Suggestions/9th-Feb-2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Closed Suggestions

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

VOTING ENDED: 23rd-Feb-2006

Repeatable Actions

Dupe --Brizth 00:20, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Welcome back, Jason. --TheTeeHeeMonster 00:24, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Ouch. --Blahblahblah 00:27, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Priority Signal

Timestamp: 03:26, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors, Civilian
Description: "The military have switched the local mobile phone network back on, after a blanket shutdown during the first months of quarantine." Why would the military shut phone service off for the public? Perhaps so they could use it for their own communications. Cell phone network has a limited number of links it can establish at one time, that's why you can sometimes try making a call and you'll get a message like "All ciruits are busy". This normally occurs during major events when a lot of people try to make calls, during a zombpocalypse if the military wanted cellular service for important personnel they'd almost certainly need to shut out the public. Then after a while they managed to restore limited cellular service, giving up local circuits to be used by the public while giving their own calls higher priority. Some people, whether important military officers, scientists, or prominent civilians have had their phone numbers given higher priority so that they can communicate with greater reliability.

The skill "Priority Signal" would be a civilian skill designed to increase the reliability of mobile phone service. Unlike most people's phone service which entirely depends on the suburb's phone mast yours will be transferred through to any phone mast within signal range. Here's the entirety of what the skill would do: If the phone mast in your current suburb is unpowered you retain cellular service as long as there is a powered phone mast within 10 spaces. So if you were in western Edgeville and the Edgeville phone mast was down you'd still have service if the mast in Roftwood was powered and no more than ten spaces away. Some areas would have potential coverage from as many as four different phone masts. As long as one of them was active you'd retain cellular service.

  • Q: Is this realistic from a technological standpoint?
  • A: Yes. This is actually closer to the way cell phone actually operate. They route calls within reception range, not by suburb.
  • Q: How does a character suddenly be granted these priviledges by the military? It's a zombie apocalypse, how could they get an increase in status?
  • A: This isn't any less realistic than Necrotech Employment. There is a precedent to provide promotions and rank through skills. And players would be able to roleplay whatever reason they want for their character being granted greater coverage. They could be a military officer, a police chief, a wealthy businessman, a militia leader, heck even a zombie sympathizer the military was misled about. Feel free to make your own personal backstory to make this skill fit with you.
  • Q: Why do cell phones need to be more reliable?
  • A: Cells phones are unreliable to the point of not being worth carrying. I don't carry one because service in most suburbs is down. Allowing people to rely on service from 2-4 different masts instead of just one still probably wouldn't given them more than a 50/50 chance of actually getting service. It'd make a game feature worth using.

Votes

  1. Keep - I like it and very few people use those stupid things amyway - --ramby 03:32, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - I might use a cellphone in the game if this is implemented --Lord Evans 04:35, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - I have a phone but I have no contacts. Sad face. But this is a good suggestion. PS Fixed your vote for you, evans. FireballX301 05:42, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - It's realistic from a true cell phone technology standpoint, but as we all know realism does not guarantee fun. One mast per neighborhood sets an objective for people in that neighborhood. I like it that way. Bentley Foss 06:17, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - I always found the per-suburb system stupid. Would still make it important to keep those towers powered. --Brizth 10:58, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - What Brizth said. --John Taggart 15:07, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - I see your point, but I tend to agree with Bentley. Having to defend the suburb's phone mast helps folks to want to focus on their own suburb. Builds the sense of "home turf." --John Ember 15:59, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re You'd still have to keep your suburb's building powered, if nobody did service would still drop out citywide. This would make it a cellular network. Besides, I'm not addressing this in terms of the "Battle to Keep Phone Masts Power" aspect but in the "Hey, wouldn't it be nice if cell phones were sometimes usable" sense. I'm not supporting it because it's realistic but because it'd make a game feature that Kevan no doubt spent a lot of time coding worth using for players. --Jon Pyre 18:11, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - I think if there were a significant AP cost associated with using another suburb's mast (perhaps because you have to tinker with the phone more), I might be more likely to agree. --John Ember 19:52, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re I don't think this would be overpowering even if it was a general game change rather than a skill. Cellular phones aren't worth carrying 99% of the time. Why not make something worthless worthwhile? You'd still need to power phone masts. --Jon Pyre 20:31, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - I'm not saying it's an awful suggestion, just that I think there's a reason why Kevan tied each mast to its own suburb; and we shouldn't ignore that. Maybe humans do need a way to ensure more reliable coverage, but I don't think this is it. --John Ember 21:59, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - I like it. It doesn't detract too much from keeping your own neighborhood phone mass up, because at least one in your radius would have to be running. Still vital to keep your own mass up, for you and for others in neighboring burbs as well. --Blahblahblah 18:45, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill -I agree with bentley. --Vista 19:47, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep Author vote. Phone are in the game and it seems silly to keep them crippled to the point of being worthless. You'd still need to struggle to maintain power. --Jon Pyre 20:33, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally -- 7 Keeps, 3 Kills, 0 Spams/dupes. -- 10:13, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Losing Character Control After Death

8 spams 2 kills never put in AI controlled people Drogmir 05:44, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Riot Shield

Timestamp: 05:33, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: New Item
Scope: Survivors
Description: Find-able in Police Stations and Police Stations only. It's a large, very hard, clear piece of plastic that is normally used for crowd control purposes. In this case, you can adapt it to fend off would be attackers.

Like a flak jacket, having the riot shield in your inventory invokes a passive hit reduction - any 'melee' attack against the character with the riot shield takes a -5% chance to the attack's accuracy. For example, if I'm sitting in a building and I start swinging at someone with the shield, with my fire axe at 40% accuracy, the final hit rate is 35%.

Presumably if you die and rise as a zombie you won't have the capability to wield a defensive item.

