage beyond a 1-point punch and you claim with a straight face that this doesn't give a boon to zombies? Give me a break. This is the stupidest and most unbalanced suggestion I have seen in this Wiki, even more so than the "shoot from inside buildings" suggestions. Die, suggestion, die! --Argus Blood 04:57, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - NO!!!!! --Lord Evans 05:17, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep But with some changes. The character should keep a single example of each kind of item in his inventory. So, one pistol (the one with the most shots left), one clip, one FAK, etc. Rhialto 13:01, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Don't mess with other people's inventories.--The General 12:45, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Its even in the BAD suggestion guidelines --Spellbinder 16:06, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I would vote yes if this was resubmited to drop last item used (ie item in hand) at death. If you are a doctor or Necrotech then the last Item in hand was already used so there is nothing to drop. While I am all for realism. This unbalances the game too much. If implemented the city would be over run in 3-6 weeks, the brain rotters would just campe on revive spots then hunt the tech who tries to revive him, neutralizing the tech for 3 times as long eventually preventing anyone else from getting revived. --Atrayo 02:56, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Remember, we're not voting on whether or not to implement this, but on whether or not this idea has MERIT. It definitely does. --Biscuit 03:31, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill/annihilate completely - And I quote, "Do not mess with inventory." A survivor is already more screwed than a zombie after death. --Osric Krueger
  • Kill BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO -- P0p0 08:28, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill This is far too extreme. However I do think that there being a chance to drop one item every time you are killed (including when already a zombie) adds a small balance penalty. It also might give survivor players a bit more of a jolt when they get killed. Maybe you just drop one of your extra pistol clips, but maybe you drop that syringe it took all day to find. Hmmm, maybe I should suggest this. --Gilant 16:07, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Absurdly-high grief play abuse potential. Survivors have enough of a death penalty, anyways. --Drakkenmaw 19:06, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It's not like staying alive is hard. --Basher 22:13, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Would definitely add realism but I think it's too severe in current form. Only drop 1 or perhaps random 0-3 items (25% chance of each) and I might be on board for this. I agree with others a change in game mechanics regarding dropping vs. deleting may make this one better.
  • Kill - I've wasted most of my daily sessions every week searching for syringes only to find 2, if lucky.I don't want to lose any of my hard earned syringes. --Penance 01:26, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This would obliterate all but the very best organized survivor group. Every death would make the player essentially useless for several days, up to a week, as they stumbled defenseless from building to building restocking. Severely unbalancing, and frankly I think it's a bit ridiculous that it was even suggested. unless 23:42, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Injured Leg

Timestamp: 15:20, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Damage
Scope: Survivors
Description: Similar to the infectious bite(not really but anyway), this is a random event that happens at a 2% chance to the Survivor when attacked by a zombie. When this occurs, the survivor is supposedly bitten or slashed in the leg, and is now limping. Until healed with a first aid kit, the player must spend 2 ap per move to go from block to block. This only takes away 2 ap when walking, not attacking or anything else. It adds a bit of realism to it, not much else.

Votes

  • Kill - --Fullemtaled 15:25, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -Im part of the AP protectorate. Sound familiar too.--bbrraaiinnss 15:41, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This has been done before, almost exactly the same way. I'm just too lazy to find the old entry and spam this. --Shadowstar 17:17, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If your doing this in the name of realism, have it apply to both sides. After all, Survivors aren't the only ones who are made out of flesh and bone. --VoidDragon 17:36, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Enough said. --Adrian 19:52, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Meeeh. Survivors dont need to be gimping around the city. Just no fun to waste all your AP. --Zaruthustra 20:28, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Wow, this sounds like every other rejected suggestion with the words "injured" or "leg" in the title. --ThunderJoe 21:29, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Since zombies DO start off without Lurching Gait and therefore a 2 AP cost per 1 move, I do not think this penalty is out of line like some of the above Kill voters. I am not crazy about the specified concept above though, and therefore vote Kill. --Squashua 22:13, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill NO --Carfan7 22:56, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Killing spree--Spellbinder 16:04, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep- I kind of like the idea, its not terribly horrible, but it will get some people killed, and after seeing the ratio of humans to zombies, in all truth we need more dead people.--grassman 01:26, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like Idea but its unbalanced and unrealistic. --Atrayo 04:46, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Appology - Revised comment after reading the Do's and donts of Sugestions, will move comments to Discussion area. --Atrayo 06:26, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Stamina (Improved)

Timestamp: 16:10, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Everyone
Description: This skill increases your AP by 10 and is under Bodybuilding. It would carry over to zombies and everyone would benefit.

