Suggestions/8th-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

8th December, 2005

VOTING ENDED: 22nd-Dec-2005

Master Skills

Timestamp: 01:45, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Everyone
Description: People who have reached the end of the skill tree have nothing to do with their XP and little incentive to continue with the game. This would create a realistic way for people to continue playing as their characters.

Master skills are skills that you learn over time in your chosen profession. If you're a scientist, you pick up revivification and first-aid tips from others, if you're a zombie, you learn from the horde, etc. Essentially, once your skills tree is maxed out, for the cost of 300 XP (+/- depending on people's preference) you can add 1% (again, +/-) to a skill in your player class, up to a total of 5% (+/-), with a maximum of 3% (+/-) on any given skill. It's not enough to make higher-level players completely overpowering, but it's enough so that a grizzled level 33 military veteran is actually more capable than a military recruit who just maxed out his/her skills tree yesterday. This would also create a little differentiation between classes, in the final reckoning.

Votes

  • Kill To hit ratios are high enough. This is kind of a cop out. Think of some skills instead. --Zaruthustra 01:57, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • KILL I ditto Zaruthustra -- LS 23:11, 07 DEC 2005 (GMT-5)
  • Kill - If I wasn't interested in staying after maxing out the skill tree, 1% bonuses aren't going to keep me. Improve gameplay by introducing new concepts, and don't just buff already-existing abilities. --Drakkenmaw 05:01, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Like the other said, we're not bored due to percentages. We're bored because it's the same-old same-old. -- Tabs 17:04, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - Hmmm. Very true. I'll see if I can come up with some good skills to add to the tree and make the game fun again. -- Ethan Frome 21:27, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Ditto on the percentages. --Chester Katz 19:02, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - More skills would make it more fun. Once you hit the height of the tree, why would you want a mere 3% added? What incentive would that be? You aren't actually gaining any abilities. --Zacharias Cross 01:33, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Self-Aware

Timestamp: 04:15, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: The zombie is sentient and aware that they are an individual (think Bub the zombie in Day of the Dead), and thus more concious of the other zombies around them. This skill would allow zombies to see the player names of other zombies in the same square as them and would use Memories of Life as a prerequisite. To prevent massive spam they would access the list of zombie player names by opening up a new window by clicking on a link. This would not let them attack specific zombies out of a crowd or any nonsense like that, this is mainly just to satisfy the player's curiosity. This way players will be able to think "Gee, BatNinja59, FredBill and I sure did a good job of tearing down that safehouse and eating everyone inside" as opposed to "Well I sure triumphed with the help of some complete strangers that I can never build up a sense of community and gameplay with. I sure feel glad they weren't NPCs, not that I could tell." Perhaps it could also let zombie players know if they were attacked by ZKers and a variety of other uses but this is really just for the "knowing who your allies on the net" are part. Poor zombies, surrounded by allies but all alone.

Votes

  • Kill - The zombie may be aware of who he is, but how is he going to tell who the other zombies are? Unless this only works for those in the contacts list... -Hexedian 04:25, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - The same way suvivors recognize every single person they see by name without them saying anything. If necessary one could argue the zombies recognize them from life. Besides, seeing "RobotNinja5" wouldn't really be so much knowing their name as just being able to remember what they look like. That's not a real name. --Jon Pyre 04:29, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I like it. This is one of the primary reasons I don't really like playing zeds and this idea takes care of that nicely. - LS 23:26, 07 Dec 2005 (GMT-5)
  • Kill - I like the "faceless horde." --Drakkenmaw 05:02, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Note that this skill is only for zombies so the menace of a faceless horde will still exist, and that taking the skill and checking names once you have the skill is optional. --Jon Pyre 05:34, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I too like the idea of the faceless horde, and even so, if this skill was implemented, I'd take it just so I could gain another level. Also I kinda feel like if you want zombie community, then metagame, and get names through the contact list (tricky as that may be). --Biscuit 06:11, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - I view metagaming as a necessary evil for zombies. If we can cut down the need for that we should --Jon Pyre 07:12, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - For reason: see first Re. Riktar 07:20, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I just don't like zombies. Darn things keep biting me, and it's impossible to get revived without taking at least two headshots first. Keep them down! Brescia 10:01, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT).
  • Keep - So I know who kills my zombie alt after it gets revivificated, So I can thank them. --Fullemtaled 10:14, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • kill - Try putting people on your contact list, you can recognize them as zombies, regardless if you are one or not. Also if zombies attack you click the "a zombie" part of the message that they attacked you and see their profile. (which you can then add to your contact list...)--Matthew-Stewart 11:23, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill So metagame. You're not supposed to recognize zombies. Thats what makes them zombies.--Zaruthustra 16:08, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - But there are zombies you can recognize. Not by name, but as I said this is really more identifying them on sight than name. There's Bub the zombie in Day of the Dead, the zombie fascinated by guns in Dawn of the Dead...so on and so forth. You can recognize zombies because they don't look the same. They can't communicate beyond their grunting. This isn't the same as being on speaking terms with all the zombies and playing pool with them on weekends. --Jon Pyre 18:12, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep If this doesnt pass, perhaps you should try it from the opposite aproach, and make it where humans see each other by there base classes... civilian, military... I think that would level it out a bit... if we want to make it fair to both sides then perhaps we should start with how we see ourselves... if zombies knowing eachothers names is metagaming.. I say knowing somebodies name from accross another block that you havent met is also metagaming--Ringseed2 16:47, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I like the idea. First Re sums up my reasoning, too. --Kybard 17:15, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep There is no legitimate reason to not want this, though the manner in which it works would have to be refined.--grassman 23:12, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I like the CORE idea of this, but the form it's taking right now is far too awkward to work in-game. Why CAN we tell what a zombie looks like when it speaks, but not when its silent? If only zombies could use this skill, this would prevent any nerfing of the horde stack benifit. --MorthBabid 04:41, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Especially since it's a skill, people always have the option of not taking it. Would it carry over if you bought it and were revived? --Marianne Wells

Fix the lack of zombies problem

Timestamp: 5:30 08 DEC 2005 GMT
Type: Balance Change
Scope: Zombies
Description: There aren't enough zombies in Malton right now. A big part of the reason is because survivor characters just wait around waiting to be revived at Rev Points and don't go around clawing skin and eating flesh. As we all know, in a real Zompocolypse, everybody who turns into a zombie has no choice but to go around killing and eating everybody, even (and sometimes especially) loved ones. When people just wait around to become human again, they aren't really doing what zombies are supposed to do. What I suggest is to give zombies more XP for damage and rending flesh and for kills. Afterall, mindless, savage people-eating in massive hoards is what gives zombies strength. The numbers are entirely negotiable, though, obviously, they must be very small.

Also, players being revived should lose a little XP, inversely proportional to the amount of XP/AP (excluding attacks against human characters) gained since he last became a zombie (e.g. a zombie who spent 15 AP finding a Revive Point and gained no XP would lose the maximum XP - say 20 - when he was revived. a zombie who spent 25AP slashing through human faces and chomping on shotgun weilding arms to gain 20 XP would lose only 2 XP when revived). This would represent the terrible headache and weariness which must surely follow a revivification. You'd be weaker and need to recover and get back into the swing of things. Obviously, the stronger you were as a zombie would have a strengthening effect on your constitution when you came to again. And, of course, if the zombie were headshot, it would be just too mean to make them pay again for being revived. So really, there should be two new rules implemented to balance the zombie/survivor ratio:

1. Very tiny XP bonuses for zombie actions (all attacks on survivors, basically)

2. XP penalties when revived (which are reduced by gaining XP as a zombie)

This should encorage people to behave more like a proper zombie should and will make the zombies more of a threat, so, hopefully, more plentiful.

Votes

  • Kill - I really hate this argument but keeping track of how much XP a zombie gained in the past would "HERT TEH SERVAR". I'd rather not have the zombie problem fixed this way anyways but by making zombies more fun to play. However a way of doing your suggestion that might work a bit better would be something like "Zombies get an extra 50% xp for attacks, upon being revived lose 1/3rd of their xp." --Jon Pyre 06:10, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I'm sorry, but this doesn't help. This is essentially trying to force people to be zombies without actually forcing them. Higher level survivors won't be bothered by the loss, and if someone doesn't want to be a zombie, we shouldn't make it almost a requirement for them to have to be one for a while. Yes, people who die in the movies swap sides, but last time I checked, people who died in the movies don't get revived after becoming a zombie, either. --Volke 06:54, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I like the idea of incentives to play as a zombie, but many aspects of this proposal need to be thought through more carefully. For example, if revival had an XP cost, syringes could end up being worse than Headshot is now when used offensively. --Graaaaaaagh 18:10, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What about the zeds that want to be zeds but keep getting revivificated? --Fullemtaled 08:13, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Never force players to behave in particular ways. You're going to upset half the people who feel oppressed by this, and mildly annoy, at best, the people who don't care about the minor XP loss and want to stay a survivor. Bentley Foss 09:31, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Agree with all the above and add this: what if you're attacking barricades in a seige when someone revives you? If you're a level 0 zombie (as humans all are when they're first killed) they pretty much can't hit anyone to gain XP, even if they want to. --Shadowstar 11:15, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Running a rev point isn't easy, espcially with the syringes becoming harder to find. But regardless of that, even I know there aren't that many zombies out there, and something needs to be done (or does it?)...but this isn't the way to do it. --MorthBabid 04:43, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Wasting Disease

Timestamp: 07:00, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: In most zombie movies the infection doesn't only affect people's health but also their mental condition. They gradually get more insane until the point they become a zombie. Right now our infections only affect health. Here's my idea: Prerequisite is Infectious Bite. If a zombie with Wasting Disease lands an attack of any type on a suvivor that is already Infected they become Diseased in addition to that. A diseased suvivor loses 1 XP with every AP they spend until they are cured with a First-Aid Kit. If killed a diseased character is not affected by the condition while a zombie.

