Talk:Suggestions/28th-Oct-2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Preferences

Timestamp: Wikidead 01:42, 28 October 2006 (BST)
Type: Game Mechanics
Scope: Gameplay
Description: Look at the three "Buy Skills," "View Contacts," and "Log Out" buttons. I suggest that add a new button named "Preferences" (if there isn't enough space, then "Buy Skills" be shortened to "Skills" and "View Contacts" to "Contacts"). This would call up a menu that would allow you to change your passwords and email address, disable skills of your choice (a checklist allows you to select skills you want to disable; you would technically still have the skill, but until you decide to "uncheck" it, that skill would be ignored by the game as if you didn't have it), set up a spam blocker (option that allows you to "ignore" radio, flares, zombie groans, etc...), and have your character automatically drop certain items (a checklist allows you to select certain items for your character to automatically drop upon picking up, ie "You found a DNA Extractor. You drop it"). Two earmarks I want to add to my suggestion: Rename Ankle Grab; perhaps I'm picky, but I just don't like that name. Also, alphabetize character select drop down menus, such as the attack target selecting list and the first aid kit heal list.
Edit Removed by Author

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - Author Vote --Wikidead 01:42, 28 October 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep Some of it's good. Some bad. But I like the gist of it. --Jon Pyre 08:01, 28 October 2006 (BST)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill for various reasons. 1) Too many suggestions at once. 2) Disabling skills is a bad idea. If you bought Brain Rot, you're stuck with it. 3) Changing passwords and email addresses allows people to potentially steal other accounts, also I've seen a few "public" accounts around. 4) The target selecting list is the way it is for a reason. Don't mess with it. `Blue Command Vic CRG DvB 02:05, 28 October 2006 (BST)
  2. Ah but that's where you got it wrong - I like most of this but the removing of the dropdown counter is bad stuff. That's why it's important to seperate ideas. That way if part of it's good it doesn't all go down the drain. --Officer Johnieo 04:11, 28 October 2006 (BST)
    Re: So many people say that alphabetizing the dropdown list is a bad idea. I'll be sure to remove it in a future suggestion. May I ask, though, why everyone seems to feel that the current dropdown menu is fine the way it is? I have no idea why people like it. --Wikidead 07:32, 28 October 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill - You should definitely not be able to disable brain rot. Also, I really dislike the idea of a suggestion rider here. Where's my line-item veto pen when I need it? --Rgon 06:58, 28 October 2006 (BST)
    Re: Not to abuse the power of reply or turn this page into a discussion page, but I had to comment on your sense of humor. Ha Ha, I've had my share of laughs today (not sarcasm, your comment really was funny). Anyway, the heart of my suggestion was bring back Auto-Drop Duplicate Items, but have it slightly modified to qualify it as a viable suggestion, rather than just another "dupe." I do not really care much about the skill disabling or anti-spam system. Nex time I post up a suggestion, I'll try to be more original, rather than pulling ideas from the past back for reconsideration (actually, auto-drop has passed with 2/3rds of the vote before, but I wanted to amend it to allow player to choose which items they would like to auto-drop).--Wikidead 07:32, 28 October 2006 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. One At A Time - c'blimey. --Funt Solo 02:31, 28 October 2006 (BST)
  2. Spam Actually, you are wrong (and I was tempted to vote spam for you trying to tells us how to vote). Most of us vote for a suggestion AS IS. Thus if even PART of it is bad, the whole suggestion is bad. As the others said, this seems like a jumbled pile of several suggestions. I recognize several, Change Password and Edit Profile from Peer Review, Auto Drop Duplicate Items and Ear Plugs from Peer Rejected. The stuff about Ankle Grab has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the rest of the suggestion. The drop downs are setup that way for a reason (least active characters on the top). The only "real" part of the suggestion is the part about disabling certain skills. Why you would want to do that, I can't know (what skills do you decide you DON'T want to have?). Unless it means the skill isn't visible when others view your profile, then it is "zombie spy" galore. Basically there is NO suggestion here. And telling us how to vote just adds icing to the spam-flavored cake.--Pesatyel 06:46, 28 October 2006 (BST)
    Re: I've already removed my edit in response to a previous comment, so you don't need to worry aout me trying to influence others' opinions. And, yes, I've taken various past suggestions, but I've pieced them together to form something new and holistic, so it's not really "unoriginal." Yes, I know the Ankle Grab thing had nothing to do with anything, but, apparently, you don't know what an "earmark" is or failed to notice it. Perhaps I should have mentioned this more clearly in my suggestion description, but disabling skills would have no effect on profile (that way people don't suddenly drop in level). Disabling skills nullifies their effect to a point where it is as if it didn't exist. Lastly, please avoid using all caps and bold letters in your comments, as per the section on "no yelling." --Wikidead 07:17, 28 October 2006 (BST)\
    It's called EMPHASIS. What does it being "earmarked" have to do with anything? It doesn't belong in this "suggestion." And, as I said, what would be the point of disabling skills. Don't want Knife Combat or Lab Experience, then don't use it (or, better, don't BUY it). So, basically, you admit to taking past suggestions (not even ones from Undecided or that went no where), threw them haphazardly together and called it a "suggestion." What the hell was the point when the suggestions passed or failed on their own? Did you think putting them TOGETHER would somehow negate the ones already in Peer Review in favor of this piece of crap? And if the point was to resuggest Auto-Drop, what did need the REST of this stuff for?--Pesatyel 09:14, 28 October 2006 (BST)
  3. Spam - As Funt, too many at once.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 08:34, 28 October 2006 (BST)
  4. Spam - This sounds like a whole bunch of junk better suited to the talk page. --Burgan Burgan 09:01, 28 October 2006 (BST)