Everyone here hates the thought of having the flak jacket wear out because of reasons of complacency, 'it's already there and we shouldn't change it'. Having permanent riot shields would be kind of off, so there would be a chance that the survivor's shield is destroyed, or the survivor otherwise disarmed, a net chance of 5% on successful melee attacks executed against the survivor. So, while swinging at a shield-equipped survivor with a fire axe at 40%, the chances are you'll disarm the person by the 14th successful swing (0.95^14=.487).

So the riot shield, essentially, is a bit of a free bonus for survivors, and may make the difference for a survivor attempting to get through a mob of 100+ zombies, as the benefits of holding the shield scale very quickly when being attacked multiple times at once. At the same time, given how easy it is to lose the shield and the low net effect, I believe it's fairly balanced.

Votes

  1. Kill Unbalances gun to axe, hates on zombies a little. Do we need this? --Zaruthustra-Mod 05:42, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Unbalances against zombies? No, because zombies can't use the shield. This item affects the battle when the survivor is *attacked*. Zombie hit rates are high enough such that a -5% in a 1v1 battle shouldn't make too much difference until the disarm. Survivor PKers, well, screw em. FireballX301 05:45, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - I don't think survivors need any more defensive items beyond the flak jacket... that aspect of the game seems pretty balanced. Also, you mention swinging at a survivor with a fire-axe... that's PK'ing, and suggestions probably shouldn't use PK'ing as an basis for math, since it's kind of discouraged. Finally, nobody likes items that wear out, especially after 20 hits. I mean, how many AP would it take to find the thing? If it takes 10 AP to find one, and 20 hits before it's gone... and it's only dropping the opponent's accuracy by 5%... --Intx13 05:43, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Consider it a 'perk' of searching in a police station as opposed to a gun shop. And I used PKing as an example because I don't remember the hit rate for zombie claws. FireballX301 05:45, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - For me, the perk would be the flak jacket. Just in case you wondered, a maxed out zombie can do 3 HP damage at 50% with claws, which is boosted to 60% upon a succesful hit with "Tangling Grasp" for successive hits. --Intx13 05:49, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
        • Re - After you get a flak jacket police stations become pointless to search in, which is kind of sad. Given that previous suggestions of destroying flak jackets failed, this is an alternative to make police stations a bit more useful. FireballX301 05:52, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill- 2 things one- please don't make things desolve away there's no crafting community so it would be more harmful than better. 2- This completly destroys the new zed skill of adding 5% more accuracy Drogmir 05:47, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - No no no, zombies just got a little bit more fun to play. Do not propose taking that away from us. --CPQD 06:03, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Oy, I play a zombie char (albeit not maxed). It's not so much more 'fun' as simply 'easier'. But it honestly shouldn't be that hard to find someone without a riot shield (about as hard as finding someone without a flak jacket). FireballX301 06:08, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - It's the old multiply it by a million rule, within a few weeks everyone would have a riot shield. --CPQD 16:33, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Dont reduce our hit percentages. Major nerf to zombies. --Grim s 06:15, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Though they beat me to it: messing with hit rates (either in the "up" or "down" direction) is bad. Bentley Foss 06:19, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Messes with low-lvl zeds too much. Also majorly nerfs bites (45% to hit instead of 50% is not much of a difference, but 25% instead of 30% is). This suggestion needs work so that it doesn't nerf those so much, but I'm not sure it's feasible. --McArrowni 14:03, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - I understand what you're saying, but for the record (the math lover in me demands it!) 5% is 5%. If you attack 100 times at 30% you'll hit 30 times. Attacking 100 times at 25%, you'll hit 25 times. Thus a loss of 5 hits for every 100 attacks. If you attack 100 times at 50% you'll hit 50 times... 100 times at 45% you'll hit 45 times. Again, a loss of 5 hits. So it doesn't matter what your hit percentages are, it's all relative. But it certainly feels worse when you're only hitting at 25%! --Intx13 14:16, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • ReRe Read my reply on the talk page, you have no idea how those maths work out, and what they mean--McArrowni 15:19, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - I don't like the fact you've based your examples on PKing, yet the major effect on the game would be a nerf on zombie attacks.--WibbleBRAINS 14:30, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill neet idea but totaly wont work. But flak jakets are useles anyway, they only work on attaks 5 and over and zeds only do like 3 damage ever --Kirk Howell 14:57, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - No, sorry. Consider the newbie zed with 15% hit accuracy. There's a reason Kevan bumped that up from 10%; this would knock it back down again. --John Ember 15:50, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - Nope...too hard on the new zombies. -- Nicks 17:09, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - You're right. There should be a way to balance it...I'll tweak and resubmit at some future point. FireballX301 22:47, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - Everyone would get this item right away, and effectively make an across-the-board 5% decrease for all zombie attacks... Not good. --Blahblahblah 18:51, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - We don't hate the thought of having the flak jacket wear because of reasons of complacency, we hate it because objects breaking are annoying. searching is annoying, we don't want to do it more then necessery. if you need searching to balance a item that has inate abilities, it's usually because it is overpowered and detract from the other players abilaty to enjoy the game. this is such an item.--Vista 19:04, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - The same argument can be used for dying. Dying is annoying, getting revived is annoying, we don't want to do it, and it detracts from a survivor's ability to enjoy the game. So yes, this is complacency. FireballX301 22:47, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - And when every survivor has one of these (multiply by a billion), newbie zombies have effectively had their balance adjustment taken away from them.--Mookiemookie 05:38, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally -- 0 Keeps, 14 Kills, 0 Spams/dupes. -- 10:13, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Additional Text for Tangling Grasp

Timestamp: 14:45, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Feedback Improvement
Scope: Zombies
Description: At current, the Tangling Grasp skill is difficult to use in any sort of situation involving attacks of more than one zombie; in other words, pretty much the entire game. I’d like to see additional text and information given about Tangling Grasp to the zombie player that has it and any characters that break other zombie’s holds.
  • When you are holding a human, display some sort of confirmation of the hold on the zombie’s screen; a simple “You are currently holding RandomSurvivor with your claws.�? will suffice.
  • A message if another zombie attacks your current target and breaks your grip, with the zombie’s name. “RandomZombie attacks RandomSurvivor and causes you to lose your grip !�?
  • A message to the zombie who attacks a target if he has broken another zombie’s hold. “You maul RandomSurvivor for 3 damage. You break OtherZombie’s hold on him. You grab hold of RandomSurvivor.�?