Reasoning:

  • I made it require a second attack to not be crowded by infectious bite, and made it an attack of any sort as to not to overpower bite over hand attacks. That first bite already rewards zombies with spreading the infection. Further wounds exacerbate it.
  • I don't think this will unbalance the game. Most suvivors that become diseased will be able to heal themselves rather quickly keeping the xp drain rather low. It isn't as if the 15 or so xp lost by a suvivor without a kit and not in a hospital will be missed much. What this will do is make live back and forth fights between suvivors and zombies unprofitable xp wise since they'll keep getting rediseased and losing much of the xp they gain. These fights will then become entirely about survival.
  • This will actually give zombies further strategy! Right now when a zombie enters a safehouse they have two options: 1) Try to bite everyone and infect them 2) Attack one person to wound them as much as possible and maybe kill them. This skill will add a third option 3)Bite everyone once, and then attack again to cause them to lose xp in addition to health. It's a judgement call on the part of the zombie whether they want to spend the AP to do that.
  • In response to possible comparisons to headshot: This skill is obviously quite different. It's an XP draining skill for zombies but I think it's much better than the "Suvivors lose 10 xp per level when killed" suggestions I've seen. This skill would likely never harm an individual suvivor much, but since an entire safehouse could be diseased by a single zombie the total XP lost by everyone combined could be greater than that lost to headshot. It is a useful skill. The fact that one zombie might be able to drain 100 xp in total from ten people without killing anyone is balanced by the fact that suvivors can gain xp quite easily.

Votes

  • Kill --Fullemtaled 07:54, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It's an admirable attempt, but one that seems like it's waiting for something. Its next life, perhaps. Refine this, suggest it under a new attack (Bite is already powerful as it is, and claws are used for higher hit %) and I may just vote for it. Bentley Foss 09:34, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill This is almost worse than headshot. At least with headshot its bamm! once, then you can lie down, recharge your APs, and get out of dodge. No such option with this. Besides, the solution to headshot isn't to make another griefing skill. Rhialto 10:59, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I'm in favour of anything that balances the Headshot. As to it being a griefing skill, I don't see anything being done about Headshot, and I like the idea of keeping levels low... it makes advancement mor important. Also, the o.p is correct, xp loss does affect survivors a lot less. --Leit 11:04, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill One bad skill does not justify another. --Shadowstar 11:18, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good, creative idea.--Milo 12:56, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • KillKeep - If you raise the effect too much it becomes a griefer skill, but as it is survivors can easily recap the lost XP (or, if they always carry around one emergency FAK for personal use like I do, they won't lose it at all). Oh well... - KingRaptor 13:04, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT) EDIT: Ah, what the heck. Might as well Keep. - KingRaptor 13:53, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Bentley Foss: I don't think I need to invent an entire new form of zombie attacks just for this skill. This doesn't favour bites since the second attack will almost always be with hands in order to get higher damage. Kingraptor: Suvivors can easily recap the xp, but suvivors can also easily recap lost health. If it's worth infecting suvivors this is worthwhile for zombies too. And Rhialto, if a suvivor is killed they become a zombie and are unaffected so yes, a suvivor can "lie down" and "get out of dodge." Also, this skill has a ceiling on how much xp it will drain: the suvivor's health minus two attacks. Because they're also losing health until they get a first aid kit. --Jon Pyre 13:35, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I think this is well balanced, and I like the mechanics of Diseasing someone who already has Infection, but XP loss sucks in all forms. --Dickie Fux 13:45, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Ny all means this doesnt undo Headshot (the only thing to undo that is to get rid of it), but it does something. However it needs to be changed, maybe some starting xp loss or something else, i dont know, im not creative--grassman 23:20, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I agree with Shadowstar. Two wrongs don't make a right! Just because survivors have a (useless) skill that takes away XP doesn't mean that zombies need one, too! --Volke 00:05, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Not useless. That which harms your enemy helps you. Headshot does a world of good for survivors, most zombies they face are low level with low hit percentages and few acessory skills.--Jon Pyre 02:19, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Considering this only has at max a 30% chance to hit, can potentially do less 'damage' than Headshot and DOESN'T give negative XP (I'm assuming once you hit 0 thats it), this is a damn fine idea. The name should be changed to give it a more 'brain fever'-ish flavor, but I like this. Infectious Bite could use a good subskill, and this could be it. --MorthBabid 04:47, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I never took Headshot, and wouldn't take this, but I'm sure some people would want to see it in play and I don't think it's particularly unbalanced. It's just not very nice. --Drakkenmaw 08:08, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - But change from "any attack" after an infection to only bites, since they have a lower to-hit. Like many others, I'd prefer to not have a skill like this, but if humans are keeping headshot, zombies need an equivalent. And, really, this is WAY less severe than the headshot effects. 1 XP per AP is practically nothing, especially to someone who's carrying around a FAK in case of infection. (Which nearly everyone does anyway.) furtim 06:45, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - The only reasonable way a human could vote kill for this skill and not be a hypocrite is to support the complete removal of the headshot skill from the game. --Grim s 06:57, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - There are several much better infectious bite based suggestions, this just doesn't make the cut. Rather than voting mindlessly for all zombie suggestions I am choosing those that are actually good. --Matthew-Stewart 07:14, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Beneficial. There are often hospital or FAKs nearby or on-hand. The XP loss is minimal and it makes the zombie feel damaging once more. -- Ruining 1402 Dec. 13, 2005 (EST)
  • Keep - This works; but you might want to add the caveat that the wasting disease disappears after you stand up again, whether as a human or a zombie. Otherwise, I could predict a lot of people getting even more pissed off about this than headshot. Still, this is a nice skill, and not even as griefy as headshot, since the maximum XP loss you can have is 46 (56, if you have bodybuilding). --The Brian 19:21, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Jirtan 23:18, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - If only so those whiny survivors can know a little bit of what being headshotted feels like. Might need some tweaking, but generally I think it's a good suggestion. --Jack Destruct 22:41, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Zombie Home Base

Timestamp: 8:38 AM, GMT, Dec 8, 2005
Type: Balance Change
Scope: Zombies
Description: Haven't really thought this one out much, and it may not be new. What if one of the suburbs, near the center, was made into a zombie home base? By that I mean, the game remains unchanged, except one suburb is declared "Too foo for you (survivors) to enter?" Be it radiation, disease, or meteors, make a suburb zombies only. That might help shift game balance. Just don't give one to survivors, because, you know, they really need it.

Votes

  • Kill - --Fullemtaled 08:50, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No one should have guaranteed (by which I mean, not arising from the players' actions) control over any areas. Bentley Foss 09:35, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No. Rhialto 10:56, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - We have one! It's called Ridleybank! ;) --Shadowstar 11:19, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Mikm 12:50, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Shadowstar --Milo 12:54, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What? No. Just no. What on earth would be the point? --Daxx 14:59, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - May Fgalkin eat your brains in Ridleybank. --VoidDragon 15:45, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill? Doesn't this occur via metagaming? --04:52, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill --Basher 23:17, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Change Headshot

Timestamp: 10:52, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Balance
Scope: Humans and zombies
Description: Most people believe that headshot is a form of griefing and to a point I agree. It is very hard for zombies to gain XP without being headshot and losing all of it. It doesn't seem very fair since humans really don't have much fear and zombies do when it should be just the opposite. Headshot needs some tweaking in order to make zombies a fun, playable character so I offer a few solutions.
  • When a zombie is headshot instead of losing 10XP per level, they lose half of their total XP past the first level. This causes the lower levels to possibly lose more but higher levels to have a chance. So as long as the zombies buy skills as they become available, then they can keep most XP even if headshot.
  • Allow Headshot to only take off 5XP per level

Votes

  • Kill It seems you want to reduce teh XP taken, and I agree this is a great idea. But it's so badly worded I can't tell for sure what the mechanic would be. I'm killing this so you can resubmit with something worded more clearly. Rhialto 11:01, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - The whole point is to still reduce XP, but give zombies a chance of keeping some XP. It is possible to be headshot twice in one kill. When I died, I was being attacked by two people and both headshot me and I lost all my XP. If you can reword it to sound better please do. I'm nbot very good at phrasing ideas. --Cabbage cookies 12:07, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The more I think about it, the more Headshot seems like a piss-poor attempt to keep zombie levels down while Kevan tries to think up some useful skills for them. Think about it, with only 15 options for useful skills and one starting class, zombies are seriously underdeveloped, and I get this feeling of 'uh, wait a bit, I'll get around to it...' This needs a better solution. --Leit 11:10, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't think it's good for low level zombies to lose even more than they do now... 5XP/level sounds better though. --Shadowstar 11:21, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - While headshot does need to be changed so it's more effective against max-level zeds and not as punishing to mid-level zeds, this only seems to nerf headshot to only be minorly annoying to any zed. --VoidDragon 12:30, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It would be much simpler to just say that every time you die - zombie or human - you lose 5XP. If you're killed by a headshot-geyser, you lose 20XP. Less grief all round, fairer for all. --Brescia 12:37, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You don't need to change Headshot. Also, saying "most people believe that headshot is a form of griefing" is not necessarily true. It's not really griefing unless it's targeted specifically against a certain player - what do you want to do, ban all PvP interactions? You have to take a headshot in your stride, it's an expected part of the game. --Daxx 15:02, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - How many times do i have to say this in suggestions that want to screw with headshot?! HEADSHOT = ANKLEGRAB. --APOCzombie 18:38, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - How are headshot and Ankle Grab equal? Does Ankle Grab suddenly take XP from survivors? --Pesatyel 22:09, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT) original author responses only
  • Kill - Headshot should NOT be taking XP. Have it do more damage or something else.--Pesatyel 22:09, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I don't have problems with Headshot as it is now, myself...but I would like to see the zombies get some elite skills. A few good (yet controversal) suggestions have been made. --MorthBabid 04:53, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Rifle

5 spam votes. Go on, git! — g026r 19:19, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Scavenging

Timestamp: 17:10, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: The ability scavenging allows zombies to search areas. it requires the "memories of life" skill to learn. it wouldn't upset the balance because the zombies wouldn't be able to use the items (ok, maybe except the melee weapons) but they would be ok so that zombies wanting to be revived can search while they wait.