Mechanics

Timestamp: 24 October 2006 15:35 Correct time is 03:57, 28 October 2006 (non-author edit by --Funt Solo 10:22, 28 October 2006 (BST))
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: Mechanics is a new skill under the civilian skill tree. It allows you to determine exactly when a generator will run out of power. The time it runs out will be displayed beside the generator it will read this, A portable generator has been set up here. It is ___ fuel, and ____, it looks like the fuel will run out in ____. The ____ represent blank spaces where there are variables.

The other aspect of the mechanics skill is that whenever a survivor with mechanics sets up a generator or radio transmittor it becomes 5% more resistant to destruction. Whenever they fuel a generator the fuel also lasts one day longer. These improvments in efficiency are caused by the mechanical experience the player has had. You will know if the generator or radio transmittor has been set up well if this message is displayed beside it-


Blah blah a portable generator has been well set up here(Caused by mechanics)It is running blah well on fuel(Caused by mechanics)blah and powering a well set up radio transmittor(Caused by mechanics) which is set to blah.

The italicized section is one of the possible messages that could be displayed, blah's represent variables.

So here is my summed up section-


Main effects

Able to tell approxiamently when a generator will run out of fuel

Radio transmittors and generators are 5% harder to destroy when a mechanic set them up

One more day of fuel life in a generator when fueled by a mechanic

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - Author Vote--Blackie Chan 23:54, 27 October 2006
  2. keep - but clarify. 5% or 10%? --Kaminobob 05:27, 28 October 2006 (BST)
    • ReThe increased resistance is 5% to generators, sorry for not clarifying
      • Non-author/unsigned reply struck. --Pinpoint 19:54, 28 October 2006 (BST)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - Not knowing exactly when a generator is going to run out is part of the game. Let's keep at least some of the risk. I also don't think generators should be any harder to kill. --Pinpoint 07:06, 28 October 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - Generators are fine as they are, they don't need toughning and you can tell roughly when a generator is going to run out from the description or when you try to add more fuel or something like that...--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 08:40, 28 October 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill - Sometimes the only joy a nearly exhausted barricade-smashing zombie gets is smashing the generator. Don't take that away. --IrradiatedCorpse 16:07, 28 October 2006 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Huh? Is it 10% or 5% more resistent to damage? Blue Command Vic DvB 04:59, 28 October 2006 (BST)
  2. Role-Playing - It's an axe with arcane symbols adorning the gem-studded hilt and an image of a fire-breathing dragon etched into the blade, not an Axe of Ultimate Wounding +2, +3 vs. Dragons. --Funt Solo 10:41, 28 October 2006 (BST)
  3. Leave my gennies alone! --Axe Hack 15:55, 28 October 2006 (BST)

Mechanics

Timestamp: 24 October 2006 15:35
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: Mechanics is a new skill under the civilian skill tree. It allows you to determine exactly when a generator will run out of power. The time it runs out will be displayed beside the generator it will read this, A portable generator has been set up here. It is ___ fuel, and ____, it looks like the fuel will run out in ____. The ____ represent blank spaces where there are variables.