I am willing to change the AP increase as wanted but I think this skill is balanced.

Votes

  • Kill - I don't like it just because...well...I don't like it. --Kulatu 16:13, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - A disgruntled keep but a keep none the less. - --Fullemtaled 16:16, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Because things are hard enough on newbies without having to deal with zombies who can attack them 10 more times a day. --TheTeeHeeMonster 18:04, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I'm sure i had suggested this somewhere.. --Adrian 19:51, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Do the AP dance! Dont. Mess. With AP (cha cha cha). --Zaruthustra 20:27, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Kevan even said that there were going to be skills to alter AP, and this isn't too bad. Plus Zombies usualy kill anyoner who they attack and so even without this newbies still would die. - Jedaz 21:04, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - no comment --Squashua 22:10, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill ^^^What he said^^^ --Carfan7 22:57, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Provided that zeds w/ brain rot could still acquire the skill. Mikm 04:54, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - We don't need another human skill that zombies must get to stay competitive. Rhialto 10:15, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I am prepared to ignore the "don't mess with AP" rule, for once, because this isn't messing with AP when you kill someone; it is simple and makes sense. Plus, Kevan said there would be skills to alter AP. As for people with brain rot, this is the sacrifice you have to make if you don't want to be DNA scanned or revived.--The General 12:53, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill AP isen't a skill, AP is the system that was put into the game to balance the amount of time people have to kill on this simple game, so that people with only one hour have the same chance as a person with 12 hours to sink into this game.--Spellbinder 16:02, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - ^Ditto. 50APs is just fine. Just fine. --Seagull Flock 17:57, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Actually, this doesn't accomplish a whole lot, since AP would still regenerate at the rate of 48 each day. You could store some by staying offline longer, but you wouldn't get any more actions per day than normal. --Dickie Fux 20:30, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --Lord Evans 21:37, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - this is simply a bad idea, we really dont need more ap, perhaps a skill that changes how much ap someything else costs but not more ap.--grassman 01:28, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep also a disgruntled keep -- P0p0 08:31, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Punishes various players in numerous ways. --Drakkenmaw 19:00, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No. Just no. --Basher 22:14, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Won't somebody please think of the server --Jack Destruct 02:16, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Chain (New Version)

Timestamp: 17:59, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Item
Scope: Barricading specific buildings/Wire-cutter use
Description: Many buildings at the beginning of the game were lock/chain/fenced-in and required wire-cutters to enter, now that all such areas are open wire cutters have no use. I suggest an item called �Chain� which can be found at auto repair shops, factories, junk yards, and mall hardware stores which when use at one of the previously sealed sites makes it sealed again and requires wire cutters from survivors to open. This section of the idea has already been suggested. However what makes my suggestion different is that to zombies only the chain appear as an object not unlike a barricade, they have the option of �attacking the chain� just like they do a barricade. How many objects the chain counts for would be up to Kevan, though even one would be of use (zombies average of 5 AP per object due to 20% success rate). For a survivor it would require free running (to bypass) or wire cutters (to destroy chain) to gain entry to that building. I believe this would be simple to implement and uses existing mechanics in the game.
  • Option: There is a variant item for each type of building to correspond with how it was originally sealed (padlock, fencing repair kit, chain) and is only usable on that type of building.