Votes

  • Keep - Creator Vote Mattiator 17:10, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What would motivate a zombie to search his surroundings? It's not like they know what they're looking for, anyway. --Daxx 17:14, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Its bad enough we have zombies go right to revive points instead of acting like zombies... we dont need to make their life easier...--Ringseed2 17:17, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This is only good for survivors who get killed and want something to do until they get revived. --Dickie Fux 17:18, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You just want this so that you don't use up AP when you are in your preferred survivor state, leaving all your AP available for barricading and zombie killing. Nah.--WibbleBRAINS 17:23, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - it'd let brain rotted zombies who didn't get a flack jacket and a crowbar get one. --Shadowstar 18:24, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • kill - Passive zombies are one thing, making it too easy is another. --Matthew-Stewart 18:33, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - A zombie has no reason to search for items which it cannot use. --Chester Katz 18:58, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This skill would only be worthwhile for high level survivors, as low levels don't have 200 xp to waste on a rather pointless skill. --FriedFish 3:15, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill ...or they can just wait until they say, GET REVIVED, eh? --MorthBabid 04:54, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill/change Not in its current form, but maybe if it automatically dropped everything a zombie couldn't use --Marianne Wells

Meat Helmet

3 spams, no keeps. Nice knowing you, meat helmet. — g026r 19:47, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Well-Preserved

Timestamp: 17:25, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: Due to a combination of modern-day preservatives, baggy clothing, and poor lighting, the zombie does not obviously appear to be a zombie at first glance, and passerbys will simply mistake it for a somewhat worse-for-wear fellow survivor. Instead of showing up as "1 zombie is here", the zombie will be displayed as a survivor (either under it's own Player name, or a randomly generated name). Only upon closer inspection (i.e. examining the Player's profile page and seeing that it's a level 15 zombie) will it's true nature be revealed.
  • Skill-wise, this means the zombie has learned to huddle in a dark corner and not look suspicious, instead of shambling around with arms straight forward mumbling "brains, brains" to himself. I see it as an extension of Memories of Life.
  • I've seen this scenario countless times in many different zombie movies, where the protagonists approach a seemingly stoned/drunk fellow, often getting close enough to tap them on the shoulder, without realizing it's actually a zombie (until it lunges at them, of course). I also think this lacks the problems of the reverse situation ("Impersonate Zombie"); i.e., it's more common to the genre than "oH, I saw it once on Shaun of the Dead!", plus survivor profiles can be checked (unlike zombie profiles) to search for fakers.
  • It also make sense gameplay-wise. If you're alone in a building with just one other person, you'd be able to go over to them and check them out to see if they're really alive. But when you're stuck in a crowded mall with 100+ people, many of them doubtlessly filthy and huddled on the floor, it seems a few discrete zombies could manage to blend in amongst them without being immedietely detected, especially if the lights are off.
  • This seems a way to balance out Caiger Mall type scenarios without giving the zombies Uber Barricade Destroying skills.
  • "But won't people in the crowd notice if one of them is running around eating people?", you ask? Yeah, well, you'd think people in a crowd would notice if one of them were running around shooting folks in the head with a shotgun, but (so far) they don't. Plus, the people being eaten would notice, which would give them a chance to warn others before they die.

Votes

  • Keep - Creator Vote IP Address 112 17:25, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - it's a good idea in theory, but what does it do to the server? It just means that every time a player goes into a safehouse, he or she will be clicking on every one of those profiles... --Shadowstar 18:29, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Flavor good, but this game isn't set up to be a stealth game and I think implementing this would cause a lot of headaches and problems in the "not fun" department. I don't want to have to spend fifty minutes checking the profile of every damn person in a mall. --Jon Pyre 18:30, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I think this is just what we need. RE Jon Pyre: ...so free running from building to building and exiting every once in a while to leisurely kill an aimlessly wandering zombie is your definition of fun? I think this will provide an element of surprise that'll make survivors a bit more wary - making for even more fun roleplay. --The Brian 18:37, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like the flavor this would add to the game, and I think it adds a nice sense of tension to the zombie apocalypse. As the author notes, you wouldn't necessarily notice a single zombie in a crowd without exercising a bit of caution and attentiveness. And there would be an easy solution for not having to check the profiles of every person in a crowded room -- don't hang out in crowded rooms. --Chester Katz 19:18, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Wait, you spread out the survivor population, give the zombies something to do that isn't standing in the streets looking brain-dead, and you've got flavor? Holy moly, it's a perfect suggestion! I think it should require an AP to activate, however - a zed shambling around the streets would look more obvious than one that appears to be sleeping in a corner...and would solve the neck-biting issue - if a zombie attacks, it goes back to looking like a zombie until it spends another AP 'hiding'. --RSquared 19:30, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -The suspense and uncertainty would be awesome. I note zombies still can't use get pass barricades so buildings that are prone to crowds would be still "secure". Malls after the big building upgrade would be scarier as they would only have to breach a corner to get in and hide among the crowded building. (of course this makes sense as big places like that would be the easiest to go unnoticed) Also fear of the quiet loner who never says anything (because they still couldn't speak correctly) would be great. --Matthew-Stewart 19:32, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - The zombie characters still have names. You could just use those names. Would also bring someone recognizing a zombie. --ALIENwolve 19:41, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I worry that this would completely change what this game is about and make it less fun. And as others have said checking everyone's profile would get annoying very quickly. --Antrobus178 20:59, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep This game needs more horror. It has none right now. Petrosjko
  • Keep This would also give zombies a way to spy without alts. And I thought I was scared out of my wits now! --Blobmorf 21:27, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Like someone said, it should probably require an AP to activate, but even without that, it would be good. --Dickie Fux 21:35, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - See Petrosjko's reply. --Kybard 21:46, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep By now most of the survivors should look a little worse for the wear, anyway. -Tru 21:47 GMT 8 Dec 2005
  • Keep, this is one of the better ideas I've seen. Jirtan 23:14, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This skill basically forces the other side to do tedious boring mouse clicking. Rhialto 23:33, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yes, this would completely change what this game is about, because it's currently about survivors. Zombie power! -- Ruining 1844, Dec. 8 2005 (EST)
  • Kill - I'd vote keep if this was a seperate zombie class, as this would be perfect for adding more flavor and making zombies a better choice. They shouldn't be as strong while making normal zombies stronger. I'd vote keep, then! However, personal ideas aside, this would kill the server as survivors would have to check every single profile to see if they're a zombie or not. And if they're in a safehouse of over 40+ survivors, or another Caiger happens, it would kill their ability to play as other characters as they'd be using up most of their server hits just checking for spies. --Volke 23:56, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Heck, why not. I assume this would not work if there are lights on inside the building, though? It's not clear from your description. Bentley Foss 23:58, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I know we need to fix the problem of a lack of zombies but this is crazy. I understand where you're comming from but this is just annoying, and it increases server hits. --Horje 00:39, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - But to deal with the server hit issue why not just have their profile be disguised also? You won't be able to tell until someone starts yelling, or perhaps a combat history from last logout is implemented. --FireballX301 00:49, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Me likes, fits the genre and makes zombies more interesting. --Kindie 01:39, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -I vote keep on this one, but think this skill should not work inside of buildings with lights on, to make portabale generators more useful. --FriedFish 00:2:56 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Question - Last problem that needs to be dealt with is how other zombies will see the inconspicious zombie. Will they be able to tell that the person is a zombie? If not, wouldn't it cause accidental ZKing (especially for newbies)? - KingRaptor 02:19, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This is a solid idea that could add something needed to the game, zombie power! --Ailmaza 02:38, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT).alimaza
  • Keep - Ooh! Fanciful! --Sauron the Deceiver 02:39, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I want to like this, but it would throw people off too much, it would confuse the n00bs, it would hurt the server...and besides, dead stuff smells. Wouldn't you smell the gore? --MaulMachine 21:43, 08 Dec 2005 (EST)
  • Kill - Survivors w/ the Diagnosis skill should be able to distinguish between badly wounded survivors and zeds and act accordingly. --VoidDragon 03:15, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I really love the idea and the effect it would have, but I just can not vote keep as-is. I would work a change so there is a way to detect the zombie with a one-shot or multi-shot item (Flashlight? , torch?) or make sure a generator cancles the effect, or some in-game (AP spending) tactic. I'm really not a fan of having to click on everyone's name to guess if their a zombie or not. I also don't think a survivor skill to cancle the effect is good either as most surviors would get it within a week and the skill would be useless.--Zombie1313
  • Keep For people who are concerned about having to check everybody in the room all the time, that won't be necessary. The hidden Zs could still only enter with the barricades down, so the room would only need to be scanned after someone announced that the barricades were down. Then (after hordes of people run away!...run away!) the person who scans the room could announce "Cleared of Zs" or "(name) is a hidden Z!". Besides, checking all survivors in the room all the time is boring, so it won't happen. But that's the point anyway; you never know if you're safe! Finally I suggest the skill be called "Eau de human", which would explain why the Zs don't smell, and why they need to use 1AP every time they activate the skill (that is to say they need to apply the lotion to themselves). That's not something that requires any dexterity either, so it's consistent with Zombieness.--Al'Zataomm 05:33, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I love it. But not in its current form. Maybe when I'm more experienced I'll come back with some more useful feedback.--Tyroney 06:48, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill NO. HIDING. ZOMBIES. Please, its really not a good idea. You zombies are NOT ninjas. --Vellin 07:51, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Like. --Sharamik 13:23, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It'd be nice to be able to go outside and not be all self conscious for a change. Just because we're zombies doesn't mean we can't be beautiful. --Pimplepopper 13:31, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I dig it. One for the Zs. --Squirly 9 Dec 2005
  • Keep Faboo. I love it when humans get paranoid about who's in their safehouse. -- Tabs 16:59, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I love it, but my fear is that someone whos played as both a zombie and a human will get some zombism. If these came into play humans would definately make ways of checking every survivor that enters or stays...
  • Keep - One of the best parts of the early UD game, before all the organization of squads and teams and PK lists, was the innate paranoid fear that one of the people in your building was going to try and kill you. If this brings that fear back, I'm all for it. --Drakkenmaw 08:15, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Fear and paranoia is good. --Basher 23:19, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Ditto. --Patrucio 17:46, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - ditto that ditto. Kevan can kill it if it creates server issues, im not going to use that as an argument against. id like to see a human skill be able to counter it like VoidDragon mentioned in his comment (but not enough of an issue to me to make me vote kill). --Firemanstan 23:21, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - that would be scary...never knowing if the guy beside you is a zombie or not. --Penance 23:37, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This sounds fun...and a human counter skill could work - it would just have to not be 100% accurate. A "Scan for Zombies" skill could have a percentage chance of success. And even better would be to modify the base percentage with circumstances like lighting and the number of "people" in the room (harder to pick a zombor out of a large loud crowd than a small one). --Rootbier 05:53, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Some variation of this would be welcome. --Kirk 21:26, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I hate to say it, but that's stpid. It will not make zombies more powerful, surviovrs more fearful or the game more fun. It will simply cause every player to check every profile every time he enters a building, which is exteremly server-destructive. Don't try to convince me people wouldn't do that, they will check every profile when they enter a building and will never be fooled. Except noobs, of course, but they're already too big a part of the zombie diet.--Brickman 23:38, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Brain Boost

