Suggestions/9th-Dec-2005

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Closed Suggestions

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

9th December, 2005

VOTING ENDED: 23rd-Dec-2005

Zombie Bomber

Timestamp: 00:56, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: I don't know what 'line' it should go under, but here's the skill: Zombie bombs. If a zombie gets past a siege line barricade into a building, instead of just attacking until it gets headshot and thrown out, how about it blow itself up? A skill like this would NOT yield exp for the zombie, but would have maybe a 25% chance to do 3 damage to every survivor and zombie in the room/block. Coordinated, zeds could actually get into a building and do some real damage rather than being zerged by the humans inside and thrown out.

Clarification: The 25% chance is calculated for each target individually.

Uh, it'd take 1 AP (This could be changed, I dunno if it's too low or not) and would both kill the zombie AND reduce the zombie's AP to zero. It takes AP because a zombie should still not be able to do anything at 0 AP, and it reduces AP to zero to prevent a single zombie from blowing itself up 25 times in a day.

Votes

  • Kill - EXPloding Zombies! To the humour page with you. Oh wait, someone beat you to it. MoFo Jones 00:44, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - Well, I was trying to be serious. Unlike the other skill this one is self-activated as opposed to activated on death. FireballX301 01:15, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • Re:Re - Sorry, didn't mean to trivialize. Still a kill, just don't think exploding zombies are a good idea or in genre, but still do think they are funny. MoFo Jones 02:21, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Makes safehouses useless and more dangerous. --Cabbage cookies 01:12, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Well, at least it's balanced! ... "Barhar! Banana bahmb!" or something like that, I suppose! (Seriously, it just doesn't make sense in UD terms.) --Shadowstar 01:14, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT) Oh. You're being serious? I'll give a more serious answer then. It's a good idea, well intentioned and the first of its kind to seem balanced. But. I just don't see how that fits in UD. If you can convince me, I'll change the vote to keep. --Shadowstar 01:17, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it, adds some more fear into having a zombie penetrate a building. --Ross 17:20, 8 Dec 2005 (PST)
  • Kill - Balanced, but doesn't make sense. Also, a zombie with Ankle Grab could blow itself up after 2 AP regenerated, which would be once every hour. --Dickie Fux 01:36, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Balanced? This lets you do about 200 damage in highly populated areas using 1 AP! Oh hi caiger mall *splode*. 300 people dead at once! Please don't ever suggest anything like this again. In fact, it would be best if nobody knows this was suggested at all. It will be our secret, forever. --Zaruthustra 01:38, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - Then perhaps limit it to affecting a maximum number of people, perhaps 40? So on average it would do 30 damage total, 3 to each successfully hit survivor. Regarding earlier point about hourly bombing, limiting a zombie to using it only once every 24 hours would probably solve that.FireballX301 01:46, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Meh, all the reasons have been stated. Mikm 01:52, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Bad idea for the same reason that ideas for grenades and bombs for survivors have been shot down. Rolland CW 02:32, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Though I find the idea of Palestinian zombies quite amusing. Mheh. - KingRaptor 02:42, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm going to go remedy the lack of "No AoE attacks" on the Dos and Donts page right now... Bentley Foss 02:51, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - "LEAD US FOR THE SWARM!" "SACRIFICE ME!" *KABOOM!* --Kulatu 02:58, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Kulatu's crude immitation of the Zerg really says something. --ALIENwolve 03:06, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Question: How/Why would it blow up? I know this is a zombie game, so realism isn't quite in high demand, but still. Flavor issues. --MorthBabid 05:06, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No. Rhialto 05:25, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - NO, BAD, NO, NO INFESTED TERRANS. NO, NOT STARCRAFT --Vellin 07:33, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Granted, I haven't seen every zombie movie in the universe, but I've seen most of the major ones. In no case did a zombie spontaneously explode. X1M43 17:20, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Area effects are bad according to the FAQ. --Phaserlight 19:01, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - OMFGWTFLOLROFLSTFUBBQ ZERG RUSH!!!!111oneoneoneeleventy-one. Technically, it's "Live for the swarm." But it's still a horrible idea for this game. Zombies could just group together in large numbers and systematically take out entire safe houses with no effort. --PatrickDark 19:39, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Zombies are not suicide bombers. They may be suicidal, but suicidal without a purpose, unlike real suicide bombers, who do it for religion, beliefs, honorable death, their country, their emperor, etc. AllStarZ 00:32, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - no. zombie. bombs. you cant even justify this in terms of... well, in any terms. no exploding zombies please. --Firemanstan 20:58, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Breaks two of the Do and Do not's :Firstly Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Area_of_Effect_Abilities ;and secondly Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Multiply_It_By_A_Billion, it is also ridiculously stupid, plus it's a repeat suggestion of this.--The General 18:09, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

They’re Climbing the Walls

Timestamp: 02:34, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill (Military) with Item
Scope: Survivors
Description: I suggest that a new skill be implemented under the Military’s Free Running skill: Climbing. In military basic training, a recruit is forced to a great deal of climbing of different sorts. I suggest that the Climbing skill would be usable with a Rope (see below) and would allow survivors to climb up a building’s side in order to enter a window at a high story or a rooftop door.
  • ’’’Free Running’’’ - Player can move from one building to an adjacent one without expending extra AP to enter it. Bypasses barricades which would otherwise prevent entrance. The Scout begins with this skill.
  • ’’’Climbing’’’ – Player can scale a building. Allows for the entering of heavily barricaded buildings. Player must have a Rope Coil to use skill.

Item: ‘’’Rope Coil’’’ Locations: Mall (Hardware Store), Mall (Sporting Goods Store), Forts, Factory, Fire Station, Junkyard, Police Department, Warehouse

A simple coil of rope.


Percentages would be up for debate.

Remember that this would cause even more ways to make the game challenging in itself.

Votes

  • Keep – It’s my idea, so duh. --Zacharias Cross 02:34, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Looking for ways into a safehouse is part of what makes the game so challenging. --MaulMachine 21:36, 08 Dec 2005 (EST)
  • Kill - Ummm I'm pretty sure this is already inside of the Peer Reveiwed Suggestions but i don't like it as it would further increase the barricading and only make it harder to play as a newbie or zombies. --FriedFish 2:54, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - FriedFish is good. --ThunderJoe 02:56, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I appreciate the fact that this would provide a way to pass barricades greater than Very Strongly. This borders on the points made here (Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Finding_New_Ways_To_Do_Old_Things_IS_BAD) but that guideline doesn't entirely apply. I just don't like this idea. Bentley Foss 02:59, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill --Dickie Fux 03:07, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam Sorry, bro, but this has been suggested and shot down before. Check the archives. --MorthBabid 05:03, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Besides, free running ENTAILS climbing. You climb up the outside of buildings to get to upper story windows. Thats supposedly how you get into the heavily barricaded buildings, You jump across the buildings up into the windows that aren't baricaded. --Vellin 07:31, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I would happily change it to Keep if this skill carried over to undeath, though. --Graaaaaaagh 08:44, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Keep/change Don't make it above Free Running, but at the same level as it so as to be more newbie accessible --Marianne Wells Keep/Change is not a valid vote. Go back and try it again. --Carfan7 00:11, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Kill - The point of heavily barricading is to keep people out. Don't try to nerf barricades.--The General 18:32, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

A way to incress number of zombies

Overall just a really bad thought out suggestion. Deleted by the author --FriedFish 03:45 Dec 9 2005 (GMT)

In game new classes for zombies

Timestamp: 03:08, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: classes
Scope: new zombies and old ones alike
Description: If any one has a zombie class sugestion this will limit existing zombies by keeping them in there one class, these would keep the game from geting better for quite a while the overall efect being spread out for all but expert zombies with lots of xp to burn. My idea is to create a set of new skills that are in skill trees so you start off as a corpse and then gain a new class. The classes would be: Mummy's who would specialize in airborn infectons, absorbing damage, and/or hopping out of holes to attack people; Rotting Zombie's who would specialize in giving infections, absorbing damage (gooey), and doing damage; Ghoul's who would specialize in infecting, dealig the killing blow, and gaining Hit Points; Vampire's who would specialize in biteing, using digestion, and blending in with humans;Ravaging Undead who would specialize in doing damage, having hit points, killing un-descteatly. This covers Roting,Perseved,Super,and "Genaral" zombie ideas. The trees would look somthing like this like this example skill tree:

Basic Vampire Required levle: 5 Prequisit skills: Digestion, memories of life, luching gait. Under-skills:Human looking Benifit: you apper as a survivor to other survivors.