The other aspect of the mechanics skill is that whenever a survivor with mechanics sets up a generator or radio transmittor it becomes 10% more resistant to destruction. Whenever they fuel a generator the fuel also lasts 15% longer. These improvments in efficiency are caused by the mechanical experience the player has had. You will know if the generator or radio transmittor has been set up well if this message is displayed beside it- Blah blah a portable generator has been well set up here(Caused by mechanics)It is running blah well on fuel(Caused by mechanics)blah and powering a well set up radio transmittor(Caused by mechanics) which is set to blah.

The italicized section is one of the possible messages that could be displayed, blah's represent variables.

So here is my summed up section-


Main effects

Able to tell approxiamently when a generator will run out of fuel

10% increase in resistance to radio transmittor and generator destruction when a mechanic(Survivor with mechanics)sets them up

One more day of fuel life in a generator when fueled by a mechanic

Appreciate any help given in this development.

Discussion I just like the 15% fuel life and when a generator will run outta fuel.--Canuhearmenow Hunt! 21:06, 24 October 2006 (BST) Knowing when the generator is going to run out DOES make sense. The "10% increased resistence to destruction" does not. Does that mean zombies are -10% to hit? That the generator requires "10% more damage" (ie. another hit) to destroy? And since we still don't know HOW long a generator will run with one can of fuel (estimate is one week), I don't think the 15% will be all that useful.--Pesatyel 04:32, 25 October 2006 (BST)

Re:Kevan has set the fuel life of a fuel can so he is the only one who knows precisely how long they last, one week is a good estimate so I simply changed the fuel life to one more day. Also the generators and radio transmittors are like barricades, they have a set % to break when hit by something, the 10% increase means that a player may have to spend extra ap to break it down so yea it requires more damage. The increased resistance is because they know the professional way to set up a generator and radio transmittor, the fuel life increase is because of experience in pouring fuel(Yes some people are better at fueling things than others) I'm gona get a little more feedback and then I may modify or remove some aspect.

Bloodlust

Timestamp: 1452 (GMT), by Ashnazg
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: I’m putting this suggestion on the talk page because I feel that this may need some modification before being approved. This suggestion is an attempt to promote the use of Bite amongst high-level zombies. I feel that Bite is rarely used because of these reasons.

Therefore, I propose a new zombie skill, Bloodlust, to be added after Infectious Bite. A zombie with Bloodlust will see a Bloodlust icon on the display, similar to the one for Scent Death. If the icon is clicked, the zombie will enter a Bloodlust, during which it will gain a 20% increase to its hit rate with Bite attacks. This results in an average of 2 damage per AP while Bloodlust lasts, and 1 Hp healed per AP. The Bloodlust will end if the zombie changes targets, runs out of AP or is killed.

Now for the downside of Bloodlust. Once Bloodlust has ended, the zombie will become weakened for a period of time. A weakened zombie cannot use Bloodlust, and it requires twice as much AP as usual to walk and to attack. This weakened period lasts until the zombie has expended 50 AP. It can be seen that this is definitely not a skill for new zombies, which won’t be able to make much of the damage boost and will suffer heavily later. For older zombies though, this skill could be useful.

Okay, so what’s the purpose of this skill? It’s simple. It’s a sort of zombie version of the Shotgun – it allows a player to do large amounts of damage quickly at the cost of sacrificing large amounts of AP out of combat. This makes it good for ferals, who often end up breaking into a safehouse and hoping to do as much damage as possible with their remaining AP. In mall seiges, it could have its uses too, provided that the Bloodlusted zombies aren’t Headshotted and thrown out the window.