Votes

  1. Keep I’m the author, and I support this message. --Ampoliros 14:45, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. keep With clarification I see how it is so, let this be good - --ramby Talk 14:54, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - Please read it again, Ramby. You can already lose your grip in this way, the author just wants the game to make it explicit when this happens. --John Ember 15:55, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
      • re I have yet to lose my grip this way, how do we know it really does get lost? - --ramby Talk 16:00, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
        • Re - It's been reported by others, and I'm pretty sure I've experienced it myself. What happens is, you get a grip on a guy, and then suddenly you're just performing generic attacks again without any message about a lost grip. That's probably because another zombie got in the way. --John Ember 16:50, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep I can see how that'd be useful for zombie players. And Ramby, to quote Mr. T (B.A. Baracus of The A-Team): "Whatch'oo talkin' 'bout, fool?" This doesn't nerf Tangling Grasp, it only lets zombies know when they've successfully grabbed onto survivors with TG. (Likewise, it lets them know when an action - survivor or otherwise - causes them to lose their grip.) --John Taggart 15:12, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep Ideally, the whole "lose your grasp when another zombie grabs him" should be done away with, but this is a nice first step. --McArrowni 15:25, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - I like this. My zed just got the grasp skill, and he has lost a kill or two to other zeds. It'd be nice to know when someone breaks my grip, so I go back to hand attacks. --Masterofpsi 15:35, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - This would be nice. Currently you can sort of assume another zed cut in if your attack message comes up as a generic attack rather than as a "holding" attack, but it'd be good to have better awareness of how the grip was lost. --John Ember 15:53, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - This would go nicely with all the other "RandomSurvivor kills a zombie" info you get in a building.--WibbleBRAINS 16:21, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - although in time it might not be needed anymore.--Vista 18:30, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - Surely. --Blahblahblah 18:54, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - I agree with the idea that grasp should not be broken when another zombie grabs the same survivor. HEY KEVAN, EVER HEARD OF GROUP HUGS, HUH? :) Good first step!--Mookiemookie 20:43, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - Anything for a better interface --Lord Evans 21:21, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - keep keep keep --Monstah 22:58, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - Shouldn't be called an improvement, it should be a necessity. --Kraxxis 19:02, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 12 Keeps, 0 Kills, 0 Spams/dupes. -- 10:13, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - useful and informative for zombies --Cannibalcomfort 22:26, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 13 Keep, 0 Kill, 0 Spam - 19:08, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Multiple Player Damage - Grenade or Similar

Spaminated with 9 spams (including mine) and 5 kill's. --Lord Evans 21:29, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)


Okay, I admit, this sucked. First post an' all though. Don D Crummitt

Stealth

Spaminated with 7 spams (including mine) and one kill. No hiding! --Brizth 18:26, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Moved to discussion --Brizth 11:51, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Hold the Door

Timestamp: 21:37, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Zombie skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: Note: this is not a suggestion to nerf barricades. I'm not suggesting any changes to the way survivors provide safehouses for themselves, or the way zombies break into them. I'm concerned about one thing only here:

What happens in a zombie raid once the zombies are inside.

The current strategy for humans is to re-barricade the building first, and then attack the zombies. To me, this seems out-of-step with the game's influences, and is frankly a bit cheesy. If your fortress is invaded, shouldn't you have to kill the invaders first, and then rebuild the fortress? Makes sense to me, anyway.

I think some change needs to be made that would make it more profitable for humans to go after the zombies before rebuilding the barricades.

In that vein, I am suggesting a new zombie skill: "Hold the Door." Hold the Door would be a subset of Memories of Life and could only be acquired after that skill is purchased. Here's how it works:

  1. Survivors build up a barricaded safehouse, as usual
  2. Zombies come and tear down the barricades, as usual
  3. Zombies enter, opening the door
  4. One zombie with the Hold the Door skill clicks "Hold the Door" at the cost of 1AP. The zombie is now, well, holding the door and can do nothing else until he/she clicks "Release the door" (no AP cost on that).
  5. Humans cannot shut the door, or build barricades, until the door-holding zombie releases the door or is killed. However, the door-holding zombie is now explicitly listed in the Attack pull-down menu as "zombie holding the door." So humans should lay into the guy! Bring that zombie down!

There are a couple nifty things about this:

  • New way for zombies to help each other out
  • Humans go after zombies first, instead of doing other things

Multiply it by a Billion: There's no problem with every zombie having this skill, because only one zed can ever be door-holding at any given time. Kill that zed, and it's a race between the humans and the zombies to get to the door to either shut it or hold it again. I think this would make for a lot of heart-pounding action and would be Just Plain Fun.

See what you think.