Yeah, you're right it's the same as brain boil. My bad. Removed. -Shaolinzombie 19:12, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Where the last shot went... re-written so you can all understand

Timestamp: 18:11, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Balance Change
Scope: Zombies
Description: A zombie dies. Now 1 of 2 things can happen. If the person has headshot, then the zombie will lose the XP (as usual); if he doesn't then the last shot would have RPED hit something such as a leg or other important part.

So the zombie will lose a skill TEMPORARILY until he or she uses up 20 AP and the body gets a chance to repair itself . Uses as in 20 actions NOT uses 20 AP to get it back. After 20 AP the zombie will return to normal [or server reset].

As for messages example "You get up. You leg seems to be injured, you can't walk as fast as you could before, though your body seems to be repairing itself" In other words, no LURCHING GAIT for 20AP. Also, Brain Rot and Ankle grab are NOT effected.

This happens also to revived survivors.

Votes

  • Kill - I was just saying to myself the other day, "Gee, zombies should be weaker! That will fix the game balance!" --Antrobus178 18:21, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No. --Shadowstar 18:31, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I admire your persistence, but honestly, no.--WibbleBRAINS 19:13, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No and no. — g026r 19:22, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -So, wait people without a skill that requires 10th level get more potent abilities than those that paid the 100xp? So basically you are suggesting people pay 100xp for a down grade?? --Matthew-Stewart 19:37, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE: - Headshot is permanent, this is not.
  • Kill - This makes the game less fun for everybody. --Dickie Fux 19:38, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE: -Death is not supposed to be fun.. you'r supposed to avoid it as much as possible
  • Kill - once again. --Seagull Flock 21:00, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill/Spam - I understood you first time. Still no. Rhialto 23:29, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It's still not a good idea. Bentley Foss 00:04, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I can see where you're going with this, and yes, it makes sense as a theme. But as an actual ingame implementation it just won't work out. Another one of those 'good ideas, impossible execution' situations. --MorthBabid 05:25, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Understood it the first time, hated it then. Guess what? --Drakkenmaw 08:16, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill --Basher 23:20, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - wait... so you want to make headshot MORE powerful? no thanks. --Firemanstan 23:25, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Read Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Leave_Other_People.27s_Skills_Alone.--The General 16:51, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You've got to be kidding. --Kirk 21:21, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

More Levels to Construction

Timestamp: 20:08, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Balance Change
Scope: Survivors
Description: Right now Construction gives the ability to create a baricade up to Extremely Heavy.

I suggest for the sake or realism and game balance that Construction be broken into several different techs.

  1. Laymens Barricading Construction. Ability to lightly barricade. (basically just a pile of chairs and whatnot)
  2. Strong Barricading Construction. Ability to barricade to Very Strong. (the ability to use hammers and nails)
  3. Heavy Barricading Ability. Ability to barricade to heavy levels. (The survivor is using real carpentry and masonry skills to create a real fortress)


The balance here is that it will take more skill to create barricades.

Votes

  • Keep - Author voting for his own idea. --SpicyDragonZ 20:22, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Another good barricade weakening idea. --Antrobus178 20:51, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Finally something that doesn't alter the current barricade mechanics and makes it more interesting for survivors. I definitely like it. --Seagull Flock 21:02, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I assume you mean each of these is a separate skill, which I think is a bit much. Maybe #2 and #3 could be skills, and #1 works for everyone, without buying a skill. Alterations to existing skills aren't a big hit, though. --Dickie Fux 21:04, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Techs? someone's been playing CIV IV. --EDIT-- Think about this being added for a sec, a couple of days with basicly no barricading going on! that would solve the imbalance in one fell swoop. - --bbraaiinnss 21:08 Dec 2005
  • Keep - Meh, ok...--ALIENwolve 21:34, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I was going to suggest a barricading skill change today, but I like this, so I'll lay off. -- Ethan Frome 21:37, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Might help cut down on the overbarricading problem. Noobs to construction won't just naively max out a barricade. Thus reducing grief Giltwist 21:41, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Makes perfect sense to me. --Kybard 21:48, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nice --Lord Evans 23:37, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - But with strong reservations. Humans already have plenty of skills. I'd rather see teh zombies catch up with more skills than see more skills for humans. Rhialto 23:41, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - This is actually taking a skill away from humans and breaking it into 3 levels. Just like the RIAA wants to keep me from recording TV and make me pay for a right I have already. --SpicyDragonZ 16:25, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Anything to keep humans from barricading up the entire game. It's bad enough that zombies are outnumbered, but a feral has almost no chance of even finding a place to hide, and that's ass. -- Ruining 1846 Dec. 8 2005 (EST)
  • Kill - I cannot endorse the following product or service. This is a stopgap measure--humans will either immediately blow some of their hefty XP reserves and get this, or thousands enough of them will aquire the skill in the next few weeks, and we'll be right back to where we are. Bentley Foss 00:04, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - But with only two skills: Construction to bring things up to Very Strong and a second skill to barricade beyond that. That way Construction is still useful, since most people don't barricade past very strong anyway and new players won't barricade too much for people to enter. --Jon Pyre 02:16, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Agree with Pyre, but if it is this way, it is still fine. --Sauron the Deceiver 02:41, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like Jon Pyre's suggested implementation better. And read the voting guidelines, if you want a proposal to be changed, then vote kill and ask for your suggestion to be added in. A Keep vote is only counted for the suggestion as-is. --VoidDragon 03:18, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I really wanted to vote Keep on this one, as barricading has gotten a bit insane. But flavor wise? It's not that hard to figure out how to build a barricade. You stack stuff. That simple. So why have levels of expertese on things toddlers can figure out how to do? Pyre's suggestion makes a WEE bit more sense. --MorthBabid 05:23, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - I imagine that higher levels of barricades could be a better barricade. Level 1 is *just* stacking stuff. Level 3 is an integrated defense with the structure of the building. Think about Zion in the Matrix (that would be level Googol. --SpicyDragonZ 16:25, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It makes sense that creating an impenetrable barrier would be something that takes more skill than just stacking things in front of doors. --Chester Katz 06:21, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Not this form. I like the tiered thought. Perhaps up to VS is a civilian skill, (furniture, etc) maybe an intermediary, and the highest level skill could be a military skill. More overall xp expenditure, and it would make sense that military would be trained in the most effective barricading. --Tyroney 06:54, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it --Phaserlight 22:49, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - i want to vote keep, but i think Bentley Foss is right. however if it gets voted down, and is resubmitted with some slight modifications (see: Jon Pyre and other similar comments) i will most likely vote keep. --Firemanstan 00:00, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Require the Use of an Item for Construction

Timestamp: 20:08, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Balance Change
Scope: Survivors
Description: Right now Construction gives the ability to create a baricade up to Extremely Heavy.

I suggest for the sake or realism and game balance that Construction needs to use an item to construct anything.

Every building will supply chairs, tables, what not. Using these items will barricade up to light level.

To barricade to Heavy and above the surivor needs to search in autobody shops, wastelands, factorys.


The balance here is that it will take more time to search and then build a barricades.

Votes

  • Keep - Author voting for his own idea. --SpicyDragonZ 20:22, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This one I'm not so crazy about. Finding useful stuff is hard enough already without spending a day searching only to come up with 12 chairs and an armoire (amusing as that would be). --Antrobus178 20:55, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -No. --Matthew-Stewart 20:57, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - One thing is splitting Construction, another is altering barricades. Definitely not a good idea. Moreover, I guess in the guidelines it's written "submit only one suggestion per day." --Seagull Flock 21:04, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This HAS been suggested before. Do I have to find the link to vote spam? --Shadowstar 21:12, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No, I'm sorry--we don't need to punish survivors who want to make barricades. Bentley Foss 00:00, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam I already suggested two suggestions that got shot down. This deserves equal or worse treatment. AllStarZ 00:19, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Lousy author carebearing...*grumbles*... Anyways, yeah, duplicate suggestion. --VoidDragon 03:21, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam It just doesn't work game mechanics wise, even if it wasn't spam. --MorthBabid 05:21, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Re - This WOULD easily work. Just as one searches for generators and deploys them in buildings your character were search wastelands for construction supplys and deploy them in buildings to build barricades.. --SpicyDragonZ 17:46, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Also, I think that people would take more ownship of barricades if it took them 100ap to find 10 pieces of construction debris to bring their safe house to EH. It would give people more to do in the game besides searching for spray cans and ammo clips.--SpicyDragonZ 19:37, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Quick, barricades are working as they should, we must ruin them. Plus, repeat suggestion.--The General 17:26, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Innoculation

Timestamp: 22:24, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill and new item
Scope: Scientists, Survivors ... zombie strategy too
Description: NecroTech Corporate has been busy.