Is this skill overpowered or underpowered? Well, to see that, you’ll have to bear with me while I do some math theorycrafting. A Bloodlusted zombie does 2 damage per AP, and heals for 1 Hp per AP. Standing up heals at least 3.33 Hp per AP, so it’s still superior in terms of healing. As for damage, maxed-out Claws with Tangling Grasp do an average of 1.7 damage per AP. Clearly Bloodlust is better while it lasts. However, extrapolate the situation to see what happens when the weakened period is factored in.

Best-case scenario with Bloodlust: Assume that the zombie spends all 50 AP attacking while Bloodlusted (already unlikely, as this is only possible if the survivor is healed for 40 Hp during that time). It does 100 damage with 50 AP. Then, assume it spends another 50 AP attacking with maxed-out Tangling Grasp claws while it is weakened, which means 25 attacks. It does 25 x 1.7 = 42.5 damage with 50 AP. Overall, it has done 142.5 damage with 100 AP.

Compare this with 100 AP spent attacking with maxed-out claws. Even without Tangling Grasp, a zombie could do 150 damage with 100 AP. With Tangling Grasp, it could do 170 damage with 100 AP. It can be seen that in the long run, Bloodlust is not as AP-efficient as simply using claws. However, by allowing for the compression of that damage into a brief period of time, it has a use similar to the Shotgun – it does heavy damage quickly, but costs more AP later.

Discussion Well, I think Bites do have advantages (and disadvantages). The bite causes Infection and also acts as a quick FAK (if a Zed requires it [and he rarely does, to be honest]), which is counterbalanced by its lower damage. This makes it balanced. People use Bites to inflict status damage, and then switch to Claws for the actual takedown. Bites are used primarly for its status effects, and not for its damage. While I understand that creating a Zed Shotgun is good, you also would nerf Zeds a lot with the sideffects of this suggestion. A Zed uses Bloodlust, and then have to spend 2 AP to move and ATTACK. Not even a Newbie has to spend 2 AP to Attack. And you also do an instant headshot for the Zed. The costs of doing such a thing would be very high. For one day of Bloodlusting, the Zed suffers a lot. Nobody would use it, due to the high peantlies.

Bites are balanced, I feel. No real change is needed--ShadowScope 19:19, 28 October 2006 (BST)

  • It's far too long. --Funt Solo 01:01, 29 October 2006 (BST)

As Funt said, get to the point. Anyways, I'd require that the zombie has to hit with the bite FIRST before this can be used (gotta get that taste of blood in the mouth). Bite is commonly used by low-level zombies since it maxes out early and does more damage (ie. gives more XP) then claws UNTIL claws max out. Thus, it would be good for a newbie zombie to hit better with it, but the penalties totally out weigh the benefits (FOUR AP to move!, stand up cost of 20 after headshot!) Most high levels zombies probably wouldn't use this either. The primary goal of a bite attack (for a high level) is to infect. Most zombies don't really even BOTHER with Digestion. Thus the penalties, while not as severe as for newbies, don't really offset the benefits for high levels either.--Pesatyel 01:34, 29 October 2006 (BST)

Like I pointed out, I'm trying to encourage use of Bites amongst high-level zombies. This skill is definitely NOT for young zombies. I was going to make it necessary to do a Bite first, but I figured that since Bite has a pretty low hit rate, that could just make it detrimental. As for the penalties, to an older zombie, it's really not much. I did the math, check the post. On second thoughts though, I should remove the 5 AP stand-up penalty. Sorry about the length, but I wanted to make a suitable argument. Bite is next to useless for damage, XP or healing. The only real purpose is infection, but that means zombies only ever bite once. Also, yes, Neck Lurch is the best bargain for just 100 XP, but for 200 XP, you get a much better rate of XP gain than with Neck Lurch. This is especially because a zombie's barricade-smashing is maxed out with Death Grip, not Neck Lurch. Consider this: A Neck-Lurch-first zombie spends 100 XP to get 1.2 XP per AP rate, excluding barricade smashing. The Neck Lurcher then needs 200 more XP to max out its fighting ability, and since it gets 1.2 XP per AP, it needs 166.67 AP. A Death-Grip-first zombie spends 100 XP to get 1 XP per AP rate. Then, it needs 100 more XP to max out its fighting ability, in other words needing 100 AP. See an advantage here? -- Ashnazg 29 October 2006, 0859 GMT