Votes

  1. Spam - horribly broken. If there's no way to identify the door holder, more and more zombies keep pouring in until the whole horde is inside and suddenly we've got a 1-in-500 shot of killing the door holder. Still fails "multiply it by a billion". --Arcibi 21:46, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT) Unsure - the edit makes for a much better suggestion, but I'm not sure if I like it enough to keep it yet. I'll come back to this. --Arcibi 21:58, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: [comment removed to save bandwidth] --John Ember 21:55, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. KillSpam - Arcibi's right, this would get very ugly in a mall siege situation. Also I'm not a fan of skills which allow you to affect the game with a continuous action for a period of time, but only cost 1 AP. Spam vote because I don't think there's a way to fix this one --CPQD 21:54, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT) important point please refrain from making edits to suggestions already posted. It can make previous voters look bad, and you won't get all of the votes you want. Either re-post the suggestion later with a edited/revised label in the name, or edit the name of the post as is to include EDITED (this is less preferable). I still don't think this will work very well, but it's not spam now. --CPQD 22:08, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Spam - What they said. --Martin Odum 21:56, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - a) Way out of genre..Zombies don't hold the door for each other...or help other zombies up, or give each other zombie-cigarets do they? b) While it would nerf a large siege, it would to tally nerf/remove the very concept of a safe house. -- Nicks 22:05, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Actually, I think it's in genre--the whole point is that a horder presses on the entrance, and once the entrance is open you'll never get it shut again, so it's hold forever or run. That said, if Malton was like a real zombie movie, it'd get boring PDQ. Survivors have already had huge nerfs lately, they don't need any more.--'STER-Talk-Mod 22:11, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: [comment removed to save bandwidth] --John Ember 22:22, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep I already dislike real-time barricading/barricade smashing jousts. This also seems hard to believe for me, that a zombie would hold the door instead of feeding. I agree that there is a problem right now, but I don't think this is the answer Thinking about it, the fact that only one zombie can hold the door, and that he can be shot. The name/theme still sucks. Majorly. But the mechanic might work. --McArrowni 22:26, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - This would make guarding a building impossible. The other day I heard a groan quickly ran over to a building and was barricading. In less than 10 seconds there were 10 zombies inside. I did not have the AP to kill a zombie but enough to barricade and I did what I could. This skill would have killed what I tried to do and buildings would start going down more readily all over the place. Horrible skill. --TheBigT 22:33, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re [comment removed to save bandwidth] --John Ember 23:03, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill Why do you feel that 3 zombies in a building should doom everyone inside? Because that's what would happen. A few zombies would enter, active survivors would be unable to barricade, zombies would flow in faster than they could be killed, and everyone inside the safehouse would die. Every time. --Jon Pyre 23:13, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Survivors are already at a disadvantage as far as seiges go (case in point: Mall Tour '06). Why hurt them further? --Mikm 23:14, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - It makes easier to assault buildings but gives defenders the chance to target the door holder. --PokiPedYup 23:16, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - I really don't like the current barricade system, because large sieges wind up as massive clickfests of barricading and unbarricading, rather than any actual combat. That said, I'm voting kill on this because its a band-aid fix to a system that needs a serious overhaul. --Ampoliros 23:53, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - If your house has a dozen zombies inside you aren't going to be nailing timbers to the door while they just mill about. I kinda agree with Ampoliros that this is a shakey fix to a problem but I think that it's a bit more true to life. If nothing else a good starting point for someone else to work with. --Bonham 00:41, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill Absolutely not. This makes holding buildings in major sieges way to difficult. Frankly, the siege situation is pretty good right now. It's still a struggle, but the advantage is to Zombies as it should be. It does not need, however, to be made any more so. --Jak Rhee 00:54, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep This only slightly mitigates the survivors advantage in a stronghold. Barricading up to VSB is a guarantee while de-barricading is only a chance. The survivors have the advantage there. With this skill, the survivors could pinpoint who is holding the door open although the zombies still can't pinpoint who is barricading. The survivors still have the advantage. This is only a small, small concession to zombies. --rainyday 02:37, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - Author vote. But I really think this is a small concession and would make siege situations much more interesting for both sides. --John Ember 03:40, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - Zombies have much less difficulty during sieges thanks to the big building change. They really don't need to be even more effective. Bentley Foss 03:59, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  17. Keep - Well, it's better than what we got. --Sindai 04:37, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - Would allow zombies to have a chance against an active humans. At the moment we have a snowballs chance in hell of victory against an online human. --Grim s 04:47, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep - Would help zombies alot and would make seiges last longer in some cases because zombies can hold the place open and let the army roll in --Lord Evans 05:21, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - I think it adds a nice element of strategy to the game.Maybe it could be altered to where you don't necessarily have to kill the zombie holding the door open, but after a successful attack on them there's a percentage chance of blasting them/chopping them out of the way and breaking their hold on the door? --Mookiemookie 05:46, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep - This is a great idea! Kashara 06:43, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - This would add more action, panic, and excitement to sieges, plus it would force survivors to deal with zombies instead of spamming the barricade button. Having a zombie forfeit all other actions and painting a giant bulls-eye on himself is, IMHO, more than enough to compensate for the bonus. --TheHermit 06:48, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  23. Keep - I think this would help gameplay in a break-in / seige situation get more tense, and in a zombie apocalypse situation, 'tense' is exactly what we're looking for. Karen Sanger 06:49, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  24. Keep - Would definately add a cool dynamic to large sieges. Revolutionist 08:26, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  25. Keep - There is ... --Qwako 09:45, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  26. Keep - A great idea and makes more sense than the atual cades strategy. Asilvino 13:29, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  27. Keep - This would make breaking-in for active survivors scary; BLAM! all the survivors blow the door-blocking zombie to bits, then try and barricade before the next one gets a grip on the door...