  • Advanced Vampire Required levle: 10 Prequisit skills: Basic vampire. Under-skills:
    • Neck bite Benifit: you gain twice as many hit points from a sucsesful bite
    • Delicious blood Benifit: 1/2hp from digestion go's to xp if at full health
    • Fluent Mind Benifit: you can spaek normaly exept all "w" 's become "v" 's and "c" 's beome "k" 's
    • Fangs Benifit: +1 to damage from bite attacks
  • Super Vampire Required levle: 20 Prequisit skills: Advanced vampire. Under-skills:
    • Imitate old life Benifit: You can gain entrance to all lightly baricaded buildings
    • Hipnotize Benifit: Biten charicters can't succesfuly hit the you untill they take damage or are healed, however they know they can't hit you.

The puchasing skill tree above would cause all others to be unaccesable exept Ravaging Undead. Note: This is an example skill tree other skill trees could be created.

Votes

  • Kill - Well thought out but essentially this is not Vampires. --ALIENwolve 03:11, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Are you suggesting Vampires, or are you suggesting zombie classes in general? This sentence -- "these would keep the game from geting better for quite a while" -- sounds like you don't want the game to get better. --Dickie Fux 03:14, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - There are much better ways to implement zed classes than your suggestion. And for crying out loud, please spellcheck!!! --VoidDragon 03:31, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm sorry but this is probably the worst way to make zeds more interesting ever. I agree with everything said above. --FriedFish 03:36, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - A better way has been suggested Mikm 04:01, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Reading this hurts my brain. Make it stop. Bentley Foss 04:56, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Might I suggest you go buy a bargin bin copy of "Vampires The Masquerades: Bloodlines", instead? :) --MorthBabid 05:02, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This is a zombie game, not a vampire game. Learn the distinct differences between the two. --Kulatu 05:50, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill- Ok, first off all, RavenBlack is gonna slap you. Second of all, this is a SCI-FI zombie game, not a FANTASY zombie game. Egro vampires and mummies do not fit (besides, what clues have the game given you that puts malton anywhere remotely close to Romania or Egypt? Finally, a few other have suggested much better versions that take the Sci-Fi aspect into proper text. --Vellin 07:28, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - The idea is that zombies are changing into seprate gorups, (not just vampires) and are developing new ways to do so. In the hot and cold they dry out into mummys and rot into roting zombies or develop sepcilzations to blend in with humans and specilizations to ues digestion. I only used the ideas I could to make this ecentialy like zombie hunters as a class. You could remove vampires and have zombies specilizing in looking human. The way I wrote this was I thought of all of the things zombies do to earn xp; suprize attacks, infecting, dealing the last blow, and ZKing and put them into classes; vampires, roting zombies, ghouls, and ravaging undead respectiivly, and mummies just there to not take as much damage as posible. I'm not saying "WE SHOULD HAVE VAMPIRES!" it was just what I could think of at the moment. This is posible, though, dead bodies dry out, animals specilize, and zombies should do these things too. --Mr NoName 15:40, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- I mean, you didn't give me werewolves; how else was I supposed to vote on this? Just kidding. It's not a good idea at all. -- Tabs 17:21, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This would be a kickass suggestion, were this a humans vs undead game. Sadly, it's a Human vs Zombie horde game. --PatrickDark 19:26, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Is this a joke? Or is this another suggestion for a use for the crucifix. Either way, this will be shot down with prejudice. Considerable downtime attributable to spilling water on my keyboard 00:28, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Vampire? Uh... I think you want the OTHER game. --Shadowstar 00:53, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - this already looks good and dead, but just in case. what Shadowstar said ^. --Firemanstan 21:04, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This seems like a good way to balance the zombies, but is completely out of flavor for this game. --Tereseth 22:47, 22 Dec 2005 (mountain)

Resistance Antibody

Timestamp: 04:15, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Suvivors, Scientists
Description: A skill taken in life in preparation of possible zombification. Prerequisite is Lab Experience. The scientist creates an injection (there's no items involved, just explanation) designed to give themselves resistance to the zombie plague. It would delay the brain slowing effects of turning into a zombie, allow them to say 3 things in normal suvivor-like speech after being kiled. They see this: "say [box for dialogue] (3)." The number would count down as they use their talks. When all three are used the box would dissapear entirely. I imagine people choosing to say things like "Help meeeee...." or "I don't want to walk around without a soul". It allows them if they approach suvivors by themselves to request revivification, which is a little less metagamey than automatically following graffiti signs to the nearest revive point church. People in the room would see " a zombie said: ________" with "a zombie" being a clickable link to their profile. Won't help them get revived in a crowd of zombies (because it's hard to pinpoint one croaked voice out of a thousand moans), but useful when they're by themselves. They get a limited number of tells because the antibody only lets them preserve their mind for a little bit longer. After a short while they succumb and become like all other zombies so they need to conserve that dialogue. It does not recharge. They get 3 and that number is not reset until they are revived and die again so this will not lead to conversing zombies.

Votes

  • Kill - More people should learn to play as zombies. -- Ethan Frome 04:40, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - There should be nothing to make it easier for survivors to get revived. Why worry about death if it's incredibly easy to come right back? Bentley Foss 04:58, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It's not like it's that hard to get revived at the moment anyways. Look up nearest revive point, shamble over, say "Mrh?"
    [<a target="_blank" style="color:#8fbf00;" href="http://zombietalk.oldeenglish.org/">Zombish</a> for "mr?"]
    [<a target="_blank" style="color:#8fbf00;" href="http://zombietalk.oldeenglish.org/">Zombish</a> for "mr?"] if you feel like it, and wait for the next person to stop by with syringes. — g026r 04:59, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill This just doesn't work with the mechanics of the game. The only reason ANYONE stands up after being killed is due to the unending chain of life-death-undeath-revived that goes on. Why would people survive at all rather than just die and rot on the floor? --MorthBabid 05:00, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like the idea of the Scientists getting a way to help resisting the zombie virus (I suppose that's one thing they are researching with this "experiment", this isn't the way.--Zarquon 09:23, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Oh, what, it's not like you can't just hang outside an NT building for an hour or two and get popped back to life. -- Tabs 17:22, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Hmm, I don't like it. It's too much like a multi-step skill. --Phaserlight 19:07, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Looting Skill

Timestamp: 04:31, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Suvivors, Civilians
Description: A subskill of bargain hunting Looting gives suvivors an increased chance of finding items in suburbs with a lower than average human population. The average number of suvivors per suburb would be calculated. Searching in suburbs with suvivor populations lower than average would result in progressively more success with searches. In a slightly underpopulated area it might just be a +1% bonus but in somewhere like Ridleybank it could be around +10%. This is to encourage suvivors to spread out and not stay in one place with a million other people. It makes sense too real-world logic wise since places with more people would have been more heavily searched for goods (and presumably have fewer left) than uninhabited regions and to reflect the competition for these goods. If too many people moved to a low pop suburb and raised it to average then it would lose this benefit. Likewise if enough people left a high population suburb it could gain this benefit. I'm not a techie but I don't think it would tax the server too heavily since this would only require one simple if long math problem for each suburb and that one figure could be used for everyone in the area. The bonuses for suburbs could be updated hourly, daily, whatever is reasonable server wise.