Votes

  • keep -Author's vote, this is the best I could think of for this particular problem (ie wire cutters without use/inconsistency of building once being chain and can't be re-chained) --Matthew-Stewart 17:59, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This still does not look like a good idea. --ALIENwolve 18:02, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It looks like it wouldn't be too bad. An extra barricade level, and it would have the potential of automatically making things hard for survivors. I don't like the griefing potential, but I guess it would go away after a while when survivors start carrying wirecutters around again... --Shadowstar 18:13, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it - --Fullemtaled 18:15, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This seams like a good idea, but there's just something about it that's putting me off. Possibly simplify it a bit more to make it more appealing. --BauulBen 18:31, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Yea, this isn't a bad idea, but its kind of fixing what isn't broken, not to mention the problems for nubs. Barricades work well and this would mostly just punish nubs trying to get into a safe building. --Zaruthustra 20:26, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep � As long as it only works at sites that were previously fenced, I don't see how this could hurt at all. In fact, if some way of re-fencing factories/junkyards/whatever weren't in place, then wirecutters are useless and should be taken out of the game. Bartle 01:06, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - But don't allow zombies to attack the chain and don't allow survivors to free run in. This balances it out so that zombies can't get in making it a very safe place to be, and survivors have to cut the chain it order to get in. Also, make chains hard to find so survivors don't have somewhere they can come in and out of as they wish, while still being completely safe.--The General 13:02, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill what you really suggested is simply another barricade level. BUT, only for places that had fences. whats the point?--Spellbinder 15:59, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Man, I wish Kevan had never put the fences in place, so people wouldn't keep making daily suggestions about an insignificant part of the game. --Dickie Fux 20:32, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep because its a pretty cool idea, and the fact that wirecutters job is permanent doesnt seem right in a game where you can come back to life after having your head blown off.--grassman 01:31, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Most people have allready dropped wirecutters and dont ever want to see one again.--Broton 01:41, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep What the General said. I have wasted many AP over the weeks searching only to find wirecutters, so I still carry them just in case, this would make my AP's not be wasted. --Atrayo 04:43, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Barricades are fine the way they are. --Basher 22:15, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The speed with which these would be removed by survivors (both players without free-running and PKs) would obviate any usefulness they might have as extra barriers, especially if you have to search otherwise useless buildings to get the chains. Wouldn't unbalance the game to put them in, but would really be an improvement either. Also, wire-cutters dont cut chains. unless 23:52, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Shoot through Hoarde

Timestamp: 19:36, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombie Hunters
Description: The zombie hunter learns how to fire his shotgun to better use; when he attacks a horde with a shotgun, there is a (amount of zombies*2)% chance, that if he misses, he will hit another zombie for 5 damage. "You miss the zombie, some pellets hit the zombie behind him". Would be one way of despersing a hoarde without getting too unbalanced.

Votes

  • Kill to quote Zaruthustra "Pro tip number 93586, When you can't spell your own suggestion, you're in trouble." --Matthew-Stewart 19:49, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE: A rose by any other name... you read the suggestion.. not the name! --Adrian 19:55, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Ok, I read the suggestion as well as the misspelled name. I don't like it. Any way to earn yourself a 100% chance of hitting with every attack is VERY BAD. --Pyrinoc 20:06, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Bad on so many levels. Overpowers shotguns, punishes the zombie horde (their only decent defensive move), OMG 100% CHANCE TO HIT BUR BUR BUR, makes survivors even stronger, and you spelled the title wrong (not strictly applicable but it kind of shows the effort you're putting in ya know?). --Zaruthustra 20:23, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - So in a horde of 50 or more zombies, we're looking at a 100% chance of hitting something. Uh, no. (And don't think that messing with the percentage multiplier will make me change this vote, as you'll always eventually end up with a 100% hit rate.) — g026r 20:32, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Well, I think the percentage is fine as it is right now. No need to go over powered. This would also, like so many others said, make the shotgun waaaay over powered. Thats bad. --ThunderJoe 21:34, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Anything that gives you the slightest possibility of a 100% hit is BAD BAD BAD. --Kulatu 21:54, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - "Hoarde" <--- 'Nuff said. --Carfan7 22:58, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - I've read this before. --Deathnut 01:41, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • kill can i get fries with that ? Hagnat 01:55, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Fun > realism. Take heed, young padawan, of this edict. --Kehraus 02:49, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No to any attack that can hit multiple targets. Rhialto 10:17, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It's actually realistic but you should make the chance of hitting another zombie far lower.--The General 13:09, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill what part of No stacking Combo Ideas did you not understand?--Spellbinder 16:54, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Is horde the word you were looking for you nimnit.--Broton 01:44, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Fairness is more important than realism. If we were to be realistic, Malton would be a smoking crater aready. Brainless Zombies would never overpower thinking sadistic human beings. Just think of how a modern day military would deal with such a threats of a pandemic plauge (Napalm, Tanks, Steam Rollers, tactical nukes...) think of Gaza stones vs Bulldozers. --Atrayo 06:21, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Too strong against zombies, when zombies are already on the decline because their playstyle is frustrating. --Drakkenmaw 18:56, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Very bad idea. Leave the hordes alone. --Basher 22:18, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - See above comment by Basher. --Seagull Flock 21:38, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Reset the Bloody Game

Timestamp: 21:53, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: You heard me...
Scope: Reset the Bloody Game!
Description: Reset everything, all items, characters, fences, etc etc etc. Wipe the slate clean and give us a fresh start!