--WibbleBRAINS 14:28, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  28. KILL - Kill, kill, kill. Kill. Please kill this. It is difficult to describe exactly how much this nerfs survivors. As mentioned above, a group of 2-3 zombies could take down any resource building because all they have to do is get inside and then the survivors won't be able to eject them fast enough. An entire horde working closely together could rule/ruin the game. Besides, the mechanics don't work very well. A zombie would break off its feasting on yummy brains to go open and hold the door, once the zombie that was previously holding it gets killed? I don't think so. Please kill this. -- Ethan Frome 15:36, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  29. Kill - I'd go for it if there was a chance for the zombie to loose its hold on the door with each successful attack against it. If you have to kill it before it lets go, it's too powerful. The mall tour 06 has already shown everyone they don't have a problem winning sieges. --Blahblahblah 16:57, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: Thought about that, but here's the thing: In a room full of active, armed survivors, that "hey look at me I'm holding the door" zed is going to go down right quick. At the same time, it'd be too hard for the holder to know whether he had lost his grip on the door. And yeah, if you're doing nothing it's also kind of hard to know if you get killed, but that's a general UD problem and not specific to this suggestion. --John Ember 19:07, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  30. Kill -You forget that once a zombie is out of Ap it idles out. and yeah I would ignore a passed out zombie in favor of keeping active zombies out. Why is this needed? the zombie hordes have shown that they can defeat every stronghold easily except for Caiger. Tailoring the the average power of one side against the strongest power of the other side is very unstabilizing. Sure Caiger has the survivor power to deal with this enough to make it into a regular siege. It would be more realistic too. But every other mall would have huge problems with the first small time breach. this would make a zombie foothold a near certainty the first time the defenses are breached in every other siege. Do you really want most mall sieges be won like Calvert Mall? But to be honest it does withstand the multiply by a billion rule. but lets make a new rule. the multiply it by one rule. What would happen to small sieges, or cracked safe houses? If you combine this with feeding groan, what will happen to a non-resource building safe house not near any landmarks? you have one zombie busting the cades, groaning, holding and then idling out. unless you have a max-out character with a load of guns on-line at the right time any defense mounted by the inhabitants will be futile as at the time they come on-line the Ap needed to remove the idle zombie and re-barricade would be too much It would be impossible for the defender to buy enough time for the offline characters to wake up and relocate. All the skill, organization and planning behind surviving would be replaced by mere luck. So while it would make caiger more realistic, it would destroy all low level raids and sieges. guess what is more important to the game... You can fix a bit this by setting a high enough number of Ap's needed in reserve for using this skill so that a single barricade buster can't use it.--Vista 23:23, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: [comment removed to save bandwidth] --John Ember 19:07, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • small sieges have not enough survivors to cause grief for the doorholding zombie. besides what grief? killing the zombie after he ushered in a lot of zombies isn't going to bother him. A bit more combat action that would end all small time sieges! Small time sieges don't have a lot a tedious de-cading and re-cading I think you need to look past the mall sieges and look what happens most in the game. in the last two month roughly 20 malls sieges have happend. those are mostly wars of attricion yes. but also a thousand or more safehouses have been breached, seen fights, etc. I gave you a fix to that so it whould be less damaging too small time sieges and still workable on the big time sieges, why don't you give your thought on that?--Vista 16:26, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  31. Keep -- Definately a keeper. Adds flavour, makes battles that bit more interesting, --Jack Destruct 12:42, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  32. Kill -- Malls (already) would fall too easily with this, the time it takes to take the door holder down 50 more could come in, and only one out of those 50 just has to hold it again. If survivors managed to close the door, it wouldn't matter as those extra hundred outside would have Memories of Life and it's open again. Once the first few get in, it'd be an unavoidable massacre. Basically what Vista said, but in my own words. -- Kraxxis 18:57, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: [comment removed to save bandwidth] --John Ember 19:07, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
      • Re: No survivor in the right mind would run outside after a couple dozen zombies charge inside just to fight against hundreds. They weren't meant to attack, just survive and hold off. I can see what you mean by occupying zombies with meatbags while the rest inside re-take their ground, except zombies would simply run inside anyway for the bigger prize. What I'm trying to say is that once barricades are down, survivors stand no chance to turn it to their favor. --Kraxxis 14:05, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  33. Keep -- This makes for a much better fight between people, instead of barricades --Mark Menke 19:17, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  34. Keep -- Should make break-ins much more fun for both sides. The naysayers don't seem to get that the door can only be held whilst it's open, and that the zombie holding it is going to have a microscopic lifespan in a crowded safehouse. -- Throctukes 19:30, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  35. Keep -- This is a cool idea. It'd sure make big battles a lot more fun and challenging if we had this, and it'd make things a lot more realistic aswell. -- Xyu 07:31, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  36. Keep -- Really good idea, more exciting for both players and a real challenge for zombies to get their timing just right. Encourages teamplay and strategy. -- Strapon Bev 11:45, 14 Feb 2006
  37. Keep - Makes sense to me. I am, however, dead so I suppose I'm biased. --Digby o'dell 13:57, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  38. Keep - Would make the game more reaslistic and interesting to play. -- v42below
  39. Keep - Good idea. Zombies breaking and then humans putting up the barricades while the zombies are inside just isn't very logical.-- Tymbrwlf
    • Tally -- 20 Keeps, 13 Kills, 1 Spams/dupes. 1 non-valid -- 10:11, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  40. Keep - good stuff. also should get a notice when the action begins and ends. "Zombie blocks the door" "Survivor kills Zombie. the door is clear"-- bbrraaiinnss 21 Feb 2006
  41. Keep - Yay, zombies. -- Ruining 19:09, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  42. Keep - Definitely. It would only add more excitement to raids and combat. --Wcervantes 19:35, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  43. Keep - I like this idea. --Navigator 00:33, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  44. Keep - Definitely a good suggestion. --Chiefly 01:57, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  45. Keep - I like it. I fear that the net result will be the humans kill one zombie before spamming barricade. But at least that's one more zombie they'd kill before spamming barricade like before --GuavaMoment 02:03, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  46. Keep - Very well thought of. I think it will make the game more interesting for both sides. Even if the humans won't admit it. --Pimplepopper 03:07, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  47. Keep - Adds some strategy as well as getting rid of the whole "hit and miss" of charging a building. --Squirly 10:54, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  48. Keep - An excellent coutner to bots, and encourages a more interesting gameplay than spam-clicking "attack the barricades" and "barricade the building" --Braaaiiinnns 12:41, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
  49. Keep - I love the idea of making re-barricading after a breach more difficult. The idea of a zombie holding a door for his pals, however, is quite cheesy. --Cannibalcomfort 22:31, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Sorry, Cannibalcomfort, I think your vote is just slightly past the 2-week mark. --John Ember 02:43, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 33 Keeps, 13 Kills, 1 Spam/Dupe, 2 nonvalid. Above tally seems to be incorrect. --02:34, 24 February 2006 (GMT)