Votes

  • Keep ...Boy, the Hurricane Katrina survivors are gonna hate us. :) But seriously, this does make SOME sense and would help the game. But be more specific on the exact numbers you're giving us to work with here. --MorthBabid 04:57, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Survivors do not need an even easier time of finding items. And yes, there are a reasonable amount of "techie" issues to consider. This requires a minimum of 201 automatic queries at best (count the number of survivors in each suburb; calculate average suburb population; store the count for each suburb) to a maximum of 10,201 (count each survivor in each block; generate totals by suburb; compute average population; store the data for each suburb) queries at worst. Then you need to do a comparison and/or boolean check (depending on how the suburb average is stored...best as a boolean "yes this is lower than avg pop" flag) for each and every search in all the suburbs. Gah. That's a lot of work. And those recalculating queries just perpetually eat up processor cycles and bandwidth... No, no, no. Bentley Foss 04:59, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Not as much as you think. The total number of active survivors is known already, without any special counting. The server polls this once every hour or three anyway for the stats page. Counting the number per suburb and comparing that to the (total/100) is the only real calculation involved. Rhialto 05:32, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Don't vote kill on something because YOU think it would be too hard to program or too hard on the server. The ONLY person here qualified to make those kind of judgements are Kevan, don't presume to know what he can and cannot do. Personally, I like the idea for what it is and no name. --Kulatu 05:48, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - As I said, I think it's a pretty simple calculation. I generally dislike the whole server argument except for things that are obviously impossible. Something like "Suvivors get private houses that only they can enter and they can store 500 things in them". Also I should note this skill, though for humans, is primarily designed to help zombies by breaking people off into smaller groups and exposing looters and the people they leave behind to greater danger. --Jon Pyre 06:23, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like the idea behind the skill. Maybe change Bargain Hunting instead? -Brock Freakin Samson 06:53, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This sounds like it would be better as a backend change, as opposed to a skill. Maybe a reduction in search success for heavily populated areas, with a message on failed searches indicating how picked over the ruins are. (or some such) --Tyroney 07:09, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - I thought of that too Tyroney. I decided to suggest it in a way that offered incentives to spread thinner without penalizing anyone. There's an argument for the other way too though. --Jon Pyre 07:14, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Interesting idea indeed. As a side note, decreasing the search rates in high pop areas would increase the overall power of melee weapons and decrease the power of firearms. Without enough ammo, I doubt any human group, no matter how organized, wouldn't be able to stand long against a zombie siege. --Zarquon 09:41, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No survivor search bonuses. Please. - KingRaptor 12:17, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You already have a very good item find rate in malls. You dont need more. --Grim s 13:50, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Survivors are already overpowered, lets balance the game first before throwing it even further out of wack. - phungus420
  • Kill - Like Tyroney said; make a penalty for highly populated areas, and a bonus for sparsely populated areas. Areas with average population would break even. --Dickie Fux 16:40, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- In an average suburb one of my humans has spent the last two days gathering ammo. If he had any actual GUNS on him, he'd be a walking arsenal right now, as much as he's found. Not necessary. -- Tabs 17:25, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I really like this idea... gives a slight edge to those who go it alone. --Phaserlight 19:10, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It sounds good to me. Some spreading out would be nice. It might even help low-level zombies, since they'll have a slightly higher chance of finding survivors wandering around. I'm sure Kevan can come up with appropriate search percentages to keep it balanced. --Max Lord 22:46, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I think it would be better if it had a penalty when there are a LOT of survivors in an area as well, instead of just an increase for when there are a few. --Shadowstar 00:56, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Small XP Compensation for Barricade Attacks

Timestamp: 06:06, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Zombies
Description: It has been argued many times before that attacking barricades should provide some sort of XP gain for zombies - these suggestions have always been shouted down for two reasons. a) "The humans inside are incentive enough" and b) "This allows XP farming".

After discussion on the UD forums, consensus has been reached as to a system that would benefit zombie players without allowing exploits. There are two main problems with zombies to address here: Firstly, the AP cost to enter a building at the moment is very restrictive. A VS building will take between 30 to 40 AP to break into (if we assume a 20% hit chance and 8 hits on a VS barricade). When travelling in hordes, this does not present a significant problem. As a new zombie however, this is a major setback. Entering a building with only 10-15 AP and a 20%, 2 damage hit percentage allows for almost zero XP gain before the inevitable headshot. The first few levels are so hard to gain as a zombie that over ONE THIRD of active zombies are level 1 or 2. This is not balance.

Secondly, there is no greater dissapointment than breaking into a building with all your AP to find it empty (or just as bad - to find that you are unable to open the locked door behind it). Survivors have many alternate sources of XP when zombies numbers are low - healing, tagging, reading. Zombies rely on human presence, and spending 40 AP to break into a building and discover that there is no human presence is very disheartening. "The humans inside are incentive enough," eh? Not when spending your entire day's AP is a lucky-dip.

Therefore, XP for breaking barricades should be instituted. It provides a small reward to beginner zombies, allowing them to gain those first few levels slightly quicker and get the skills necessary to actually be a threat (Memories of Life especially). A 1 XP reward for causing damage to a barricade is negligable - the XP gain rate is only 0.2, whereas higher level zombie vs zombie farming provides 0.4 at the least to 0.6 at most. Total XP gained from an entire day of bashing barricades would be, on average, 10XP. This is not conducive to XP farming, rather a total waste of time to players who have a drive to XP farm (more reliable XP would be had from attacking fellow zombies, even on lvl 1). It would, however, take the edge off the sting that newer zombie players so keenly feel. Perhaps so many beginner zombies wouldn't be so quickly abandoned, and so many players scared off the experience of playing for the "bad side."

The suggestion was put forward on the forums to possibly limit the XP bonus to zombies under level 4 - thos would also ensure that only new players take the slight advantage from this change.

In summary, a 1 XP bonus per barricade level destroyed would:

  • advantage newer zombies
  • help reduce the exodus of zombie players to the human side
  • not reduce the strength or usefulness of barricades
  • not be a source for XP farming.