  • It really is far too long. The reason I'm not discussing it with you is that I'm not willing to read that much. I'm sure many voters will skim-read it if you post it at this length, and probably miss the key points. Can you cut it down to a single paragraph? I bet it's possible. --Funt Solo 09:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's about time someone pointed out that bites are still inferior to claw attacks. I like this idea, but I also think that you should probably shorten/simplify it if possible. --Reaper with no name 16:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Really sorry. Most of it is math to support the idea. To summarise my key points, hmm... Okay, first I wanted to mention that Bite is underpowered, so I'm suggesting a skill to improve it. A zombie with Bloodlust can activate the skill to gain a 20% increase to its Bite hit rate. This will last until it attacks a different survivor, until the zombie is killed, or until it runs out of AP. Once it ends, the zombie will be weakened and spend double AP to walk or attack (I now think my original 5 AP stand up penalty is unnnecessary) until it has spent another 50 AP. If you wonder whether it's underpowered or overpowered, the math is above. -- Ashnazg 0443 GMT, 29 October 2006

Thanks. Hrmn - it's too complicated - all that business about double AP for 50AP. Plus, it's unbalanced - one zombie might get the bonus for 1 AP, and another for 50AP. I'd argue that bite is already balanced. If you're going to increase the hit %, then balance it be reducing one of the other effects (either damage done, HP gained or infection). Make it a new type of attack - "Ferocious Bite" or something. That way, you can ditch all this "AP penalty after the fact" stuff - which will garner this a lot of Kill/Spam votes, I reckon. --Funt Solo 18:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Claw attacks are superior in both damage/AP and XP/AP. Getting HP doesn't help much because zombies will actually save more HP by attacking with their claws (remember, the only purpose HP serves for zombies is to prevent them from having to pay the stand up costs. Their AP is the real measure of how much health the zombie has left, because as long as they have enough AP to stand up, they will always have more HP), since killing survivors faster will reduce how much damage they take. And infection is a joke. 1 FAK later and it's gone. Most survivors carry at least one on them at all times. --Reaper with no name 01:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Reaper. To all those who think Bite is balanced, read my first four points. It's inferior to claws for damage and XP, and inferior to standing up in terms of healing - by standing up, a zombie gains AT LEAST 3.33 Hp per AP, even in the worse-case scenario. Bite gives a measly 1.2 Hp per AP. Infection has some use, but any zombie that wants to infect a survivor only uses Bite ONCE. And Funt, I don't quite get your point about "one zombie might get the bonus for 1 AP, and another for 50AP". Could you please clarify that? As for the AP penalty, like I mentioned, this is supposed to be a zombie version of the Shotgun. Personally, I'd find it very useful. As a feral, I rarely find survivors more than once every three days, even by following groans - the place is either empty or rebarricaded by the time I get there. Therefore, I would definitely use this skill to maximise my damage when I do find survivors, then spend another day on an AP penalty. However, I do understand that it could be difficult to code. Oh, and regarding Neck Lurch, I just realised that my initial interpretation was flawed, but my point still stands. I should have considered how long it takes for a zombie to get 200 XP after its first skill, regardless of its first skill. Okay, so if it goes Neck Lurch first, it needs 166.67 AP. If it goes Death Grip first, it needs 100 + 66.67 = 166.67 AP as well, BUT it gains a faster advantage to barricade smashing. If it goes Rend Flesh first, it needs 95.24 + 66.67 = 161.91 AP. So although the advantage is slight, BOTH Rend Flesh and Death Grip are better than Neck Lurch for young zombies. (and hence Claws > Bites once one skill is purchased)-- User: Ashnazg 1827 (GMT), 30 October 2006

There's a lot of bullshit around here trying to pass itself off as logic:
  • Here's one: "HP doesn't really matter to a zombie". Bullshit. It's the only thing standing between holding that resource building as ransacked and lying headshot outside the building, which is now 'caded and repaired. HP is as vital to a zombie as it is to a survivor.
  • Here's another: "infectious bite is useless". Bullshit. It pretty much forces every survivor to carry at least one FAK. If they get infected, it's time to go and get another FAK - and that ALL costs AP. AP that could have been spent 'cading, killing or reviving. Infectious Bite is powerful, it's just a subtle power.
  • As for whether you take my advice on making your suggestion shorter and less complicated, that's up to you. My gut instinct is that people won't appreciate being lectured to on how the bite is really underpowered. That's your opinion - and not everyone shares it.