Votes

  • Spam - "Dee dee dee" serves as an proper response. --ALIENwolve 22:01, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - You're going to get spammed out for this I'm sure, but I think it's a good idea. Games like this grow stale after a while, and restarting is a good way to keep things fresh, maybe changing a few significant things each restart. --Pyrinoc 22:03, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Like Pyronic said, you're gonna get spammed to hell for this. That's okay, I agree; the game gets stale and boring without an ocassional restart. It also helps the newbies feel less intimidating if everybody starts at about their level. --Kulatu 22:16, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Suggestions Dos and Do Nots #8: --VoidDragon 22:20, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Now, if ever, is not the right time. That and I'm almost certain that Kevan said he wasn't going to reset the game, even after the final version is released. --Arcos 22:25, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - nope. --Shadowstar 22:29, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - I hate you noobs that can't play the game cause "its too hard. Lets start everything over for everyone because I want to start fairly!". --APOCzombie 22:33, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - A reset or some kind of remort system will be needed eventually, but I don't think it's time yet. --Dashiva 23:42, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - "GRAaagh! NO!! Frustration with articulating utter disagreement mounting... Pressure building... Must DESTROY BAD SUGGESTION!!" pretty much sums up how I feel about this suggestion. --Matthew-Stewart 00:07, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill� We don't want to bulldoze dozens and dozens of Survivor resorts, do we? No, of course not. Bartle 00:42, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - ...Why? X1M43 03:58, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill- Just unnecessary at this point. - KingRaptor 04:16, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I think random events/disasters would be better suited to this. Anyways, It would annoy many, many people. Mikm 04:22, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Resetting the game might happen sooner or later in order for the maker to be able to work in more significant changes so that it won't affect players, but not now. AllStarZ 04:33, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill GRAAAAAAARGH! NO! *storms of in homicidal rage* --Argus Blood 05:03, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - If this happens I am giving up the game. I will not play a game where my character gets reset every so often.--The General 13:17, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill/Amused. why is it that everytime new players start a allready established game, or old players who have maxed out their 5th character, they allways want to reset the game rather then just moving on to a different game. --Spellbinder 15:54, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - At least I can vote spam next time this comes up. --LouisB3 02:33, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If you are bored with the game, fine suggest something new to keep things interesting. Like evacuation point or incenerator, so you can have your character can leave the city. --Atrayo 06:36, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill NOOO *shoots this suggestion 15 times, then knocks it unconcious, then fires a flare into the air so the zombie horde will eat it... then runs away* -- P0p0 08:40, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Kill this bloody suggestion. There may eventually be a time where it would make sense to restart the game, but not just at random because one guy (or even a significant minority) thinks it should be. --Drakkenmaw 18:53, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Die, suggestion, die! --Basher 22:18, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Driving final nails into coffins since December 12,2005. --Penance 01:29, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Male/Female

Timestamp: 22:33, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Flavor
Scope: Everyone
Description: For pure flavor, next to people's names, there could be the boy/girl symbol. Not my greatest idea, and don't really care if it is shot down. I just think it is interesting how everyone on UD is an it.

Votes

  • Kill - We don't really need this because it's purely for RPing reasons. It's not really nessecary. Vote keep if you want to, but I'm just sayin' --Carfan7 23:06, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Eh, it's alright. No actual downside. -- Andrew McM 23:07, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Don't really see the need. Just put it in your description. — g026r 23:33, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Profile page handles this just fine. Start adding things to the map display and soon people will be wanting short descriptions, group tags or banners, and who knows what. --Dashiva 23:43, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - "ASL?"* No, just NO. Go to yahoo chat (any channel or category; they are all the same). (Disclaimer: Sarcasm in Italics.) --Matthew-Stewart 01:06, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill You can figure out a person's gender usually by the description or the name. And if its a gag name, thats alright, because why the hell do you want to know somebody's gender? AllStarZ 04:28, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam If you know something isn't a good suggestion and will get shot down, DON'T POST IT. Do you just like to hear yourself speak? --Argus Blood 05:05, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - No downside but it's just stupid.--The General 13:20, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Totaly useless. but put it on the character page and its allright --Spellbinder 15:52, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - There was an alternative.. [even if it did get shot down .. badly]; but this proves something. THE NAMES ARE STUPID if you can't understand who's what?
  • Kill - Maybe in the profile, but it's just an extra server check if it's on the main page. --Dickie Fux 20:35, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Better done in the user profile. Safehouse rosters already get pretty crowded as-is. --VoidDragon 21:30, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The Display windows gets cluttered enought using diagnosis in a safe house with 50 survivors, adding an extra symbol that ads no functional value means I have to scroll that much further down to reach the action buttons. --Atrayo 06:17, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Profile box is there for a reason. And do we get a "I'd prefer not to reply" option? I'm sure some people don't want to be harrassed over their "OMGGIRL"ness. --Drakkenmaw 18:51, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Why? --Basher 22:19, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Profile only. Optional. And would still be a low priority. Then I'd say keep.