Forum topic: http://zombies.desensitised.net/board/index.php?topic=4102.0

Votes

  • Keep - This is a self vote, so feel free to disregard it when counting: but I counter. I stated above that yes, it has been proposed before. It has also never been properly discussed, always shouted down without actually examining the potential for XP farming (none). I feel it needs another look. (EDIT EDIT: Thanks KingRaptor, I hadn't realised it had actually posted while I was still editing it up) Ruzkin 06:09, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I've always said there should be a small reward for breaking 'cades. 1XP is too low though, 2 would be good. Oh, and please finish typing your suggestion before proposing it, 'k? (That's why I deleted the votes: they were making fun of the unfinished suggestion and are no longer funny since they don't make sense on their own) - KingRaptor 06:13, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Either 1 or 2xp sounds good to me. The young zombies could definitely use a boost like this. Besides, the whole point of xp is that you gain them for valuable experiences and accomplishments. Destroying a VS barricade sounds like an accomplishment to me. - D4rk N00b 6:34, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'm not sure if the mechanics work, hell, I don't know HOW they work, but the concept is good. -Brock Freakin Samson 06:52, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Zombies deserve something for barricade smashery Preacher Tom 07:42, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Who knows, it might even cut down on some of those empty barricaded buildings. --Graaaaaaagh 08:45, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Long needed. No need to limit the XP to low level guys though. Rhialto 09:00, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I find it is currently more worth it to attack other zombies than to try to break into barricades and attack the humans inside (if any at all). --Zarquon 09:43, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I think this is a sensible idea, and well thought out, should add some risk back to my survivors, and some fun to my zombies. --Turner Calton 11:20, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)--
  • kill/change - make it a % chance per barricade level taken down and it would be much more palitable. - LS 08:14, 09 DEC 2005 (GMT-5)*** Keep/Change is not a valid vote. Go back and do it again. --Carfan7 00:14, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • re: actually it says only the valid part of what I said would count I VOTE KILL baka!
  • Keep - --Fullemtaled 13:23, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sensible. Rewards zombies for their hard work, keeps survivors on their toes, and gradually erodes all the pointless barricades.--WibbleBRAINS 14:06, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Zombies need more ways to get xp. And this helps newbie zombies who can't fight too well yet. --TheTeeHeeMonster 15:08, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yes please. --Antrobus178 15:21, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - For zombiekind everywhere..
  • Keep --Dickie Fux 16:51, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- I had this problem early on and it did nearly make me stop playing. I resorted to naughtybad ZKing, just to get along. And while it helped, I would much rather have not had to do that just by RP preference. This is a good, useful, helpful idea. -- Tabs 17:29, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Well, it sure does give experience at unliving to smash barricades in search of brains... --Hexedian 17:41, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Great, well thought out, well balanced suggestion. --Phaserlight 19:12, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I liked 2 XP per level of barricades best, but that part would really be up to Kevan. I particularly like the idea of limiting it to zombies under level 4, though I think that it should also differentiate between survivor levels and zombie levels as stated so many times before. --Kulatu 19:13, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I say 2XP per barricade level destroyed. Riktar 19:30, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - For all the above reasons and more. Don't forget a Lvl 18 human killed for the first time, will be able to get a little bit of EXP with this, and might play, rather than chicken out with a revive. And it might reduce pointless barricading.Lancensis
  • Keep - But it does seem useless. --ALIENwolve 20:06, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This will add a much needed area for XP gain for Zombies. Dinferno 21:49, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This actually sounds quite good, which I didn't expect when I read the title :-P --Sknig 22:21, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This is a good idea, but Kevan should be very careful when deciding the xp given (if he likes the idea), it can't become too powerful, or too worthless. It also makes sense, wouldn't a zombie get a little more experienced if s/he practiced attacking something? Arrod 19:46, 9 Dec 2005 (EST)
  • Keep - This one is much, much better than previous ideas of the same kind, especially with saying that it should apply only to low level zombies. --Shadowstar 01:00, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I officially apologize for making fun of this suggestion while it was being made. This is a perfect way to give zombies alternate ways of making XP! Perhaps tohugh, it should give randomly between 1 and 3 XP instead of just one? Does't matter of course, as long as the gain can only go to zombies, I totally back up this idea! --Volke 01:18, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - For great justice. furtim 02:57, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Take off every zig!!! --Hagnat 03:15, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This is a great idea! --Caelestis 03:54, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - keepity keep keep keeperooo!--Athos710 04:24, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Great idea. Long needed. --McSnatherson
  • Keep - Yes please. --Dashiva 20:43, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good idea, if for no other reason than to make the early Zombie levels less tedious. --Kramer 14:58, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sounds good to me, and quite fair. --Seagull Flock 13:33, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - very impressive. best suggestion along those lines that ive seen. --Firemanstan 21:09, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yes.--The General 13:55, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - A deserved bonus for the shambling undead. --Penance 00:00, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Comrade Morgan 19:38, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I've seen something like this idea before in the old forums, and still think this is very good. --Omega2 17:34, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - KEEP KEEP KEEP!!! Nice facts youcited there. We really really need this in game. BARHAH HARMANZ! --Tereseth 22:02, 23 Dec 2005 (gmt)

Revamped Headshot XP Calculation

Timestamp: 06:11, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Balance tweak
Scope: Headshot
Description: Make Headshot deduct 7XP, plus 3XP for every zombie skill. A level 2 zombie would lose 13XP (relatively minor, despite their horrible XP gain) while a level 11 would lose 40 (significant, but not crippling). EDIT: Level 1 zombies should be ignored, like they are now.

Votes

  • Keep - Author's vote. Also, in case you care, this idea was posted on behalf of shamelessly stolen from Brickman on the UD forums. - KingRaptor 06:11, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sounds good, headshot's causing a lot of grief (no pun intended) in its current form. -Brock Freakin Samson 06:50, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Much more reasonable than 10/level. --Graaaaaaagh 08:46, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Much more reasonable than the current 10XP for every skill (even dormant survivor skills). Still one problem with it though: it only hurts zombies that still have room to improve and leaves the maxed out zombies unscathed.--Zarquon 09:47, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - While headshot is nothing but a griefer skill and should be axed entirely, this would make it not as game breaking, and might help converts and casual players accept playing as a zombie. --phungus420
  • Keep - This keeps Headshot painful, and less likely to make zombies give up the game in disgust. --WibbleBRAINS 15:20, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it. --Pyrinoc 15:45, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Anything to make Headshot less aggravating. --Dickie Fux 16:53, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Anything to make Headhsot less aggravationg for low level Zeds! PLus, thsi skill jsut flat out kicks ass. - Skarmory 17:10, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- I would prefer something MAJOR done to overhaul Headshot but I'll take anything that sounds good like this right now. -- Tabs 17:30, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like those numbers. It would give a new way to get zombie skills, besides playing as a survivor and switching with XP to spare. --Hexedian 17:37, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - How many times do I have to say it. Headshot = fkn Ankle Grab! --ZombieAPOC 17:41, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re You can say it as many times as you want: you'd just be wrong all of them. An extra 9AP a day is NOWHERE near losing an entire weeks work of XP with one stupid headshot.--Clickytickytai 00:36, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)

**Re - ZOMG ANKLE GRAB 4 TEH WIN!!11!!!! Unsighed and completely incoherent.--The General 18:46, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

      • RE - Its a reference to an earlier suggestion's spam. --Tereseth 23:09, 23 Dec 2005 (mountain)
      • 'Re - COULD EVERYONE STOP L33T SHOUTING!! ARRRRRGGH! *cough* -- Andrew McM 17:58, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Post haste; this at least means that you don't have to avoid a headshot until you level up; you can essentially take a headshot and keep going, to some degree. --The Brian 18:02, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - HS does need some tweakage, this sounds good...as long as lv1 zeds are ignored. --Phaserlight 19:15, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I think you're doing the opposite of what needs to be done. Yes Headshot needs to be tweaked - but so that it does more to higher level zombies than lower level zombies. It really is difficult to level as a zombie in this game, in the early stages. Level 1 zombies should always lose 0XP from a headshot, at least that's my opinion. Riktar 19:32, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Seems all right. But APOC really needs to learn to shut up. --ALIENwolve 20:08, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill --VoidDragon 20:31, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT).
  • Keep - I'm definitely in support of toning down the harsh effects of headshot. Dinferno 21:49, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I don't really care too much one way or the other about the 7XP part, but the only zombie skills part makes perfect sense. Riktar: Headshot does 0XP to level one zombies. --Sknig 22:16, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yes, headshot currently does 0XP damage to level one zombies. This skill would change that to 10XP damage. Change it. --Shadowstar 01:03, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT) Vote changed. Headshot IS still too powerful against mid-level zombies, so this would help. --Shadowstar 02:18, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - Ok, I changed it. - KingRaptor 01:22, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - A more equitable headshot. Though there is no real benefit from headshot in the first place, this reduces the egregious harm. --MaestroXC
  • Keep - Jirtan 06:22, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'd prefer to axe headshot all-together, but this is a step in the right directionAthos710 14:52, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Much better XP values. Less-crippling. --Drakkenmaw 17:57, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - one of the better headshot modification suggestions. well done sir.--Firemanstan 21:13, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like the idea, but SOMETHING needs to be done about survivor levels being used in the calculation of effect (currently a 20th level survivor turned to 1st level zombie will lose 210 XP). Make zombie and survivor levels independent and I'll vote to keep.--Pesatyel 05:22, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Better, but I still think headshot needs more tweaking MAJOR OVERHAULING.--The General 18:46, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This IS better than it is right now, but the what head shot should do: have a 5% chance to happen out of every shot a survivor makes. A successful headshot would remove 1 AP from the zombies current count. You guys like that? --Tereseth 23:06 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Feral

Timestamp: 06:57, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: This is inspired by my (though not linked in any way) Looting suggestion I made earlier today. That skill suggestion is designed to spread suvivors into underused suburbs by making them have a slightly higher chance of finding items if there are less suvivors around. Here's a zombie counterpart to that idea. If a zombie with Feral enters a suburb with fewer zombies (either standing or corpses) than average they get a slight xp bonus (percentage based off the normal xp they get). The fewer zombies there are in the area compared to the average number of zombies per suburb the greater the bonus is. I'm not sure what would be fair percentages, but whatever the amount would be would have to be rewarding while not "congrats zombie, you landed a hit here's 25 xp for that". This skill is just designed to reflect that it's harder for a zombie to gain xp and not lose it on their own, and they should be rewarded for doing that.