--Funt Solo 09:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding my suggestion being too long...am I allowed to edit it while it's on this page? Also, I'd also appreciate if you didn't call other people's views bullshit considering that we do consider your opinion. Anyway, those views are not mine - I never said Hp doesnt' matter, and I never said infectious bite is useless. I'm just saying that infectious bite only encourages a single bite - and no more. In addition, in a mall seige, if a survivor spends the same amount of AP searching as a zombie needs to infect a survivor, the survivor heals 3 MORE Hp than he/she lost due to the bite + infection.

As for Hp, yes, it definitely matters to a zombie - but Digestion doesn't give ENOUGH of it. Standing up heals 3.33 to 60 Hp per AP, while Digestion only gives 1.2 Hp per AP. Also, even without standing up, consider the following situation. A zombie confronts a survivor, and the zombie is at X Hp. The survivor uses an attack that does Y damage per AP. If the zombie uses Tangling Grasp claws only, it will do X/Y * 1.7 damage before it does. If it uses Bites, essentially it takes (Y-1.2) per AP, since the damage is mitigated by 1.2 Hp per AP of healing. Therefore, it will manage to do X/(Y - 1.2) * 1.2 damage before it dies. Now, solve the inequality X/Y * 1.7 > X/(Y - 1.2) * 1.2, i.e. find what value of Y is large enough such that the healing from Bites allows it to do more overall damage as compared to Claws (note that X cancels off in this equation, thus the initial amount of Hp the zombie has doesn't matter). The solution to the equation is Y > 4.08, thus the survivor must do more than 4.08 damage per AP for Bite to be better than Claw. The best weapon available for a survivor, which is the Shotgun against a non-flak-jacketed opponent, only does about 3.57 damage per AP, inclusive of reloading. Therefore, Bite still does not heal ENOUGH to be useful.

This isn't just my opinion - it's a solid fact, as indicated by the math. Yes, math can be manipulated to give desired results, but you should find that these calculations are satisfactory and do indicate that Bite is underpowered. -- Ashnazg 30 October 2006, 1159 (GMT)

Infection IS almost useless. Forcing survivors to carry around FAKs doesn't help zombies at all. Survivors can heal at the very least 2x as much damage as zombies can do in one turn. Furthermore, it only takes 10-12 AP for a survivor to kill a zombie with a shotgun. In that time they would have taken 10-12 HP damage. They can heal 10 HP with one FAK if they have first aid. All they have to do is heal themselves AFTER they kill the zombie. And zombies aren't capable of consistently doing 40-50 damage in 10-12 turns. All of this also assumes that the battle is real-time, which rarely happens. In reality, one of three things will happen. 1) The zombie kills the survivor, rendering the bite useless. 2) The zombie is going to get killed by another survivor, allowing the first to heal themselves immediately and not to worry about curing their infection continuously. 3) The zombie will run out of AP, afterwhich the survivor will log on, heal themselves, and kill the zombie at their leisure. --Reaper with no name 14:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ashnazg - yes, you can edit your suggestion on this page. That's half the point of this page, as I understand it. I was calling bullshit on what Reaper said, not on what you said. And I'm sorry if the language offended you - but I felt strongly about it and wanted to intimate those feelings. Using the word "innacurate" wouldn't have had as much bite. I don't believe in sending swear words to swear-jail - they're part of the language for a reason. As for your example - I can't argue with the math - but I can argue that it's not as simple as 1 survivor vs. 1 zombie. If that zombie is getting attacked by multiple survivors, that would change your equation somewhat - and then perhaps the healing from bite would be useful. Plus, the ability to force multiple survivors to use FAKs or seek FAKs is a powerful one, whatever Reaper says. --Funt Solo 16:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Reaper - surely you can see that you keep giving best scenario examples - it takes survivors a LOT of AP to find shotguns and shells, and it takes god-only-knows how much AP to stock up on FAKs. Forcing survivors to use that AP and then to use the FAKs is a serious consideration. I mean, you're talking about a skill (infectious bite) that pretty much forces all survivors to carry at least 1 FAK. You don't think that's powerful? Also, your view of survivors as people who can "log on, heal themselves and kill the zombie at their leisure" betrays your prejudices. You talk a lot about the zombies lack of AP, but as if the survivor is a magical creature with limitless AP and equipment. Come off it. Try to at least have a balanced view of both character types. --Funt Solo 16:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I talk about survivors as if they have so much more AP than zombies because they do thanks to this little thing called barricades. Survivors can put them up and wait for the zombies, stocking up on stuff they will need. And it takes a lot more AP for zombies to break barricades than it takes survivors to find ammo and FAKs. And survivors always have the option of running away if whatever safehouse they're in doesn't have what they need. Stop assuming that survivors don't prepare for fights.--Reaper with no name 17:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The balance is this: zombies don't have to consider equipment, therefore ALL their AP is spent moving and attacking. Survivors have to spend a proportion of their AP looking for stuff. There's the balance. And it's that balance that you're ignoring. Continually. --Funt Solo 17:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...you do have a good point in saying that it's not always one zombie vs one survivor. However, IMO, the likelihood that active survivors > active zombies is low, thus the usage of Bite is still low. In the case of a feral zombie, it will only be likely to break into safehouses alone if the safehouse is at VS or below. Such safehouses tend to have few survivors inside, thus it's not likely that even one survivor is active at that time, let alone more than one. In the case of mall or resource building seiges, the number of zombies outside the building is often more than the number of survivors inside, thus it's quite likely that active zombies > active survivors in that case.