They've been using the DNA scan information gathered by its employees, and some daring volunteers, to continue its research in labs outside of Malton, and they've finally made their first breakthrough - a partial vaccine against the zombie virus. It's still in its early stages, so it's not perfect, but they hope to fix that by providing the prototype serum to the only place in the world that has an active zombie population and human subjects who are willing to participate in the clinical trials without signing release forms.

A new item can be found at NecroTech buildings -- Vaccine Syringes. Vaccine Syringes can be used only by those with a new skill under NecroTech Employment -- Vaccination Experience. When a syringe is used on a survivor, the person receiving the shot has a 75% chance for each of the next 3 (+/-, depending on people's preference) times they're bitten by a zombie with Infectious Bite, that they won't become infected. If they fail the 75% roll, the vaccine is considered to have worn off early and is no longer effective.

(Optional: If the person is infected at the time that they're vaccinated, their infection is cured, but they receive no vaccination benefits, as the antibodies have been used up in fighting off the existing infection.)

Players receive short messages when they are immunized by another player, and when their immunity wears off ("As the zombie bites you, you begin to feel sick. You shake the feeling, but you hope you're not coming down with something. Your immunity to the zombie virus has worn off.")

Anyone successfully vaccinating a currently un-vaccinated survivor against the zombie virus receives 3 XP (+/-). Vaccinating someone who has already been vaccinated, and whose immunity has not yet worn off, gives 0 XP (to avoid XP farming like with FAKs) but does "re-set" the person's vaccination status so that the next three bites are covered. Vaccinating yourself confers the benefits of the serum, but no XP.

Votes

  • Keep - Author vote. -- Ethan Frome 22:48, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - So basically a zombie with infectious bite has at most a 7.5% chance of infecting them for each AP they spend trying to bite. (Max 30% chance to hit, 25% chance to infect when they do hit. A zombie without vigour mortis would be as low as 2.5%, while one with vigour mortis but not neck lurch would be 5%.) I understand that survivors don't like the infectious bite, but it's not all that bad in the grand scheme of things—just carry a FAK around with you. — g026r
  • Kill. How about we don't make zombies any less appetizing? Jirtan 23:21, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I don't think this is too out of line, considering it needs a new skill and a new item. At the moment, this isn't needed, but the suggestion itself isn't bad. --Dickie Fux 23:24, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't think it's a bad idea, but I fail to see any reason why it's needed or would even be very helpful. On top of that, this game doesn't need to be harder for zombies atm. --Pyrinoc 23:28, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • KillSo you want to get rid of a zombies only chance of killing someone in a seige? great idea genius.--grassman 23:30, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - The only way? What happened to claws and teeth?  ;-) -- Ethan Frome 00:06, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • Re:-You forget how much ap they los tryin to get in.
  • Keep - I like this idea, but also agree that now would not be the best time to implement it. However, it's a very well-thought-out idea, and could come in handy somewhere down the road. (Emphasis added for those who might be tempted to vote kill, thinking that it'd be implemented right away if it passes Peer Review.) --John Taggart 23:32, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - *sigh* ... unfortunately, you're right. If this even makes it through (probably not), it would be good to hold off on it until a new balance is achieved. -- Ethan Frome 00:06, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • Re: Since it looks like it's going down in flames right now, perhaps you could resuggest it later on with an N.B. to that effect? Just a thought. --John Taggart 14:49, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It's a horrible idea. Infection as it stands is about the only way to thwart a zombie hunter if you catch them in the act, and you want to remove that? Yeah. Good call. Except, you know, it's a horrible idea. -- Ruining 1849 Dec. 8 2005 (EST)
  • Kill - This is a bad idea because it hurts one of the zombies' main reasons for biting people. That, and it's one of those "Keep It Simple!!" temporary status effects that I do so loathe. Bentley Foss 00:02, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - How about a skill that makes one of the few redeeming features of zombies completely useless? What if we got rid of all the zombies in the game and added a hug command? Barcoded 02:06, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -Great, there's a zombie horde coming, so you break out the stockpiled vaccine and run around vaccinating your survivor buddies (3 XP a shot to you,) and suddenly everyone's wearing magic anti-infectious bite shields. As a zombie I think I might just as well up stumps and go home.--WibbleBRAINS 00:09, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I think this is a good ITEM suggestion, but not so much as a skill. NecroTech Employment or Lab Experience would cover it. However, we'd need a new store to put it in, as NecroTech buildings already have poor search results. --MorthBabid 05:20, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I don't understand why people persist to do this. This really has no bearing on the game, if your infected, just use a FAK. Hell, they're easier to find for one thing. I mean really, HOW difficult is it to devote 1 slot in your inventory to an emergency FAK? I keep 1 on me at all times. --Vellin 07:49, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Do you just not get the fact zombies are increadibly underpowered and only constitute a 1/4 of Maltons population? Now you want to nerf them? WTF is wrong with the author here? --phungus420
  • Kill - Hay guys let's make zombies even more useless than they already are ahahahahahaha kill kill kill kill this suggestion right now. --Katthew 14:42, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Agreed, zombies don't need another nerf. --Phaserlight 22:52, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No. --Basher 23:21, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Are you joking? Another nerf for zombies? NO.--The General 17:38, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The last thing zombies need right now is another nerf. Resubmit when Infection 2.0 is implemented: infection causes 2HP loss per action and can only be cured by surgery. --Kirk 21:18, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Not Have Zombies

Timestamp: 1906 Dec. 8 2005 (EST)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Zombies
Description: Why don't we, you know... just do away with zombies? I mean, humans already outnumber zombies approximately 2.5 to 1. Zombies can't get to the humans because barricades are easier and cheaper to put up than they are to tear down. Zombies have difficulty gaining skills such as Neck Lurch or Memories of Life because the number of humans with Headshot alone outnumbers zombies. And any zombie fortunate enough to get all the zombie skills possible has what to look forward to? Running and trying to hide in the shadows of heavily barricaded buildings? Now humans want more skills, like the ability to thwart our Infectious Bite or to make us lose skills temporarily when we're headshot. So, perhaps we zombies should give in. Call it a day. Admit when we've been outflanked by an overpowered and outnumbering opponent. Get rid of the zombies. Just let the humans have their town and be done with it. The end.

Votes

  • Keep - I mean, seriously. This is what you humans want, right? That's what every suggestion implies: more and better human skills, fewer zombie abilities. Vote for the humans, vote against the zeds. So we zombies should simply accept that we're not welcome in a game called Urban Dead. Also, replaced the entry since ALIENwolve decided to remove it without the article having any spam votes as the history clearly shows. I'm sorry you don't like the rules, ALIENwolve, but they're in place and I expect you to follow them just as I expect anyone else to. Don't like it? Vote spam. But don't be a dick and simply delete the suggestion. -- Ruining 1931 Dec. 8, 2005 (EST)