Votes

  • Kill - Utterly useless due to headshot --Grim s 13:52, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Sigh, maybe I should vote keep on the not have zombies suggestions.. --Jon Pyre 14:19, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like the looting suggestion, but zombies are horde creatures, if anything they should get bonuses for staying together. --Phaserlight 19:17, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You should try to get zombies to stay together not apart. --ALIENwolve 20:10, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - They already get a bonus for staying together. It's called having 200 allies. And why should zombies have to stay together all the time? Not every zombie story is about tens of thousands of zombies. You can have one of them moving about by themselves. As a matter of fact most "horde" zombie movies have a moment like that, where the protagonists are attacked by a lone zombie. --Jon Pyre 22:19, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I understand the point, and think it's a good idea, because ferals shouldn't be penalized, but I think it might be better to increase their hit percentages based on the ratios instead. --Shadowstar 01:05, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like suburbs full of zombies and huge stacks of them. --Seagull Flock 13:36, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - At First this seemed like a good idea, but what about when more people join the game and it gets really big? This is A MASSIVELY Multiplyer Online Game, not a console game. Besides, zombies are supposed to travel in hordes. Watch Dawn of the Dead or Land Of the Dead. --Tereseth 23:26 23 Dec, 2005

Cinema Management

Timestamp: 10:30, 9 Dec 2005
Type: Fluff
Scope: Survivors in a cinema
Description: This is just fluff, but it would be great fun for survivors to be able choose and describe the movie playing in a cinema once you have a fueled generator set up. Cinema's without power should have blank screens with nothing playing. It would be an easy feature to implement and done right it gives a tiny but entertaining incentive for groups of film buff survivors to hole up outside malls and forage for generators and fuel cans (not to mention popcorn kernels and canisters of nacho cheese sauce).

Votes

  • Keep - To prevent players from using this as a place to type stupid crap, there should be a menu to select a film genre (assuming the cinema has power), and then the server would randomly select a film from within that genre. Of course, Kevan would have to populate that list first... Rhialto 11:29, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Maybe if it could be used to place massages as movies, sure. But, not as is. - --Fullemtaled 12:21, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I am always in favour of improvements to flavour. -- Andrew McM 12:31, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yes please, by the time I find any Z's I have no AP left to shoot, might as well watch a film instead! --Ivor 13:11, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Me likey. Just one thing: we oughta make sure we have some survival-horror movies in there (like the oldskool . . . of the Dead/ . . . of the Living Dead movies) - after all, what's a zombie apocalypse without zombies or zombie movies? --John Taggart 14:44, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Movie theatres would make cool safe houses then. A movie clip of zombie patton in front of an american flag loops in the background. --Zaruthustra 15:00, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep If you ask me, more buildings should use the generators be it increasing the Flavor of the game of actual gameplay changes.
  • Keep - Nice idea. --Dickie Fux 16:55, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nice for flavor. And if you really need incetive to stay in a powered cinema, how about every AP spent there has the same effect as a book, in addition to whatever you spent it on? - Skarmory 17:13, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'm with John Taggart here. Let us at least have Zombie movies, if we don't have Zombies. And it adds to the flavor nicely. --Falk 18:20, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It would be interesting if setting up a film was random as to what you'd "find" to play.. and if a Zombie Survival film comes up you get XP from learning some new tricks and information on the topic at hand. -- Amazing 18:33, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Its sad. Even a zombie "apocalypse" cant fight Hollywood. You can already tag the Marqui .Maybe if when powered that tag read on the inside as " --- is the film in progress" bbrraaiinnss 19:04, 09 Dec
  • Keep - That'd be cool. --ALIENwolve 20:13, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Cinemas have always needed something to distinguish them from other buildings. Dinferno 21:49, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Very tasty flavor. --Sknig 22:12, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Allow zombies to change it too! But... well, obviously other things are more important. --Shadowstar 01:06, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Not at the top of the priority list, but heck, why not? --Seagull Flock 13:37, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - what Seagull Flock said ^. flavor is good. --Firemanstan 21:17, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Indeed, flavour is nice. Maybe make the players populate the list with their favourite movies? --Omega2 17:40, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Hell yes! Great idea! The movie should be displayable as a message, just because that seems like the most obvious and easy way to do this. I don't see why fullmetaled voted kill...--Tereseth (23:34) 23 Dec 2005)

Infectious Bite V2.1

Timestamp: 12:20, 9 Dec 2005 (CET)
Type: balance change, improvement
Scope: survivors
Description: Change the HP loss caused by Infectious Bite from one/action to (number of actions done since infection)/action to a maximum of 5/action. So, the first action after infection would cost no HP, the second action would cost 1 HP, the third 2 HP. Up to this point the losses are same in both models. Further actions become more costly for the survivor. This would increase the need to be cured and put at least some pressure on infected survivors. It also is more "realistic" as diseases rarely are linear. The linearity -as it is now- hardly ever kills survivors, and thus is not a threat but a nuisance. With the highly improved healing capabilities, the HP loss is not a concern once the infection is cured, even when more HP have been lost. This proposal just increases tha chance that someone actually dies because he was bitten (as we have seen in all Zombie movies: At least one of the characters is bitten, survives, then dies of the infection and raises as an undead).

Changes from prevous version are in italics.

Votes

  • Kill - Damage rises too fast; a 50HP survivor only has 11 moves to live once bitten. Maybe if the damage/AP was capped at 3-5 or the climb wasn't so steep. - KingRaptor 12:10, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - 11 moves is plenty to run and get healed. As i said: It is to put pressure on the survivors. Otherwise you just run around some more and then some more and then after a while you consider getting healed. -- Falk 14:25, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The whole reason that Infectious Bite saps only 1 HP per move is so that it isn't essentially an instant-kill move. Besides, most people carry FAKs with them to cure infections anyway. Those who don't are probably noobs (no need to grief the noobs) or stupid (in which case they'd die from an infection anyway). I'm supporting new zombie skills, but this ain't it. -- Ethan Frome 14:10, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - It is not an instant kill-move. It increases the pressure on survivors. That's what it is supposed to do. And if people carry their emergency FAK with them ... why should they be bothered by this change? It even allows them to cure the infection before any more harm happens. -- Falk 14:25, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Author voting -- Falk 14:25, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Whilst I have very little sympathy for survivors, just 11 actions isn't enough to get to a hospital in many suburbs. --WibbleBRAINS 14:24, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Since when do you need a hospital to get healed from an infectious bite? That is another idea thoug hthat i could live with: that IB can not be cured by a single untrained FAK anymore. -- Falk 14:25, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • Re: - Do remember that people may not always have medkits with them (or used them all up curing bites!), and hospitals/malls aren't always available. Like I said, nerf it somewhat and it'll be good. - KingRaptor 14:49, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Dont even try man, in my mutations idea I suggested this only with the infection doubling every 5 AP. People still said it was overpowered. This however, it. --Zaruthustra 14:58, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill While zimbies need a buff, this seems a bit too extreme. As was said before, if you capped it at 3-5 HP per AP spent, I'd be all for it, but this goes too far. --phungus420
  • Kill Overpowered. Infectuous bite would be fine as is if it wasn't so easy to cure. Hmm, what if infectuous bite could only be cured with the surgery skill? --Phaserlight 20:28, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Would be another possibility to make Infectious Bite more dangerous. -- Falk 18:15, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - 5HP per move is higher than an actual zombie attack! Are you saying you're hurt more by an infection than a zombie? Hell, you're hurt by infection as much as someone shooting you with a pistol. I don't think that makes sense. --Shadowstar 01:08, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - People do DIE from infections. And a disease that can raise the dead seems to be quite a powerful disease. It sure is lots more than a cold. I'd rather have someone bite me than ...say an HIV infection. -- Falk 18:10, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What part of "no stacking combo bonus skills" did you people miss? Bentley Foss 01:33, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - No stacking in there, no combo in there. Only nonlinear damage. -- Falk 18:10, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Multiply By A Billion
  • Kill - Far too much damage being dealt. --Declan 16:02, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Foetid Stench

Timestamp: 12:06, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Zombie Skill
Scope: career zombies
Description: Requires Brain Rot skill. The zombie has started rotting, and smells real bad. All survivors get a -5% penalty to hit this zombie with all attacks (alternate: all zombies in the area), when inside a building. If there is any zombie with this inside a room, the survivors get a message that "something smells real bad here." The specific zombie cannot be identified, unless of course there is only one present.