Dart Rifle Version 1.5

Timestamp: 22:10, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Weapon
Scope: Humans, Scientists
Description: This is a rework of the NecroTech Rifle idea presented before, made without the original author's authorization... or the second authors authorization.
Scratch that. The original author gave me authorization, and I give BlahBlahBlah autorization. --Omega2Talk 20:53, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)

(Straight jacked the original back story, because it is good.)

Concerned with the weight and the encumbering a traditional firearm would bear to the often less-than-athletic scientists they employed, NecroTech designed a long-barreled compressed-air/spring weapon, with a bolt-action-like system. The user pulls the side lever to open the breech, tense the firing spring and compress some air into the chamber, releases the lever, inserts the ammo into the breech, pulls the side lever again to close the breech and compress more air into the chamber and the rifle is ready to use. The advantages to that system are the lack of heavy recoil present in most "sniper" firearms, silent firing (thus making it hard to reveal the shooter's position and allowing for more aiming time), and overally light weight with considerable ruggedness. The reported weak sides of the Dart Rifle are: lack of effective range for a "sniper"-class weapon (the needles lose power after about a city block) and complicated and time-consuming reloading time. Users are strongly recommended to gather some distance from their targets before firing.

The Dart Rifle ammunnition is a specially designed streamlined hollow dart, filled with the newly-developed serum. Due to the unstability of the experimental serum, the dart must be kept sealed, or the contents will become inactivated in contact with the oxygen in the air. It can't be used to "stab" a zombie, as only the impact of a shot would bury itself deep enough to release the serum. The dart injects the serum in the target, and it works slowly on undead tissue, effectively bringing the zombie alive with a single application. Although effective, the dart's serum load is too small to allow for uncounscious revivication, so the zombie suffers withering pain as the serum turns it alive. By the end of the proccess (which should probably last about one day in undamaged zombies), the zombie falls to the ground and the serum finishes the revivication work (regenerating the brain). Humans hit by a Dart Rifle dart only suffer damage from the dart itself burying on their flesh and feel severe rash in the skin surrounding the area struck by the dart for the next hour, while the body purges the inocuous serum from the bloodstream and releases it with the urine.