This is not a suggestion; this is a complaint. --ALIENwolve 00:33, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • NOTE: As this is a serious suggestion, I would appreciate it if ALIENwolve would stop trying to act as the law when we're proposing something he simply disagrees with. This is not humorous; this is not spam. This is a real vote and I'd appreciate it if you stop acting like a child by trying to remove it. -- Ruining 1531 Dec. 12, 2005 (EST)
  • Keep - Can.. can I have emo zombies instead? The attack command makes me sick because I would not hurt another creature. If we get rid of the zombies we can make Malton the City of Love. Bittersweet emo love. -- barcoded 2:43 dec 9 2005
  • Keep - Or, we could just remove all the action buttons for zombies except for movement buttons, so they'd be walking targets that pose no threat at all. --Dickie Fux 00:56, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Yo, people, don't vote keep. It's just a complaint. Send it over to humourous, if anyone thinks it's funny enough. I mean, really. Just because people don't like certain suggestions doesn't mean people want zombies to disappear. Humans don't GET those skills, most people have voted kill on them. Come up with a good, balanced suggestion, preferably one that adds FUN to the zombie side, instead of just power. --Shadowstar 01:04, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I think we should change all the zombie players into clowns. Because obviously no one is scared of the walking dead, but most people are terrified of clowns.--Boring K 01:09, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Then don't play the freaking game if you don't like it. --TheTeeHeeMonster 01:11, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
We are considering doing just that. There are hardly any zombies around at the moment, and people like you kill spamming every zombie suggestion doesnt make it any better. Its patently obvious you dont want zombies around, so this suggestion does just that. --Grim s 08:06, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • NOTE! - Before anyone gets the bright idea of moving this because it has spam votes, reread the rules on spam. This has the requisite real votes that it cannot be spam-voted down now. It must remain the two weeks. -- Ruining 2018 Dec. 8, 2005 (EST)
  • Spam Oh I have your democracy right here. Since you were so kind as to have your group cronies vote keep so this couldn't go where it should (spinning off into the electronic ether of the wiki-history) I'll take this opportunity to ridicule this idea. There is a discussion page for a reason. If you're afraid your pathetic attempt at wit won't get noticed the answer is not to shove it down people's throats. This idea is completely unrealistic and serves no actual purpose other than to gratify your ego. Secondly, please cut the "I'm bein repressed" bit. You are not Cato. Its truly sad to watch you put up this trash and fight for it like you're some stoic defender of democracy. --Zaruthustra 01:54, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill. You're a whiner. --LibrarianBrent 02:10, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Though LibrarianBrent is an ass, this is a complaint or a statement on game affairs, not a suggestion. -- Amazing 02:12, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Wow this is pretty much the dumbest idea I've ever seen, your pretty much saying you think this game sucks so everyone who likes this game (everyone who is still playing) should change it so that you like it again. STOP WHINING. --FriedFish 2:25, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - What Zaruthustra said. Since apparently you can't tell that the Suggestions page isn't your own personal soapbox, let me just say this: People who often cry "Oppression!" almost always have never experienced ACTUAL OPPRESSION themselves. - KingRaptor 02:30, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Also this should not count as it breaks the rule in the suggestions do and don'ts as it would reset the game, http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Don.27t_suggest_something_that_will_require_resetting_the_game. --FriedFish 2:37, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
This would not require the game being reset. You simply remove a class. That's all. - Ruining
  • Kill - I can't decide whether to reply with "Well why don't you cry about it, saddlebags?" or "Would you like some cheese with your whine?" Don't suggest innane crap like this. I'm tired of this EverQuest syndrome crap. "I hate the game so much, but I have to keep playing!" If you hate the game so much, quit playing. Bentley Foss 02:47, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - In case you haven't noticed, that's exactly what most people who attempted to play as Zombies are doing. They quit playing. If this suggestion were put into practice, we wouldn't have so many people moaning about how innefective and unfun the Zombie class is, so I would have thought you'd support it. --Drunky McZombie 10:44, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Oh, that would make you very happy, wouldn't it? You assbags log on and free run wherever you please, headshot whomever you please, then free run out of there... and this is fair. We stand out in the open, or try to hide in places that your scouts and spies soon uncover, lose huge XP with each of your ridiculous affronts, and this is also fair. This suggestion is perfect; it is clearly what all you headshotting twats want. By the way, headshot me whenever you want to. I have no more skills to acquire. A great game this is, and a great community you have formed here. Cheers, retards. MrMojok 03:13, 09 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Heh heh heh. --LouisB3 03:15, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I've got your Barhah right here. *Dies laughing.* --Kulatu 03:27, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, it'd solve balance issues between the two sides. Jirtan 03:37, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Or, alternatively, you could change all of the descriptions of the game to include its "feel of desperate zombies fighting a guerilla war." --Ceasar Strabo 03:42, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
And we can change the premise of the game to "evil human invaders trying to colonize the zombie planet Maltonia." --Shaolinzombie 05:49, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Once human superiority has been achieved, why continue with the experiment? All great things must come to an end, and the zombies are clearly outclassed. Like the dodo, the passenger pigeon, and spats, there is simply no more place for zombies in Malton --MaestroXC
  • Kill - I really shouldn't need to go into why. Velkrin
  • Kill - God, it's just a game. Chill out. I play both zombie and non-zombie characters and it sucks a little to be a zombie, but I keep coming back to it. If you don't want to play, then just don't. Otherwise, make some helpful suggestions here and improve the game. -- Ethan Frome 04:41, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
That's actually my next suggestion - "If you don't like the game, don't play it. We humans are having a blast!" -- Ruining
  • Keep 'Cause it's funny, yet heartbreakingly true. furtim 04:51, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam Because I know it when I see it, bub, no matter what you say. Seriously now! --MorthBabid 05:18, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - I know theres that crap about minumum number of real votes having been made. But seriously, a zombie game without zombies is like a book without pages. Rhialto 05:20, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - For obvious reasons, though I could see this making it into the humorous suggestions list. I do tend to agree with what I believe is the sentiment behind this -- namely that the game has basically become a human versus human game that just happens to have zombies outside, and that the majority of the suggestions on this list seem to want to make that balance even worse. --Chester Katz 06:30, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill sigh. but heh. --Tyroney 06:57, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Now, now, no reason to make things quite as bad as that; but I think we should at least introduce a new human skill: "Bourgeoisie Fantasy Camp"; players with this attribute can automatically travel from building to building through a secure network where they never have to feel endangered at any time, have nothing but the best in equipment, access to hospitals (with power) and a working telephone system, and any time they happen to catch a glimpse of any members of the as yet un-exterminated zombie proletariat, they experience a burst of middle class moral outrage that can only manifest itself by casually pumping shotgun shells into their skull causing them to lose all their hard work, followed by a leisurely stroll to the nearest police station to reload. Oh wait, I forgot; all humans seem to have that skill already. My bad. --The Brian 07:25, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Because the author was born with a giant stick in his bum and doesn't even understand common legal practice. And the suggestion sucks too. --Vellin 07:46, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
That's what my lawyering professor says; she thinks I'm going to fail law school! -- Ruining
  • Keep - Would prevent newbies from leaving the game in disgust if they chose the now irrelevant Zombie class.--Grim s 08:03, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Simply because it's the most innovative suggestion I've seen here yet. --Graaaaaaagh 08:42, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I actually think this idea is shit. And think heashot should be axed and zombies buffed. But if this isn't done, then zombies will serve no purpose, like now. And Malton has jut become a Survivor v Survivor game, with zombies just being XP farms. That's all the game is now anyway, I'm just voting keep to help breing attention to it. --phungus420
  • Keep - Zombies are on the fast track to extinction in this game anyway. Why not bring about the inevitable conclusion a bit sooner? --Drunky McZombie 10:21, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Having played as a zombie class, I can personaly say it is almost immpossible to level once you reach level 2, if you get revived you might make it to level 3 or 4 but after that it becomes almost immpossible. - --Fullemtaled 11:03, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Being a Zombie is goddamn boring, and for those of you who are saying 'if you don't like it, stop playing', why do you think the zombie population is so small? Quite frankly, the complete removal of zombies is going to happen anyway as more and more people just quit in disgust.--Sharamik 12:28, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • KILL - this is complete spam as this would do away with the whole point of the game. - LS 08:06, 08 Dec 2005 (GMT-5)
  • Keep - Yeah my zombie is getting oh so tired. --Pimplepopper 13:35, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Would prevent newbies from leaving the game in disgust if they chose the now irrelevant Zombie class.(Thanks Grim ;)) --Qwako 14:20, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Everything is geared towards humans already, removing zombies would just be the next logical step. Not only is it far more fun to play as a human, but zombies seem to be utterly ineffective when it comes to doing anything whatsoever, so I'm guessing this is what Kevan originally intended. --Katthew 14:41, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • KeepUrban Dead is dead! Long live URBAN!!! Bartle 14:45, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam, loverly spam! - Seriously, we need to buff the zombies instead of wiping them out completely. After all, what's a zombie apocalypse without zombies? --John Taggart 14:47, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep — To all of you saying it will do away with the whole point of the game, what do you think is happeneing? Zombie players are quitting or just playing as survivors because it's boring/frustrating as a zombie. With all of the idiotic human buffing suggestions I've seen, this place seems bound for PK Paradise. Just throw in the towel now and get there sooner. Love live URBAN!! Who needs zombies? --Athos710 15:23, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Question-"Whats a zombie apocalypse without Zombies?"-J.Taggart Answer- Urban Dead While probably the first winning original suggestion destined to be spammed away I think its worth the review --bbrraaiinnss 15:44 Dec 09 2005
  • Keep - I can't wait to play the all-new zombie-free URBAN! game. It'll be just like Lemmings Paintball. --WibbleBRAINS 16:09, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - The entire game is bases on a struggle between Zombies and Humans if you don't want that go watch the Carebears..----Technerd
  • Keep -- Might as well. 'S not much of a "struggle" if the zombies are getting their asses roundly whooped. -- Tabs 17:10, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • SPAM -What if this gets to the peer accepted? WHat is kevan supposed to do? Hmm apparently people don't like the game, lets just shut it down! COME ON PEOPLE... A moderator should send this to this pits of binary oblivion --Adrian 17:29, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE:- "WHat is kevam supposed to do?" Either remove zombies altogether and put NPC XP farms or Buff the zombies. He is supposed to ignore the 43 peer approved human skills and perhaps implement the 2 approved and the some among the tens of rejected zombie changes instead.... This is a comment at the state of the game and if peer reviewed, will show that yes, Zombies have a voice. And if you don't know anything about the wiki rules, SPAM is only used when a suggestion is presented for the second time. Even the shittiest idea must pass through peer review, and this is not one of them. --Siddhant 17:53, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This is by far the best, and so far only, good suggestion I've seen here. Zombies have been rapidly declining in both ability and fun for several months now. By doing away with them completely, more time can be spent giving survivors super shotguns that mow down entire blocks and the ability to teleport between suburbs. After all, making survivors supermen is what the game is all about, and zombies are just a deterrent to that end. --Laughing Man 18:12, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • No, you don't get it. Once the Zombies are gone, all the weapons in the game will be replaced with cash and commercial products. And instead of Classes, there'll be "Jobs", and each player will have to devote at least half of his AP working every day. Lastly, purchasing residences (and material goods to fill them with) will be possible. It'll be a lot like The Sims. Bartle 19:46, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It's nigh impossible for zeds to level up, and even when they do get maxed there's no fun in the game, we're still weaker than survivors, and get the stuffing knocked out of us. Frequently. --Blooskull 00:56, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Isn't this already in place? My survivors haven't seen a zombie that wasn't waiting for a revive in weeks as it is anyway.Nervie 19:35, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - But change the name to "PKer's Paradise." --Pesatyel 20:38, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I think Zombie Classes, Day Cycle, Defile, Zombie Hand Attack Accuracy Revision, Barricade Queue, Enhanced Scent, Zombies get Bonus XP for killing a Zombie Hunter, Innate Zombie Class Advantage, Howl, Ransack, Skeletal Ribs, Tough as Leather, Zombie Power, Graveyard Feeding, Well-Preserved, and Persistent Infection, plus Kevan's "big building" upgrade are better solutions to the balance issues. --Matthew-Stewart 21:14, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - This of course has to the the best and only solution. -- Andrew McM 21:29, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It's an accurate progression of what is occuring. If my favorite class is going the way of the dodo (and it is, and since it's unplayable solo the decrease of horde count and size makes it more unplayable), I'd prefer this to happen sooner rather than later. --Jorm 21:33, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I think it's time the zombie's call it a day and join the humans. Then we can get into major wars and stuff! It could change from a human vs zombie game to a human vs human game. It'd be cool. Admit it. Keep it. --TheMrFrog
  • Kill - I liked this game, and I will sorely miss it... not because of the shooting of zombies but because of the community it made... people keep coming up with suggestions for humans because we know humans best... all the zombie movies focus on humans so its natural for us to want them to have things. A lot of people here are suggesting we end the game... killing all the hard work everyone has put into the game. This is a very new game, its obvious there would be flaws people would have to work out, if you didnt realize it this game was not build by a company that could think up every detail... and if you wanted a game that had no effort involved there are plenty at the store.. they usually cost 30 dollars or more and there are many to choose from... because you pay for them you can expect perfection... your playing a free game... expect some issues and try to help it out instead of choking it...--Ringseed2 23:00, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Okay, do I even need to mention how utterly stupid everyone is being? Let me repeat to you, once again, so some people might GET IT THROUGH THEIR SKULLS - these "Suggestion" pages generally mean absolutely jack to the final functioning of the game itself. Some of the ideas produced here are good. Some are dumb. But NONE of them get into the game without Kevan's decision, programming, and review. You think zombies are underpowered? Good, so do I. And guess what? They'll be fixed. Kevan will fix them. Hey, look at that - the fact that people are suggesting mostly human skills means NOTHING in that format. Christ, you sit here bickering back and forth over the "sad plight of the zombie masses" as if whether this or ANY suggestion that makes it through review is going to be included in the game. Most won't. Even those that *do* catch Kevan's eye likely won't make it in for a long, long time while he uses his spare time to code them in with some balance and fairness. But you treat this like it's some sort of Internet pageant, and whoever speaks the loudest about "buffing" their side and "nerfing" the other wins the game. This isn't Verant, there is no bloody Nerf Bat, and you all are acting like whiny ingrates over a FREE game which is run at high cost in the SPARE TIME of one man. He'll fix things, when he's able - the game is not complete, and likely won't be for awhile. But threatening to storm off in a huff because "it's not fair" right this second is childishness. My zombie's doing as it always has done - wandering around, breaking into buildings and eating people. Sure, I get headshot. Sure, it's tough to get into places on my own. But so what? IT'S A BLOODY GAME. I'm not about to burst into tears over the plight of my little sliver of database space. So if you think you're having a tough time? Guess what, you are. And you will, for awhile, but Kevan will fix the balance and you'll probably get something cool out of it. In the meantime, man up. It'll do you a world of good. --Drakkenmaw 08:37, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Well, obviously voting on this is no longer about the actual suggestion but about whether the underlying point of the suggestion is valid or if should be discussed here. So, yeah, it needs to be discussed. --Shaolinzombie 20:51, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yeah, let's just play Urban. --Basher 23:24, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • My favorite part of this is that Ruining who is agruging for this idea is part of the Pwotters a zombie organization. FriedFish 23:34, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - It's my favorite part too!! It's like- why would somebody who plays as a zombie deserve to have a voice??? Down with all zombies and their human players right friend!--Azzgunther 11:49, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - This suggestion probably contravenes the "don't knowingly post stupid suggestions" rule. --Daxx 00:27, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It's either this or a game wide zombie strike. Take your pick. CthulhuFhtagn 00:13, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - for great justice. Or for taking the zeds out back for one last headshot. Same thing. Patrucio 00:57, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - To prevent the molestation of innocent bounty hunters by uncouth zombies who might accidentally break into their safehouse and swipe a few hit points off them before forcing them to expend a bit of ammo to headshot them to oblivion. Petrosjko 04:37, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'm surprised that this needed to be suggested. It looks like it's already being implemented. But frankly, I'm sick of my human getting attacked by zombies. It doesn't happen very often, but it does from time to time and it REALLY pisses me off. It's about time that we end this charade of 'Survivors vs Zombies' and embrace the much more entertaining game of 'Humans vs Humans'. --Memuler
  • Keep - Sweet Baby Zombie Jesus crys everytime a Human lies. --Depleted
  • Keep - I, for one, welcome our new survivor overlords. -- Centerfire
  • Keep - Yeah, have all of the zombies lie down and take a nice rest. Those headshots get really tiring. --Leit 08:11, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I say unless there is some other buff coming soon to even things out then just put the zombies out of their misery --Apocalypse Lord 19:25, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - No more zombies. --Tom Hobbes 22:19, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - That is not dead which can eternal lie / Yet with those Headshots, even Death may die