Edit: This would not seriously weaken low level humans, as there are generally non-combat ways to get experience anyway. The non-combat levelling methods are generally superior to combat methods at low levels. Also, I think I need to highlight that this skill only affects indoor combat.

Votes

  • Kill That would drop gun atacks to 0% chance to hit for newbies.Edit: That does not matter- no dropping accurcy below 5% for anything but flare gun. Even that is already at 2.5% anyway. Last Edit: one must remember that not all humans have that 40% ax or those 65% guns. The newbies do need to be thought of, how would you like it if all the newbies left the game because zombies are too weak intialy and the surviver class is unplayable in the biggening? - --Fullemtaled 12:19, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • If a newbie is attacking with a weapon with a base 5% to hit, they aren't exactly following sound tactical advice anyway. It's not as if human newbies don't have a thousand other ways to get XP anyway, including attacking with more effective weapons; even fists are more effective by default than untrained pistol use. Rhialto 12:40, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Attacking with a weapon at 5% accuracy is very silly, and people doing so are not expecting to hit. It is a nice way to boost up brain rotters and doesnt seem to be gamebreaking to me, especially to all you humans and your 65% accuracy firearms and 40% accuracy axes. --Grim s 13:55, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Hurts nubs, and I'm against autodefense systems. --Zaruthustra 14:56, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Why not? There are so many ways to earn xp. I've been in the game for a month as a scientist and only attacked twice- once with an axe and once with my fists. And I'm almost level six. Most of my xp comes from healing the people who get hurt. --TheTeeHeeMonster 15:03, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Fair enough. - KingRaptor 15:33, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Does the effect stop when the zombie dies (is a corpse on the ground), or when the body is removed from the building? Also, do you get the "something smells here" message for each zombie with this ability? Voting keep for the basic concept, regardless of the answers to my questions. --Dickie Fux 17:02, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • I envisioned a single message regardless of the number of zombies present. Logically, the message should be persistent as long as the corpse is still inside, but I'd be happy with this if the smell goes when you knock down the zombie. Rhialto 23:13, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Why would it affect firearms? It's not like you have to run up to a zombie before planting a shotgun blast in it's face. --VoidDragon 18:15, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Outdoors, it has no effect on anyone. Indoors, well, modern buildings are usually not designed with good airflow in mind, that being left to air conditioning, which is oops at the moment. Also, all the usual air flow routes such as doors and windows are barred up now. very bad ventilation in an enclosed space allows bad smells to spread to every corner of a building easily. Rhialto 23:09, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Again, I ask, why would smell affect firearm (ranged) attacks? --VoidDragon 00:08, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like the concept but not the implementation. This is far more harsh on lower accuracy (melee) weapons than firearms, which are already kinda weak. I'd much rather see some kind of % damage reduction skill (absorbant flesh?) that worked like an extra flak jacket than an accuracy reduction. --Phaserlight 20:15, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • yes, it is harsher on melee attacks. If you are using melee weapons, you are that much closer to the source of the smell. Rhialto 23:13, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sounds a good idea. Especially the warning of it. --ALIENwolve 20:19, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Voting for my own idea. Rhialto 23:13, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm somewhat amazed by the continual suggestions based on the concept of zombies smelling bad. Anyway, I don't see how it could smell bad enough to throw off someone's aim. -CWD 02:39, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep. Jirtan 06:26, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Don't like the concept. Mechanics I have no specific problem with, but what's with all the "stinky zombie" concepts? --Drakkenmaw 07:53, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The city of Malton has been infected for months at this point, and the bodies of the dead are decomposing on the streets. At this point people are used to the smell of decomposing flesh and sinew, and therefore won't be affected by such offensive smells. --Declan 16:06, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -Zeds need defense, they're sitting ducks as is. If you don't like stink zombies, I'm sure kevin can change the name. And give all the zeds a bath.--Tereseth 23:38 23 DEC, 2005 (GMT)
    • I'd be just as happy calling it "Cloud of Flies", with the vast number of flies effecting giving the zombie some measure of soft cover. Rhialto 06:43, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Recognise Symptons

Oh nos! teh spamz0r. Duplicate of Prognonsis. --Zaruthustra 14:50, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT) }}

No new survivors

Timestamp: 15.10, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: change, fluff
Scope: new characters
Description: Malton is quarantined. No one can get in or out. If someone alive has not shown up yet, then he is dead anyway (starved or eaten by Zeds).

This means, any new player must choose "zombie" as character class, as the corpses in the graveyard are the only humanoids that could have hidden for such a long time and not died. As a compromise new characters could well be "survivor" classes, yet they still haven't survived and start as Zeds.

Votes

  • Kill - This breaks several of the understood norms; it is a stopgap measure, it 'forces' people to play as a character they may well not be interested in, and really it's just creating a shooting gallery for the existing survivor 'elite'. --WibbleBRAINS 15:26, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I understand the drive for making this suggestion, but forcing people to play zombie is no fun. Plus, people could be hiding out in 12th floor apartments or something, so new survivors could come out of the woodwork all the time. --Dickie Fux 17:04, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - If they really want it, they can go get their asses revived. This allows people to try out the other "undead brain-eating freak" side of the game before choosing what they want. --TheTeeHeeMonster 17:11, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Sure, people starting with the "Corpse" class can go get revived...but then they can't get the benefits of military or science castes. X1M43 17:40, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Have you read the part about the compromise? Falk 18:00, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Besides, flavorwise, i'm pretty sure the military airdrops soldiers into Malton. --Vellin 18:07, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -Everyone starting as a zombie seems fine but a corpse class no bbrraaiinnss 19:08, 09 Dec 2005
  • Kill - Great, let's pidgeon hole all new players into one starting class, that will really help this game take off! /sarcasm --Phaserlight 19:36, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You're forgetting that military paradrop into the city. And I'm not sure if you said something about this but don't corpse classes revive as civillians only? --ALIENwolve 20:15, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Wholly without merit. -- Amazing 21:26, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What Dickie said. This is not the way to fix the survivor/zombie imbalance. --Sknig 22:08, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - As above. --Shadowstar 01:10, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I'll only vote keep on this when the survivor/zombie ratio is around 90/10. Until then, I suggest finding ways of making zombies more fun to play, instead. --Volke 05:35, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Quoting Kevan, "UD won't force anyone to play one or the other side." --Seagull Flock 13:41, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Revenant

I do not like green eggs and spam, I do not like them, Sam I Am. (That's three spam votes for those keeping track.) — g026r 00:36, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT) How was it spam? I am sorry, but I posted three ideas, you know, for flavor's sake and with some decent mechanics involved. Sure, some genius decided he'd make a zombie class tree(woooooooooo) But no one came up with names, only descriptions (attack zombie. Woah, I came.. not really) And here I come up with some names, I mean, they're names for pete's sake. Changeable, showing a delineation, better in my opinion than being a class-unnamed "attack zombie" anyway, and I even add some skills along with each class. No one touches the thing for FOUR HOURS.. (at least 2 1/2, I guess four because I left the house after a long time of being passed over). Three spams per topic, probably from the same three people, and I didn't even get to see what they wrote. HELL, I didn't do what most authors do and vote for it myself. So I ask; what was so wrong with the ideas? At least allow them to change, instead of being a baby and shoving it off the board. It's not like the skills were worse than most of the CRAP that gets vomited up around here sometimes, I mean, come on.. besides that, the delineation made some SENSE, had some character to it. With a theme per tree, we could come up with new skills, too. I mean, is it any wonder that with a MEDICAL BRANCH of the SCIENTIST CLASS we suddenly have SURGERY? Giving the zombies direction may well be just what we need to discover new skills for the d*mn things and make them more interesting. - paincake