Regarding infection...no matter how useful it is, it only makes zombies bite once. -- Ashnazg 0911, 31 October 2006 (GMT)

And then there's my experiences in-game. Why is it, immediately after a zombie break-in (and I'm not talking about big sieges here), that nearly every survivor is infected. It seems to me that a very used zombie tactic is to get in through the 'cades and immediately infect as many survivors as possible. I see that happen all the time. Doesn't quite tally with your "zombies bite once" supposition, does it? If it's such a useless skill, then why is it used so frequently? --Funt Solo 11:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Seems like an inefficient technique to me in a mall seige, or any other attack against a large group of survivors. Like I mentioned, in a mall, a survivor can use the same amount of Hp as the zombie to heal him/herself for 3 more Hp than he/she lost by Bite + Infection. This needs 3-4 skills for the survivor(Shopping + Bargain Hunting + First Aid and very likely Free Running) but the zombie also needs 4 skills (Digestion + Infectious Bite + Vigour Mortis + Neck Lurch) Also, against a large group of survivors, the damage lost due to using so many bites (it's a loss of 0.5 damage per AP) may well outweigh the damage due to the infections. In addition, the zombie gets no XP for the infection damage. In the case of a small group of survivors, then the zombie will bite each once, let's say for a total of 5 times, then spend all the rest of its AP attacking with claws. Still seems like Bite is not highly used. -- Ashnazg 1005, 31 October 2006 (GMT)

Well, first of all, Bite HAS to be weaker BECAUSE of all the status effects it grants. Claw does 3 damage, grants 3 XP. Bite does 4 damage, grants 4 XP AND infects AND heals 4 HP. That IN COMBINATION is pretty powerful. Whether or not zombies use infection once is personal preference not standard practice. There is, often not much need to use it more than once when the target isn't active, sure, but it depends on what the zombie wants to do (go for the greater damage and/or heal). My survivor recently got into a live combat and the zombie infected me THREE times. On the flip side, as a zombie, I used bite quite frequently (especially after Tangling Grasp). One of my favorite "battles" involved a live combat with a survivor who I almost killed (got him down to like 2 HP) by succesfully hitting with bite attacks to keep my HP up. Besides, you didn't really counter my comments about the accessive penalties.--Pesatyel 02:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry...accessive penalties? I don't know what you mean by that. Regarding the "combination", like I mentioned, "does 4 damage, grants 4 XP" is inferior to Claws because of the lower hit rate. There is absolutely no argument there. As for Digestion, as indicated previously, it is inferior to the worst-case scenario of standing up, and the damage lost by using Bite actually means that you do less damage. Your scenario of the live fight with the survivor...you may actually have done more total damage (with less AP too) if you'd just stuck with Claws (see my calculations in the previous comments). If that's not true, then you must have gotten a chain of Bites, in other words that was a lucky "fluke". As for Infectious Bite, if the zombie infected you three times, it was wasting AP. You could easily fight on until low on Hp (say less than 10 Hp) and then FAK yourself to cure your infection, hence causing the zombie to waste any AP it spent on multiple bites. -- Ashnazg 0927, 1 November 2006 (GMT)