... --Senex 23:31, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Kill - How is this going to improve the game? The game name and plot reqire presence of zombies. If you don't like being zombie as it is, that if fine - dont play as zombie. But have you thought about players who want to play zombies and enjoy their zombie characters? Do you want to have their accounts deleted? Also, what would happen to a survivor after they die? They cannot become zombie, so do they die permanently?--Cah51o 23:43, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE - You must not have noticed, but all the keeps are votes cast by players who primarily play as zombies. The fact is most of us are going to quit if the game continues on it's current path. This is just making what appears to be the inevitable easier, and made across the board. Basically if zombies are going to suck as bad as they do, and if headshot remains as obnoxious and griefy as it is, we are saying it's time to either get rid of zombies or make them NPCs. You seem to have failed to notice it is the hardcore zombie players voting for this suggestion, and survivor mainly characters voting against it. Please don't justify your argument based on protecting us. - phungus420 0119, 13Dec05
      • RE I'm protecting myself - i don't want to lose my zombie characters. If you want to get rid of zombies then don't play them - get a revive or abandon the char, then get NT skills and revive every single zombie you can. If after a month there are still some zombies left, that would mean that not everybody hates to play a zombie. --Cah51o 01:33, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - While I admit that giving up my XP cows would be a personal hit, I vote keep for the good of the game. This way people will not be confused into thinking that zombies are going to be fun and leave the game entirely when they find out the truth.--Tezcatlipoca 02:23, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • SPAM SPAM - Even the Keep votes on this are spam (they are all either sarcastically acknowledging the problems with the zombie class or obvious survivor only players). I do believe a greivances board has been added. This DOES NOT belong here. Yes I am yelling. --Thelabrat 17:11, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - what the devil are we voting on? the end of zombies, or the creation of a grievance page? no, and no. no - i like zombies very much thank you, and id like to work on making them better and more exciting to encourage people to play as them. and no - i think the grievances come across in the suggestions. if you are grieved by something in the game, make suggestions to counter it - or vote on suggestions that pertain to it. everyone can bitch and moan (sarcastically or otherwise) about things on the forums - thats what they are for. and dont get mad at the whole urban dead community because a few people are stuck on suggesting human skills, just vote to kill them. someone 'spam' or 'humor' this already, please. --Firemanstan 00:29, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Anyone who does'nt get that this is a fucking satire, and that by passing it through peer reveiw that its' MEANT to make Kevan sit up and notice the weak zombie problem, is a fucking retard. --Dhiquad 03:43, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Afterall, since making zombies strong enough to actually hurt humans and/or making humans weaker so zombies don't suck are both terrible ideas, we should just phase zombies out... Nip it in the butt before all the zombie players stop playing on their own. --Duranna 07:58, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This is a permanent solution to a temporary problem, and I love it! This would teach the humans that without us, they're nothing. Darrik 16:06, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yeah seriously, the zombie menace has been put to sleep. Everyone in the city knows that to kill a zombie you shoot it in the head, and now there is no way that zombies can survive. It's time for humans to get back to normal and start killing each other instead of some silly monsters. --Drexle
  • Keep - Aw man! You know what would be cool? If instead of fighting zombies, the survivors had to fight robots! Kevan could change all the zombie characters into robots with laser beams and gatling guns! That would be so much more awesome than a zombie apocalypse. GO ROBOTS! --Comrade Morgan 02:21, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Zombies are not XP Farms. Zombies dont have 35 APs at the start of each day. Maxed Zombies do not start with 45 APs every day. It does not take 8 APs to drop a zombie from max health and return to the safety of a EHB mall. It does not take 50 APs to take open a Very Strongly Barricaded building, and it does not take 10 APs to rebuild it. Furthermore, it's impossible to rebuild barricades while there are zombies in the building. --Siddhant 13:10, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This is AWESOME. Exactly what the game needs. I've played both, and I prefer humans. They are more fun. Playing a zombie is boring, so let's get rid of them. I won't cry if my zombie gets deleted. They are near impossible to do anything with anyways. Everyone whining about this proposal is obviously just a human player worried that they'll have to fight real opponents that can fight back - the only real threat in the game, humans - instead of pathetic twitching neutered undead cattle. Which is just what this game needs - some honest, knock down drag out brutality. Maybe after a month of humans slaughtering humans, or just standing around, hitting and healing each other, being bored, they'll want zombies back enough to let another infection break out - this time a strain of zombies that is more threatening than a flu outbreak. Clay 10:21, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Zombies? I didn't know there were zombies in this game! I've spent all APs trying to steal all the books I could from the library! --Kirk 21:07, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I think it's easy enough to do. First, we hit up every necrotech building in the game. Then, we get every syringe we can and we turn the 12 zombies that haven't yet "gotten with the program" into survivors like the rest of us. Then, and get this boys and girls, we cover the entire city in foam padding and demolish any buildings that have more than one floor. No more turning into a zombie because you stubbed your toe on a table! Then it's a small matter of using revivication syringes on dead bodies to bring them back to life and Voila! No one will ever have to worry about being a zombie ever again! --Biteyboy 02:37, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Compromise Option