The way it works

  • The Weapon
  • Range
  • Although it might be considered a sniper rifle the Dart Rifle can NOT fire into different blocks.
  • Skill Location
  • The skill required to fire the rifle correctly appears under the NecroTech skill tree, requiring NecroTech Employment. Since the weapon and instructions on how to use are found only as memos in the NecroTech buildings, and the weapon was specially designed for civilian use. Military characters used to high-recoil, multi-shot firearms will most probably experience difficulty in mastering the weapon.
  • The following related skills should be introduced into the NecroTech skill tree:
*Basic Rifle Use - requres NecroTech employment, adds 20% to hit (stack-able with Basic Firearms Training).
*Advanced Rifle Use - requires Basic Rifle Use, adds more 30% to hit, for a final 75% hit percentage. At this point a user skilled with other firearms can make use of the stealth nature of the weapon and spend more time aiming while hiding, thus allowing for greater accuracy.
  • Rifle & Ammunition
  • The Rifle itself can only be found in Necro Tech buildings. The Dart Rifles could be found either empty (80% chance) or holding a Dart (20%) chance. The Rifle itself is found at the same search % as a syringe is now - this does not increase the base % to find any item, just an additional item within that % (Ex: if the current rate is 20% to find any item in the building, said overall rate would remain the same). The ammunition is only available by manufacture (unless found as pre-loaded in the weapon through search). The manufacture rate on these new syringes is at 15 AP per syringe. there would be an additional button for syringe manufacture baring the name of these new syringes - which are called "Mark 3 syringes". Obviously, this weapon would be useless (unless the person is lucky enough to find a pre-loaded dart gun) without NecroNet Access, and the weapon itself would not be able to be found without Lab Experience.
  • The weapon itself can only hold 1 dart at a time.
  • The sniper scope
  • As a sniper rifle, shots can be taken at a distance (relative term for roll play sake, refer to the first point - does not fire across blocks), and the weapon is virtually silent - thus the shooter has a reasonable chance at not being noticed. Each shot has a base 40% chance of keeping the attackers name hidden. Targets hit by a Dart Rifle receive a "A sniper hit you for 1 damage" message instead of "[Survivor Name] hit you for 1 damage" and would have no link to the attacker's profile. As stated, each shot would have a base 60% chance to display the following message "A sniper hit you for 1 damage. You recognize [Survivor Name] as the shooter.", meaning that the target managed to see where the shooter was hiding. Characters shooting Dart Rifles at zombies can be tracked with Scent Trail, but can't be identified unless they are spotted by the zombie just after the shot (such tracking of unspotted shooters would be displayed as "The sniper is X(direction), X(direction)"). The base spot percentages are modified by the following:
  • Survivors and zombies with Memories of Life would have 70% chance to identify someone who shot at them with a Dart Rifle, as both would be more attentive than a zombie without said skill.
  • Firing while sharing the square with other survivors modifies the spot percentage by, -10% to spot. Sharing the square with at least 1 other survivor would lower the spot percentage to 50% when made against non survivor/non MoL targets; and 60% to spot when made against Rotters and Survivors. Sharing the square with 100 survivors would be identical to sharing the square with 1 (no additional increase beyond -10%). As most revives take place outdoors, the chances of these % being modified by shared space is low, and would encourage joint excursions to take advantage of the full benefits. To clarify, I use the term "square" as an area. If the shooter is outside a building, and there are survivors inside that building, those inside survivors would not effect the %. Only those that are sharing the same area of the square affect the %. The effect is that the target may be confused by who the shooter may be, if more than 1 survivors are sharing the space.
  • The Effects
  • Damage
  • Damage against zombies would be 1 per hit. The XP given per hit would be 5 XP (1 for the damage, 4 for starting the revivification process). Successfully attacking a zombie that is in sharing a square with other zombies, cycles through it as does scanning. Unsuccessful shots do not effect the cycling process. A zombie hit by the Dart Rifle would undergo "Conscious Revification", losing 1HP per AP spent (including AP spent in Death Rattle or other forms of communication). When reaching 0HP, the zombie dies, and is revived (as with standard revivification). Brain-Rotted zombies would still be affected by the revification serum and become "infected", as it would first act in their bodies, then be inactivated when trying to regenerate their brains, so after being killed by the revification proccess, they are not revived, but remain a zombie. If a zombie is killed by other means after being shot with a Dart Rifle, it can stand up as a survivor (or a zombie, in case of Brain-Rotters) as per standard revivification procedures. The effects would stack, so hitting a zombie that is currently engaged in the revification process would raise the HP per AP loss by +1 damage per successful hit. There is no max on this amount - what consecutive hits are doing is speeding up the process. There is no way (for anyone other than the effected player) to tell if a zombie is currently experiencing the revivification process or not.
  • Damage against survivors would be identical for the impact - only 1 point of damage - but the survivor not be affected further in any way by the serum. The XP granted for such an attack would only be 1 XP. Survivors dealt a death blow by Dart Rifles would rise up as normal zombies.
  • Chance to defeat the process
  • The serum is not 100% effective with it's revivification processes. Brain Rot zombies have a 10% chance to (un)naturally fight off the infection per action taken. Successful bites from Brain Rot zombies with subsequent Digestion have an additional 25% chance to defeat the process. Non Brain Rot zombies have a 10% chance to defeat the revivification process by successful bite attacks with subsequent Digestion. One successful action that defeats the process, defeats all that are on the stack (Ex: If a zombie is suffering from 3 shots from this weapon and is loosing 3 HP per AP, any action taken that would remove the effect of one, removes the effect of all).