Well, since you asked, I'm one of those who voted spam. The idea has indeed been suggested before for zombie classes, and in better ways. And although you suggested new skills (which I might even have voted in favour of had they been proposed separately), the three zombie classes you proposed ultimately would suffer from the sameness that high level humans suffer from. If we make zombie classes, I'd rather have it down right from the start for maximum replay value. Rhialto 17:16, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Maybe I'm just not understanding, but I saw these as fine when my friend told me about them (they were removed before I could counter the spams with a detailed keep) and while they were similar to the suggested zombie classes, I didn't think they were similar enough to be considered spam. Especially since he went the extra mile to suggest some good zombie skills to go with them! I don't know if he intended them to be for those zombie classes only or not, but if they were available for all, I'd have voted keep on each one! After all, this may not be the first suggestions for zombie classes, but they were definetly the first ones to actually go into specifics and detail with some good new skills! --Volke 05:48, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
For the Note, I woulda liked to at least read his suggestion. seems if I reg two more accounts, I can obliterate any idea I don't like the sound of. --Tereseth

The Hollow

All right, I'll admit it: I'm out of little taglines for these things. 3 spam votes, for those keeping score. — g026r 00:37, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Shambler

1.. 2.. 3.. 3 spam votes! Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha! (*thunder crashes in the background*) — g026r 00:35, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • What did I hit? --ThunderJoe 16:26, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Persistent Infection

Timestamp: 16:43, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: High level zombies
Description: When a zombie with this skill successfully attacks a survivor EDIT: with a bite attack, the harman gets a Persistent Infection. This type of infection will always cause 1 damage, like regular infection, and has a 50% chance to cause 2 damage. It also requires two FAKs to heal, or can be healed with one FAK if surgery is used.

This skill can be purchased only after Infectious Bite and Brain Rot, since it signals a zombie who has been infected for a long time. This skill will NOT significantly grief noobs, since if they had been attacked by a high level zombie, they would be screwed anyway. It also adds some drama to sieges since survivors have to strike a more careful balance between FAKs and ammo.

Votes

  • Keep - Author vote. -- Ethan Frome 16:43, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Just because you used the word "harman." --Dickie Fux 17:22, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Even though i find it very underpowered for a new Zed skill. But i fear anything that is a bit more "dangerous" to survivors would be shot down in a second. --Falk 17:35, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - Potentially true, but I wanted to be sure that it didn't become a huge problem if, say, a crowd of 100 zombies all have Persistent Infections and are causing big damage. -- Ethan Frome 19:13, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Just because us zombies need more power and something more interesting. - --Fullemtaled 17:46, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - While this alone won't guarantee people start taking Brain Rot, it's a start. --The Brian 18:00, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Should only work w/ bite attacks. (Vote changed 20:21, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)) --VoidDragon 18:17, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - Oops, I meant it to be that way. Changed. -- Ethan Frome 19:01, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I don't like the two FAKs required, but otherwise good idea. --Daxx 19:25, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- Woohoo! Incentive for Rottering is good, and the idea behind this doubly so (damn timestamp). -- Tabs 19:32, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - That works. --ALIENwolve 20:17, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This is better than the straight new 2/AP infection that keeps being suggested. Also, we need some skills under Brain Rot. Adding another benefit to Surgery is good too.--'STER-Talk-Mod 20:34, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -Benefits that are only available to brain rotted zombies are a good idea. Also like the nice touch about surgery. --Matthew-Stewart 20:37, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - So, would using the first FAK reduce the infection to a regular one? --Hexedian 21:37, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - Sure. I thought about this after I posted it, and it's a fine idea. -- Ethan Frome 22:20, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Brain Rot and Surgery would have much more use with this, along with making Infection something worth giving to people. Dinferno 21:44, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - All above reasons. --Sknig 22:05, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Limited scope, reasonable effect, helps with balance without throwing things way off. It would be a good addition. --Kandarin 22:23, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - LS 17:45, 09 Dec 2005 (GMT-5)
  • Keep - infection should be the reason, why zombies are dangerous.--Cah51o 00:43, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - as a human, I want to vote kill... but I can't, it's a good suggestion. --Shadowstar 02:11, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yarr! The survivor in me would hate this happening to him, but the pirate in me says "Yarr, this be bitchin' yarr!" --TheTeeHeeMonster 02:52, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • keep - but the 1st fak applied should lower the effects of the infection to the regular one --Hagnat 03:09, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Uh, complicated and difficult to explain? --LouisB3 04:07, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep. Jirtan 06:29, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - sounds fairly balanced to me. Maybe a bit useless (spending 100XP for a so limited scope?), but has the merit of extending the Zombie skill tree. --Seagull Flock 13:43, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Nothing wrong apart from very limited scope.--The General 16:51, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Anything that annoys or endangers the survivors more is good to the zombie gameplay! : ) --Omega2 17:46, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - BARHAH HARMANZ!!! --Tereseth 23:49 23 DEC 2005 (GMT)

Indefatigable

Timestamp: 18:27, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: all zombies
Description: Zombies are supposed to be resistant to fatigue, which is why they're so hard to kill in the movies. I suggest that there be a way to give them 100AP per day. Perhaps limiting the speed in which the server reloads their page after an action would essentially "slow" their movement

Votes

  • Kill - You'd still have the 160 IP hit limit to deal with. And no, the reason why (traditional) zeds are hard to kill in the movies is not because they're resistant to fatigue. It's because they don't have to worry about bullets damaging vital organs. --VoidDragon 18:35, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Let's all say it: Don't. Mess. With. AP. -- Ethan Frome 19:03, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Please take a moment to consider the implications of this suggestion for the game. Thank you. --Daxx 19:15, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep (with modification) - I see this as an honest attempt to make the game more "real" The reason why Z's are so hard to escape from in the films is that the survivors tire while running and the Z's can't (would like to see constructive changes) --Martonic17 19:15, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Give zombies that, and give survivor ninja skills or the like? Hmm. I'd look at another way to mess with ap in zs' favor. Perhaps a new attack that drains one ap with a successful hit. --Tyroney 19:37, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombies are fast? So THAT'S why it costs them 2AP w/out lurching gait! Mikm 21:31, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Its not suggesting fast zombies just relentless ones who dont tire. 100 is too much, and server lag is a no no. bbrraaiinnss 00:29 10 Dec
  • Kill - 100AP. I've voted against increasing AP by 10, and you want to up it by 50!? ... --Shadowstar 01:12, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What part of "Don't mess with AP" did you not understand? Bentley Foss 01:35, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Don't. Mess. With. APs. --Seagull Flock 13:44, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - wha-what? --Firemanstan 21:28, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Don't. Mess. With. AP..--The General 16:55, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Devour Brain

Timestamp: 18:47, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: High level zombies
Description: Before you delete this YES I have read the other "Harman Hunter" suggestions and even though the name is the same I believe this one is new. When a zombie with this skill kills a human, they get a message along the lines of 'You crack open the human's skull and devour the juicy brains inside.' The resulting corpse is flagged as being temporarily unrevivable (Brain-devoured?) Edit: for a 1.5 day (36 hour) period. The functionality of this skill is similar to Head Shot in that it slows down the target, but there is no XP loss involved. The victim is free to wander around, gaining XP as a zombie, but they cannot be revived for 1.5 days. Trying to extract or revive a brain-devoured target would return the same message as a brain-rotted target. I think this would also help reduce Head Shot griefing (e.g. are you *sure* you want to headshot that zombie you tried to needle? Maybe they're just brain-eaten and waiting until they can be revived again). Only zeds of level 10 or higher would be able to learn this skill.