Look, I've been thinking about a way to have an equitable solution for everyone here, and I've decided that I should take my own advice and put forward a positive solution instead of just complaining about the situation at hand. Namely, I'd like to offer a way in which everyone gets what they want. Firstly, you want your grievances about the lack of zombie strength to be heard. Alright - I have no problem with that. Personally, I also think zombies are too weak at the moment. My only problem is that I don't think this is the correct avenue through which to air grievances; I think the Suggestions page needs to be limited to actual suggestions, and not the "serious satire" you've admitted this to being. If this is allowed, then anyone will be able to use the suggestion page in the same way and it will hurt the original purpose for its creation. Thus: How about I create a separate section of the wiki for grievances? A Grievances board: an official place to air your complaints, if you will. We can move the consensus (and there's a large one, of which I'm a part) grievance about zombie/survivor strength disparities off the suggestion board (where it shouldn't be, as there's no serious suggestion here), but instead put it in its own place where it will still be heard and read and potentially be seen by Kevan (so you still get to make your point about the mass zombie discontent). As I have no problem with you being heard, so much as the avenue through which you're speaking, and as you seem to have no requests here other than having a formal place to make your grievance known, this would seem to be a way in which everyone can have what they're trying to accomplish here. If this is equitable, let me know and I'll create the Grievances section straight away and move this to where it can be heard and discussed without impinging on the ability of the people making suggestions to make them in an area free from what is functionally extraneous debate on existing game mechanics and balance. Would this be an agreeable option? --Drakkenmaw 03:18, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Kill While I appreciate your intentions, I don't think a place for people to say "omg i haf to spend mor than 1ap serching?? this gam is teh suxxors!!1" is the answer. (I'm pretty sure that's what the grievances area will become: a(nother) bloated place for people to express their poorly-thought-out opinions.) --LouisB3 01:34, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep; I love zombies but if things do not change very very quickly I will simply remain lying down (headshotted, no doubt) and not return to the game. The effect would be the same; no more zombies. Play Urban. -'vergeten'
  • Kill - The Grievances page would just become a haven for inane complaints, like "ZOMG ZmBOEUZ IS teh Ovahpwerd! I cnat pErMAkiLL THeM!" or other such rants. Anyways, could the people who voted for the "remove zombies" suggestion move their votes to that suggestion, instead of putting them under the compromise option? CthulhuFhtagn 18:22, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Comment I should point out that it appears the last three kill votes are replying to Drakkenmaws proposed grievances page and NOT to the suggestion at hand, and should be scrapped. --Grim s 15:19, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • KILL - GET RID OF ZOMBIES????!!! ARE YOU MAD? That would COMPLETELY nullify the very meaning of the game!!!! URBAN DEAD not Urban survivors! --Penance 23:47, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - This is a complaint, not a suggestion. --Squashua 19:08, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • KEEP - Make the game survivor vs. survivor for all the PKers out there. --DRodgers 11:30, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Wound Skill

Timestamp: 00:36, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Zombie Skill
Scope: Zombies/Survivors
Description: This has been up on the Talk page for a while, and so far I've gotten nothing but good feedback(though relatively few in comparison; I take the lack of responses to be at the very least non-negative feedback). If you don't like this idea, please go to the Discussion page and add your comments there, I'd much appreciate it.

Anyways, the idea is this: Zombies can gain a new skill which when activated (I haven't been able to decide if it's a random chance on attack, or a separate attack - as nobody seems to be replying to my post on the talk page) reduces the target's maximum health by 5-10%. Just once. (though someone mentioned multiple times might not be so bad; I personally think it could get crazy if it's allowed more than once) This "Wound" can only be removed by a player with the surgery skill, healing the player in a powered hospital. Or death.

Votes

  • Keep - I think this finally gives surgery a purpose, other than a just being a way to heal more with fewer items. — g026r 00:44, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Now this way, I can agree with. There's a specific end condition, it makes surgery more worthwhile, it's only once, and it leaves on death. Good suggestion. --Shadowstar 01:10, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - That would be a deep wound if only surgery can fix it. --ALIENwolve 01:37, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill If this happened to me and I couldn't find a place to get it fixed by someone with the specific skill within.. say.. an hour, I'd quit and never look back. (Responce to below: Someone can come along to help or kill me, or I can ask a friend to with a phone or AIM or e-mail. Tell me how a Hospital with a generator running would come to me.) -- Amazing 02:13, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Re - Really? What if you were infected, didn't have any FAKs, and couldn't find anybody willing to heal you? And you didn't have enough health to get back? Would you quit then, too? Riktar 18:15, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT) Re to Re - The difference is that Infection hurts you as you move. Nothing is stopping you from retreating and finding a hospital. There are hospitals EVERYWHERE. On average the amount of time it takes to get infection healed (as I have seen first hand) would be roughly equivalent to finding a hospital with power on. Riktar 07:40, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, absolutely great idea. --LibrarianBrent 02:15, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - While I personally don't like it (I'm still a lowbie survivor right now), I can see how it would give the zombies a bit of an edge, and one they need right now. Plus, it makes zombies a bit more of a threat to even the uber-leveled Survivors, so I vote Keep. --John Taggart 02:30, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Would make protracted sieges easier for zombies, since over time many of the survivors will be wounded and easier to kill. - KingRaptor 02:36, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kepp I tend to accept more. Consider what would happen if a survivor would turn into zombie. Less HP = Quicker to be headshot. --Sauron the Deceiver 02:46, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Ehh..... Its not bad... I guess. It would turn down the suck on surgery. --Zaruthustra 02:48, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It's the zombie equivalent of my Dismemberment (Revised) from way back when, but that's fine with me. I think I actually like the idea better when zombies use it. Bentley Foss 02:50, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Eh, it gives surgery another use, other than giving a 5hp boost to FAKs when in a certain place with certain situations. --ThunderJoe 02:54, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'd say 5% chance for each successful attack to lose 5% of HP; for a maxed out claw attack, that's 5% of 25 successful attacks each day, or 1.25 survivors wounded each day, if the zombie spends all AP on claw attacks. --Dickie Fux 02:54, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, it'd get the survivors out of malls and into hospitals. Jirtan 03:28, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep- WOW! this is actually a great idea. It would not only give a use to surgery, but it would encourage the setup of clinics in hospitals!--grassman 04:27, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yet another Keep. Balanced and useful skill. --Hexedian 04:59, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Hmm. That'd actually make the surgery skill quite usefull, as well as make the demand for powered generators an almost critical need. And zombies would have yet another reason to DESTROY the generator. This would also force survivors to keep moving. I like it...perhaps this should be a subskill of Digestion/Infectious Bite and the bite attack? --MorthBabid 05:09, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - The numbers may need playing around with, and the wounded status flag should not be stackable (you can't have two 'wounds'), and zombies shouldn't care about wounds (this flag doesn't affect zombie HP). A good idea which adds a sensibel extra use for surgery skill. Rhialto 05:24, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like the extra "edge" this adds to combat, and the added usefulness for surgery/hospitals. --Chester Katz 06:39, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - woo, bandwagon! But I like it. New, trying out various things, and this just feels like it would be right. --Tyroney 07:00, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep- This is what I wish my gangrene skill would have been like, but you did a bang up job on this, way better than mine. Kudos and Props. I guess you can't always have a winner eh? @Amazing: You'll be back, you always come back. --Vellin 07:37, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill- Yet another status tag for the server to keep. We don't know if it'll be able to handle it. (Leave aside the status tag Headshot bugs). This skill is minor as well. People are suggesting it be 5 hp at a very low percentage. What a POS skill (Like Scent Fear. Blood / Diagnosis totally overrides it!). I do not want another useless skill that will rarely fire off for a minor inconvinence. Mosquitoes attack to irritate. Zombies kill. While I'm all for buffing zombies, this is not it. --Siddhant 08:58, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Re - We already have numerous status tags. What's one more? I can understand "server killer" being a reason to kill on much more complex suggestions that ping the crap out of the server, but something that is only marginally different than what we already have? And Infection is mostly a nuisance too. Hell, infection can be removed by ANYone with a FAK. That's pretty much.... every body in the game. Riktar 18:17, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I love status effects that are balanced and reasonable. --Zarquon 09:50, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - There are three things right about this skill:
    • Gives zombies another skill.
    • gives a better use for generators and surgery.
    • I am in a good mood, and am therefore feeling generous. -- Andrew McM 09:56, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --Marianne Wells
  • Keep -- I find it funny that zombies are headshot and expected to suck it up, but someone here has said if this dinky thing happened to them they'd quit. Ahaha. Anyway. Keep because it's an interesting skill for the Z's, and hey, finally Surgery would have a REAL reason to exist. -- Tabs 17:18, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- The Z's need all the help they can get, and this skill fits in as a counter-balance to Surgery quite well.--JediMastaYoda 03:50, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Makes Surgery useful. --Basher 23:25, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Wow. This would fit quite nicely. Just make sure it gets cured when you die, and it can't be used on zeds. 'The zombie physiology is less bothered by wounds', or something. --Leit 17:16, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Bah humbug. --TheMrFrog
  • Re - Aww, how do I Re this? Hehe, you could have at least left a time stamp. Riktar 08:21, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'm desperate to see some new zombie skills.--The General 13:44, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Renewed Plague

Timestamp: 17:06, 8 Dec 2005 (PST)
Type: Game Event
Scope: Survivours
Description: Perhaps the problem with not enough zombies could be addressed with a simple mass infection of the survivours. A random selection of the survivors could automatically become infected. Some would be able to become healed but I'm sure that a significant amount would not get a first aid kit in time, ballancing the numbers swiftly.

It's not the abilities that makes being a zombie so hard, it's the number of them.

Votes

  • Kill - This is a stopgap. All those who are killed will be revived sooner or later, and they'll just be waiting at revive points until it happens. We need people to actually want to play zombies. --Shadowstar 01:20, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Yeah, most people who don't want to play as a zombie would just wait until they get revived, or start a new character. The numbers would balance, but the actual playing wouldn't.--Dickie Fux 01:33, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Do I need to explain why this is a bad idea. --Deathnut 01:46, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This would only be a temperary fix as all those survivors that wanted to whould go get revived what UD needs is a reason to play a Zombie when a survivor is more fun and can not lose XP to headshot --FriedFish 02:48, 9 Dec 2005
  • Kill - This would be a minor annoyance at best, and not worth the implementation time. Bentley Foss 02:53, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Interesting idea for a random encounter, but not quite going to work in the way you currently are giving us. --MorthBabid 05:04, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Caution: Gapstoppery At Work -- Tabs 17:19, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - We need a long-term solution. --Basher 23:27, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I like this idea because that means more zombies for me to attack :) --Xanthos 00:13, Dec 15 2005

Personal tools
advertisements