Additional skill effectiveness

Timestamp: 1650 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Everyone
Description: Given the skill fields, military, scientific, etc...when someone completes and has all the skills in one section they should get an additional boost to their attack, search,whatever the skill deals with.

Say for example the military skills...when someone has earned all of them they should get a boost in each category within..so either greater chances of hits when shooting, slicing, etc..or a slightly stronger attack or bite...something of that nature. Then the same thing can be worked out for searching, healing, etc.

Votes

  • Kill - I think this would seriously overpower high level characters. Perhaps some other, more subtle bonus for completing a skill tree. --Antrobus178 00:51, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Until you can give me a compelling reason why you need more uber attacks I'm votin kill. --Zaruthustra 01:46, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill hum. No. You already spent XP buying skills to increase your chance to hit. There is no need for a 'boost' on this just because you bought them all.Hagnat 01:53, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill it's all been said... --Shadowstar 03:17, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Why?--The General 13:22, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Nothing to add to what's already been said. Rhialto 13:31, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Zaruthustra has managed to once again hit the heart of the matter. --Spellbinder 15:49, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Kind of like Innate Class Abilities, but not as good. --Dickie Fux 20:38, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Boss Zombies

Timestamp: 01:25, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Game Mechanic
Scope: Zombies with Brain Rot
Description: I started this game as a zombie and have stayed a zombie purist (ie. No bodybuilding or flack jacket). Now that I have Brain Rot, I must say the game has stalled quite a bit. Zombies have no items, and now I have nothing left to do with my XP.

Urban Dead is simply a more interesting game from the survivor perspective. I�d like to give us zombies something to shoot for by essentially adding some zombie �items�. Please note this suggestion is a work in progress, just testing the idea here, not the specifics (yet).

These enhancements would cost 100 XP like a skill, could only be bought by zombies with Brain Rot, and for balance reasons would be lost forever when killed by a headshot (can be repurchased with more XP). Trust me, we get headshot a lot. It�s a b***h now, and my suggestion will make it even more frustrating.

As far as the enhancements themselves, think Resident Evil �boss zombies� here. The following are simply suggestions and are merely the sort of thing I�m thinking of, please do not simply �kill� because of balance issues on a particular one, and your suggestions for others are welcome. Zombie Tentacle � zombie is more effective vs barricades. Zombie Claws � claws pierce flack jackets to negate bonus. Armored Skin � same bonus as flack jacket (does not stack). Zombie Growth � same as bodybuilding (does not stack). Monstrous Fangs - +2 to bite damage.

For additional balance, survivors could be given an XP bonus for killing a �Boss Zombie�.

Reasons to keep: Gives maxxed out zombies something to collect, something to do with XP, and new goals � a raison d�etre. Makes the game more interesting and complex for zombies. There is already an inventory system, so it would not increase server load. Because all enhancements are lost in a headshot (along with lots of XP), and they are all expensive (100XP), game balance can still be easily preserved. Also because enhancements will occasionally be lost, the epitome of zombieness can never be permanently reached, so career zombies will always have a goal.