Votes

  • Keep - I register to post my idea and someone else gets there first. I like it, although I do suspect that things like the ZKing problem would be quite likely, ways to solve this might include something about eating living brains (aka biting survivors) speeding the regeneration of your own, but it's good enough as-is. --Kingreaper 16:23, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I expect this will get a lot of kills, but I like it because it will encourage people to play as zombies rather than run straight to a revive point. I say that maybe the execution isn't perfect, but the suggestion is a great idea. --Pyrinoc 18:53, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Do brains really regrow after three days? -- Ethan Frome 19:05, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - Do the living dead really wander the earth? --Phaserlight 19:20, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It just doesn't sit right with me. Though I might vote keep on a "all freshly dead zombies are unrevivable for x days" type of thing. Hmm... --Tyroney 19:17, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Well done sir. A great idea. I applaud. This skill appeals to me as it is a siege-breaker. As humans are becoming more proficient at defending the zombies need an effective counter. A harman (Bra!nz) gets killed. Instead of standing up and almost immediately getting revived by his well prepared buddies, he has to wait a day for a needle in the old eye, giving more encouragement to staying alive and not too cocky during a siege. (Oh, and by the way Ethan, as far as I understood the NecroTech syringe regenerated flesh and organs) -- Andrew McM 19:20, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What's required more, is for the zombies to get more organised. That is the only reason why they can't break sieges. Caiger only held because the zombies couldn't get their act together. --Daxx 19:24, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - All right, due to overwhelming feedback I sliced the penalty time in half. --Phaserlight 19:25, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -- Only because I'd love to see this on a 1, maybe 2 day scale instead of 3. Otherwise I'd so totally change this to Keep. Like in an instant. -- Tabs 19:34, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT) VOTE CHANGED TO KEEP DUE TO EDIT IN SUGGESTION -- Tabs 20:02, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Keep - Vote change because of new time limit. Great idea. --TheTeeHeeMonster 19:36, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Kevan might tweak the number of days/hours, but the basic concept is good. The only time my survivor got killed, it took a week to get revived, so this would have made no difference, anyway. Edit: An alternative might be to prevent revive until the zombie spends a certain number of AP; around 75 or so, maybe. --Dickie Fux 19:38, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't like the idea of brains regrowing. The brains is, I believe, the only organ you technically can't replace, since your memories aren't stored in your DNA. Of course, I'm not a doctor, but I don't see how anyone who's got his brains eaten could be anything but a zombie - permanently. --Hexedian 21:35, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - ...but you have no problem with zombies that have been shot in the head multiple times being revived? What? --barcoded 12:10 10 dec 2005 (gmt)
      • Re - The way I see it, headshot takes away parts of the brains responsible for short-term memory, hence the XP loss. I assume zombies can regrow those parts, but if you eat the whole brains, while I suppose a zombie could potentially regrow it (Hey, you never know!), it would retain no memory of its former life, or unlife. --Hexedian 21:04, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Yea, the regrowth of brains stops me.. when zombies are infected and not magic like they dont really go for those things... perhaps it could be an infection that prevents them from resurecting...--Ringseed2 22:06, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - What kind of magic do you mean? Do you mean the kind that allows a human to get back up after dying or the kind that turns people into zombies or some other kind of magic? This is a good idea. Perhaps instead of calling it a brain growth thing, you could call it a Rehabilitation Period. That way they slowly regain all thier vocal skills and what not after 36 hours. I mean you know, we don't need any "magic" --Tahko Tetsujin 22:49, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I'm also not a doctor and I say its ok --bbrraaiinnss 00:23 10 Dec 2005
  • Kill - Well, I guess you can vote keep if you really want to encourage ZKing during a seige. --Shadowstar 01:15, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Why are so many voting keep? This FORCES people to play as zombies! Sure, they can stay down for the 2 days, but for a game that can only really be played once daily to do anything at all? Nothing more needs to be said! --Volke 01:27, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT) EDIT: Okay, apparently more DOES need to be said! First of all, this makes it so that seiges end quickly, with a garuntee that zombies will win! Second of all, this actually turns the tables so that ZOMBIES are now the overpowered ones! And lastly, for the whatever-ith time, syringes are NOT the reason for the low zombie population! The reason is because they don't have the variety that survivors have! Forcing people to play zombies for any amount of time helps nothing other than uselessly grief them! --Volke 06:27, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - So when a recently killed player wakes up as a zombie, the game is uselessly griefing them? --Phaserlight 04:10, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep One more skill for zombies. I hope that will stop their whining about headshot. --Cah51o 01:59, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Good skill I like this one. Although, I think it should be attached to AP use rather then a time limit. That way zombies do something rather then just play dead for a day or two and then try to get revived. --Zombie1313
  • Kill - This is forcing people to play as zombies again. And McM - Zombies have a counter to seiges. It's called Ankle Grab. --PatrickDark 04:37, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, just as bad as Headshot. Jirtan 06:31, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I kind of like the flavor. - Jedaz 07:12, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - "Do the living dead really wander the earth?" Wow, Phaser really hits this one on the head for all those realists. --Paincake
  • Kill - I know if I was personally forced to play as a zombie with my two human characters, there'd be a lot of zombie cannibalism going on for those 36 hours. --Drakkenmaw 07:48, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Don't force players to behave in a specific manner. For the dedicated survivors, this will simply encourage zombie vs. zombie attacks. For those without zombie skills (a.k.a., real newbies...I don't count the survivors with 3000XP in the bank), this will be a day-and-a-half-long exercise in frustration. Bentley Foss 12:24, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: - This isn't forcing players to behave in a specific manner any more than headshot forces players to regain their lost xp. They're both slow-down tactics. I for one hate XP losses in an mmorpg which is why I suggested a brief no-revive period as an alternative. In a game which takes 25 hours to fully regenerate AP, a 36 hour long effect is really quite brief... the ones this skill would affect the most would be the humans who immediately try to revive their fallen comrade.
  • Keep A decent attempt to rebalance things. --Shaolinzombie 20:55, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I doubt my zombie will ever get to a high enough level to take this, but I like it. User:Athos710|Athos710]] 15:03, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - But make it depend on spending AP not just standing around waiting for 36 hours. Barricades already force ZKing for even middle level zombies so this couldn't force any more.--The General 17:06, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Either this is a guarantee of zombie victory in every siege, or it is encouraging large amount of ZKing. I don't see the benefits. Additionally, a player is being forced to play a zombie, or to not play at all (if he/she wants to avoid metagaming). And yes, it is forced because while someone may become a zombie through game mechanics, they can be immediately revived, supplies pending. Taking away the option of being revived is forcefully making someone play a side they don't want to play. EDIT: For sieges, that gives zombies not only a way to stand up using only a single AP (ankle grab), they would also be able to forcibly and rapidly dwindle the number of defenders. That seems a bit overpowered, to me. --Declan 16:18, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This may be just the thing to counter the current strike. --Matson Jade 19:36, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it. A powerful zombie skill that has a similar effect to headshot, but does something slightly different. Those human players who don't like it now know how zombies feel. User:Catwhowalksbyhimself 17:03, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - To say that this would help goes beyond wishful thinking. Headshotters, for as long as there is a headshot, will always kill zombies. Dead humans, for as long as it is impossible to score a kill without at the very least vigour mortis and usually much more and for as long as there is a way to be turned human again, will do nothing except try to get revived until they get revived. All this does is make it take longer to get revived in an arbitrary fashion and artificially inflate zombie numbers. Heck, it'll probably just make more heavy barricades. --Brickman 00:35, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yaaay, more zombies!!!--Tereseth 23:53, 23 dec 2005 (GMT)

Journalist

Moved to Humor section (w/ three spam votes, including the one I would have added) Mikm 21:27, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Lurk

No one expects the Spammish Inquisition! (3 Spam votes, if you count the one I was going add. Plus it was basically a dupe of all the other hide in the bodies skills.) — g026r 00:40, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Elvis Impersonator

Moved to Humour section with three Spam votes, thank you very much.--Bfgsteve 23:21, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/9th-Dec-2005&oldid=139213"