It depends on what the infecting zombie was trying to do. Maybe he was trying to get me to waste FAKs. And the point about the using the bite was that the survivor would have killed me SEVERAL times...if not for Digestion. Whether or not I got a "lucky streak" is immaterial. You don't think using 2 AP for movement AND 2 AP PER attack is accessive? Say the zombie is at max AP when a survivor steps into his square. It would cost a minimum of 13 AP to kill the survivor with bite attacks (assuming 50 HP). Assuming the zombie pulls it off, he now has 18 AP left to play with instead of 36. Unless, of course all he does is talk. Then add in the fact that that the zombie player uses the rest of his AP for the day. When he next logs in, he AUTOMATICALLY down 6 AP (since you said it lasts until 50 AP is expended), in addition to the possibility of death (via headshot or not). It gets even WORSE if you factor in the RNG. If it takes that same zombie 20 AP to kill the guy, he only has 15 left to play with that day and is down 10 the next (not counting death and/or headshot). Again, unless all he does is talk.--Pesatyel 04:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay, now I see what you mean. Yes, on second thoughts the penalty seems too severe - I'm considering making it last for 30-40 AP instead. I've already removed the stand up penalty. And a "lucky streak" is statistically insignificant, thus I wouldn't give it as a reason why Bite is useful. -- Ashnazg 0939, 2 November 2006 (GMT)

Well, like I said, bite has to be harder to hit with because of all the add ons. If claws were what infected and (ludicrous, I know) and allowed digestion, the numbers would be flipped. If claws were what infected instead of bite, claws would have a lower hit % and bite would have a higher hit % to balance. Basically, bite is "weaker" because of balance issues. Also, you forgot to take into consideration the +10% bonus from Tangling Grasp. The only other thing I could think of to add might be one of 2 things: Have it a RANDOM amount of AP before you are "back to normal." Instead of having to spend 30, 40 or 50 AP (which, I think is still rather accessive), have it random between 10 and 30. OR have it so that, with each attack or move, the person has a % chance of it costing an extra AP to do (say 30% chance?).--Pesatyel 02:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm...sounds interesting. Could be hard to code though. And I finally understand what you mean by "accessive" - it's actually spelt "excessive". ;)

And regarding using Tangling Grasp to boost Bite attacks, the problem is that you need to hit with claws in the first place. But my point regarding Bites is not really that they're useless, it's that there's not much reason to use Bite more than once per break-in. After all, since you don't get good amounts of damage, XP or healing from it, the only reason is infection...and you only need to bite a survivor once to infect. -- Ashnazg 0707, 3 November 2006 (GMT)

Oh, I understand now. But see the trade off IS how often one needs to use the attack based on the extras it provides. That doesn't preclude people from using it if the wish (I do a lot, partly for RP reasons zombies are supposed to be EATING people aren't they?). And using Tangling Grasp isn't entirely irrelevant since you are gearing this suggestion toward high level zombies and they would be stupid to NOT use the Tangling bonus if they could. But, now that I think about it, does this mean Bite would have a 60% (30% normal +20% this +10% tangling) chance to hit?--Pesatyel 21:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally I always thought zombies didn't want to eat people, they wanted to turn other people into zombies, but this is just a matter of opinion. Hmm...Tangling Grasp would indeed increase the damage rate of the Bite component to 2.4 damage per AP, which could be too high...but the damage rate of the Claw component would be 1.5 damage per AP. I don't know how many attacks can be made before a zombie loses its grip - could someone tell me so that I can check whether 20% is too much? -- Ashnazg 0958, 6 November 2006 (GMT)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Talk:Suggestions/28th-Oct-2006&oldid=456983"