--Duke Ferris 01:25, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Votes

  • Kill - First of all, bravo to you for abstaining as an author. I will now do that for my own proposals, a brilliant idea. As to your idea, I actually very much agree with the spirit and essence of your idea, but I must vote kill because the suggestions page should be for concrete proposals, not broad general indeteriminites. "Please note this suggestion is a work in progress, just testing the idea here, not the specifics (yet)." -You. Well, finish the work on the suggestion and then post that. --SCOS OJ, Legion Consul for Life 0140, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Don't get me wrong man, I really like where you're going with this. But I can't just vote keep on the concept that zombies need more skills, and the ones you suggested just aren't very good (sorry). Pretty sure flak jacket doesn't effect claws, and giving bite more damage unbalances it to hands. I vote kill just because I'd like to encourage you to redraft this and submit a much cleaner version. --Zaruthustra 01:44, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This could become pretty useful, it just needs some re-drafting. And there's nothing wrong with voting for your own idea, so long as it has some support. But bravo for abstaining. As stated by the guy above, jackets don't have any effect against claws anyway. Bite is already pretty good. But here's an idea: take that plus 2 for bite and move it to claws. Then they'll do 5 damage, and the jacket will negate it by one, making it four. And SCOS- it's called constructive criticism. People will submit their idea asking for people to give feedback on what they should change. It helps perfect the idea. --TheTeeHeeMonster 01:59, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Work it over again and resubmit when you have it ready. Not a bad start. I advise you have a few specific things in mind and thoroughly think it out before you submit. Also don't be afraid to have it voted down.--Matthew-Stewart 02:50, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Vote withdrawn -X1M43 Added 03:53, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT), removed 22:39, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I really really really like the idea but please think up some better skills for it and then i'll vote keep.--The General 13:32, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Super zombies have been mentioned before, but this is not spam as it goes about doing super zombies in new ways. not that its a good idea, but different.--Spellbinder 15:48, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Well, I vote kill, but I really like the idea of post-brainrot zombie skills that would be lost on headshot. This way, hihg-end zombies would get the stronger the longer they lived, instead of relying on dying to heal. Too generic to keep, though. - Skarmory 16:17, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Thank you all for the feedback. This was my first suggestion, and I must say I was disheartened when some idiot wrote over it in what might have English, but i couldn't be sure. Thank you also to whoever fixed that. I will work on this idea and bring it back improved. Skarmony, that's a good point i hadn't thought of. With ankle grab, dying is pretty meaningless to a zombie, this would make us think twice about dying if we potentially lost expensive useful skills. I will put more effort into the idea and bring it back with more specifics. Cheers. --Duke Ferris 20:05, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - But I have nothing new to add. It's a really cool idea, just needs more thinking. Get some more going, and post it again, and you get a Keep. --Monstah 23:12, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like the idea a lot, especially because the player would loose them when headshot. It makes a zombie always have something more to get.--grassman 01:37, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The real problem with this suggestion is that the "boss zombie" would be able to interact with other zombies in a horde. In Resident Evil, the zombie boss monsters don't typically come along with 122 other zombies. I like the idea, but it can't be implemented in the current format of the game. --Osric Krueger
  • Kill - NO ZOMBIE BOSSES. The MOB is the zombie BOSS I have seen mobs 20 - 40 strong all over the city. A mob of 20 weak level 1 and 2 zombies surrounding a building hitting 10 times a day (20% accuracy) doing just 2-4 pts of damage per hit, easily deals 400 - 800 damage. Most organized mobs average 1500-3000 damage per day, because when you kill one zombie and it stand stands back up loosing only 10AP or 2 hits, Nothing can withstand that type of attack. Resident Evil type video games have bosses because when you kill the weaker zombies they stay dead. Nobody would play Resident Evil if zombies didnt stay dead. Resident evil is not for the zombie purist else there would be a wall of 50-200 zombies that respawn just 5 or 10 moves after the player killed it and the players would have little to no weapons, and had to waste time searching for ammo.
    • 1. To be a zombie purist you must be a team player and think in terms of the original Night of the living dead, dawn of the dead, etc. see paragraph 2 of Bad Suggestion Guidelines:Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Don.27t_Think_Only_in_Terms_of_Mechanics
    • 2. Skarmory's sugestion sounds cool for the lone zombie but even that violates Bad Suggestion GuidlinesSuggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Keep_It_Simple.21.21 because any temporary stat/skill will kill the server tracking Zombie age, each time you move inorder to grant the special ability. And multiply what ever skill you want to award your zombie Boss by 1000 other players all getting the same ability...
    • 3. Please Squash that thought of a zombie boss, because it will enevitably turn into a mob of ZOMBIE BOSSES. Kevan knew what he was doing when he coded the game. --Atrayo 06:55, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill mostly becaue i despise the fact that people think of resident evil as the standard for zombies now, and the last one didn't even have zombies in it! also because the ideas presented are very rough. That being said ZOMBIES NEED A BOOST! -- P0p0 08:47, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Love the idea but TeeHeeHee's thoughts covered a lot of my thoughts on changing/reworking it. Maybe needs a simplification. Pretty good first pass at balancing the pros and cons. Even with the headshot thing thre is still a risk of the hordes of Boss zombies issue. --Thelabrat 10:13, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Personal tools
advertisements