Votes

  1. Keep - I Kept the other one, I'm definitely keeping this nerfed version. EDIT: Teh template is broxxor?--'STER-Talk-Mod 22:15, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Same reasons as before. More revives - no. anonymous revives - no. Human infections - no. Edit, fixed the template--CPQD 22:21, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - The "more revives" problem has been fixed in this version. The ammo is only available per manufacture (or if found pre-loaded in weapon, which is set at an extremely low rate), which has been adjusted to compensate for the chance to miss with the weapon (as was adjusted, a human can not use their ap to acquire any more revives than can be done currently). Human infection is just a slow acting revive with this weapon.. It's more of a "ticker" than an "infection". The anonymous part, I don't feel is too bad - as the attacker can not depend upon anonymity, with never exceeding 50% to remain anonymous, and they do not know whether or not their attack was noticed or not. Thanks for fixing the template - I couldn't figure out what was wrong with it. --Blahblahblah 22:33, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - No anonymous attacks, and revives are a fast-food commodity as it is. --John Ember 22:25, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - Voted keep before and vote keep again for same reasons. --TheBigT 22:34, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - I've liked this from the start. --Mikm 22:40, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - U.N.I.T. has heard of, and approves of, the development of this weapon. It is rumored that they are sending couriers to the WCDZ headquarters to inform them of this research (i.e., suggestion). --John Taggart 22:46, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Nah. I'd personally prefer it if no HP damage-over-time were done at all, but the zombie was marked to be revived the next time it died. FireballX301 22:51, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - It couldn't work without the ticker. Just marking them for revive insures that they will most likely fall to a head shot. The infection works to their favor, allowing them the opportunity to work themselves down rather than being stuck at the mercy of whoever kills them. --Blahblahblah 23:32, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - I like it. You even added in my "bite to cure revivication" idea. --TheTeeHeeMonster 22:56, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - Still cool. --ALIENwolve 23:01, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill Finding someone to bite is pretty difficult for a zombie. A wounded zombie with multiple health drains would have no chance of breaking down barricades and biting someone before dying. It'd force people to waste their AP as a zombie when they know they'll be a survivor soon enough. It's worse than instant-revive because then you can either play as a survivor immediately or jump out a building right away to become a zombie again. Here people would be stuck in a limbo. Plus anonymous attacks are bad. --Jon Pyre 23:10, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • ReThe point is for zombies without brain rot to be revived, to pretty much be stuck with it (that's why it is an alternative to standard revives). Brain Rotters have the chance to 'walk it off', and have the chance to bite it off. It doesn't make people have to waste their AP. You can still weaken barricades for other zombies while you are dying, or eat some random stranger stuck on the street if you're lucky. I got nothing to sooth you for the anonymity, except I personally don't think it's bad for this weapon.--Blahblahblah 23:32, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
      • Re My point is, imagine you're a zombie that got shot. You have 40hp. Do you walk around in a circle to lose health and be revived? Do you attack barricades, die, and then go inside as a survivor and rebarricade? It'd force people to play as a zombie when they know they're going to be a survivor soon. --Jon Pyre 00:10, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
        • Re For me it wouldn't matter. There are a ton of options available beyond what you listed, and many different ways to roll play the situation. --Blahblahblah 00:23, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - I will always vote kill on stealth weapons, even if it's a low chance. Velkrin 23:11, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - Just don't like it. -- Nicks 23:31, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - One thing you could add would be that the reviv process could also be stopped by getting bitten by another zombie who was infectous bite. --Zeek 23:57, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re That's actually a really good idea. I hadn't thought of that. I'll see how this fairs, if that is the only thing that keeps attracting it kill votes, I'll add it in a new version. Otherwise not, I don't think it would change the minds of the 'stealth weapon' voters. --Blahblahblah 00:20, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - What Jon Pyre said, really. Zombies are not always going to have access to humans to bite, because of those nifty little barricades. Changing the percentages doesn't fix that. Heck, even if you made it a 100% cure on a bite for both rotters and non, I'd still vote kill. It takes far more AP to break down a barricade and bite someone than it does to find and use an FAK(plus, the FAK provides 10HP at 'average' levels; bite is only 4, and can miss). Not to mention, the stacking ability makes it even worse. The stacking needs to be removed completely and zombies need some sort of skill/ability to be able to purge the effects that balances with FAKs, and, like I said earlier, I wouldn't have a problem with it. --Ampoliros 00:33, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • ReFrom the zombie standpoint, I die to this ticker - At worst I scout out some buildings and see where the food is, then jump out a window and that's it (or I end my day outside and the zombies do it for me and I give them some free XP) As a human, I die to infection and It takes me... 1 day to 1 week (or more) depending on where I am. It's not the same to die as a zombie as to die as a human. I'd throw in the infectious bite from another zombie heals you, cause that's a cool idea. But nothing more, or why use this weapon and not a standard syringe. --Blahblahblah 01:07, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep This keep. There have been subtle changes from the last one that GREATLY improved this. Still the infectious revive bugs me. Especially the part where you must have digestion to heal it with a bite? (must you have digestion to heal it?). Still, it's harder to use than a syringe, and compensates for it. So I'm voting keep, for now--McArrowni 01:31, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - The nerfed version basically amounts to Syringe 3.0, with a chance for completely anonymous delivery, but screwing with Brain Rotters. And, again, if the goal is to annoy/bore zombies, you already manage that just fine with barricades. Thanks, but no. --Centerfire 02:05, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - What Centerfire said. --~~ Un-signed vote. --Pinpoint 04:47, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - Well, CPQD beat me to it. We don't need anonymous revives or survivor-powered versions of infection. Just stick a frikkin' needle in them like normal and be done with it. Bentley Foss 04:02, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill - This does not rememdy any of the problems with the original suggestion. --Grim s 04:55, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - It did Grim s. It took care of the doubling revives issue with the first, or were you not paying attention? --Blahblahblah 14:29, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  20. Kill - I agree with Grim and I still say survivors can put it on the line and face zeds instead of being snipers. --Mo P. 05:01, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  21. Kill - How many times do we have to tell you? No anonymous attacks! No survivor infections! No new ways to do old things! And especially no machine-gunning zombies down the line! The suggestion is still as bad as ever. Let it die. --TheHermit 05:10, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - this just proves that you can't please everyone. I love the "zomg no survivor infection skill >:(" comments, even though zombie players can go back to being dead in a matter of minutes, if not seconds on occasion. --Arcibi 05:14, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  23. Kill - No anonymous attacks, regardless of the percentages. And "zomg no survivor infection skill!" And the stacking damage effect? Holy crap..."multiply it by a billion." What's to stop a coordinated horde of 10 NTs with 10 shots a piece on these rifles to hit 10 zombies. Now you have a mob taking 10 damage per AP spent. There's no way in hell you can find someone to bite before you're revived. Bad, bad bad.--Mookiemookie 05:31, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Or those 10 NT's with 10 shots each could have revived 100 zombies if they used standard syringes... but whatever. Obviously the slow acting revive isn't popular. --Blahblahblah 14:28, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  24. Keep i voted keep with the others. --RAF Lt.G Deathnut 05:53, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally -- 10 Keeps, 12 Kills, 0 Spams/dupes. -- 09:58, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  25. Kill - This suggestion is bad --Qwako 10:18, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  26. Kill - Still don't like it: don't like the stacking, don't like the anonymity. --WibbleBRAINS 14:48, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  27. Kill - I just can't believe how much impact it would have in a mall siege. Just an example, but think about a mall scenario with 50 infected zombies and 50 infected survivors at full health. The survivors can easily heal AND cure each other, organized enough and there could be only 5 dedicated healers who waste their AP taking care of all infections while the rest barricade. Zombies would slowly die trying to break through and would most likely not even break in due to most of them spending extra AP just to stand up. 'Course that's just a scenario, but if it doesn't fit into the climax of the whole game (mall sieges), it won't work period. I'm not convinced, sorry. -- Kraxxis 18:31, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  28. Keep - It sounds better to me than my original idea. Kudos. --Omega2Talk 20:49, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  29. Kill - While it appears you liked some of my thoughts from the talk page, the hit % is still WAY to high. 75%? Given the "stealth" nature of the weapon, a lower hit % would be more balancing.--Pesatyel 03:48, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  30. Kill - Sounds dreadful. 75% chance of anonymously poisoning a zombie? Maybe you should ask for the skill 'nail all zombies to a door so they can't fight back' to go with this. --Strapon Bev13:06, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 11 Keep, 18 Kill, 0 Spam - 19:07, 9 April 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/9th-Feb-2006&oldid=1064595"