Talk:Zombie Mutation

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
The initial content of this page was moved here from Talk:Suggestions. I encourage the participants in this discussion to write in a more structure way about their design ideas. --mortimer shank 01:01, 24 Sep 2005 (BST)


I really like these ideas -- it pushes the game from the first movie in the series, where zombies in and of themselves are scary, into the sequel, where they're actually getting worse in ways beyond easier to-hit rolls, and the battle-hardened humans get scared all over again. The Lv1-3 weaknesses make players have to think about whether they're going to expose themselves to temporarily weakness for the sake of being more powerful later on, and making it a Level 10-only skill means that a Headshot really screws over a potential Mutant Zombie. --Stankow 18:56, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)

The Mutation tree had one comment on this page, and it's overwhelmingly positive, and yet, a moderator deleted it because "this isn't Resident Evil"? If there's a more appropriate avenue of discussion, where things are actually getting decided by more than one person, please let the rest of us in on it. --Stankow 22:56, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
I can't think of any good zombie movie where the zombies start crawling up walls and mutating into poisonous frogmonsters. It's ridiculous. I'm not alone in this. --Katthew 23:16, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
I can't think of ANY zombie movie with this concept. Mutating is just going to get more people to avoid being Zombies, which sucks as there is already a bad human to zombie ratio. Besides, this is Urban Dead, not Urban Swamp Thing--JayKay 23:21, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
Katthew has a point. If I wanted to fight mutant frogs, I'd go play Resident Evil. I like this game because it isn't plagued by crap like that. --ShaqFu 00:11, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)
Agree, what the hell? Zombie frogs? House of the Dead sucked for a reason... :P --LibrarianBrent 00:31, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)
I wasn't making a literal reference to an actual movie series. It was a metaphor. Even if you didn't like the particulars, I think the suggestion opened up an interesting idea -- choosing (emphasis on choosing, since no one would have to start up this skill tree) a temporary weakness for the sake of later strength. And again, if there's a more appropriate avenue of discussion, where things are actually getting decided by more than one person, please let the rest of us in on it. --Stankow 05:55, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)
I must be the only one seeing JayKay and ShaqFu's comments, then. The decisions are made by general consensus, yes, but even if a billion 14-year-olds wanted me to keep their crappy Resident Evil shit like "crawls up walls" and "breathes fire" and "is ten feet tall" I wouldn't allow it. That kind of thinking led to Rob Liefeld being one of the highest paid men in comics, which is an abysmal crime beyond reckoning. Zombies should not mutate, evolve, or be exposed to the strange CHEMICAL X that turns them into dragons. I assure you that no one who plays this game and is old enough to vote will think these are good skills, unless they have no taste or sense whatsoever. --Katthew 07:31, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)
JayKay and ShaqFu hadn't commented when you deleted the skills I'm talking about, which would probably explain why my comment appeared above theirs in the thread and was date-stamped 30 to 90 minutes before theirs. And the ones I was talking about were DarkRyno's suggestions, none of which was "crawls up walls" or "breathes fire." Go back and look at the history if you don't believe me. They were perfectly reasonable skills, which I believe you deleted solely because he dared to call them "mutation." Speaking of which, what is it about "mutating zombies" that offends your sense of realism as compared to zombies? --Stankow 12:51, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)
No, they didn't explicitly say, "crawls up walls" or "breathes fire," nor did he mention anything explicitly about "mutant frogs," but I thought it was pretty obvious where the idea came from. Besides, if you leave this general "mutation" stuff in there, people probably will start adding crap about crawling up walls, breathing fire, and weilding a giant mini-gun and rocket launcher at the same time. --ShaqFu 16:05, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)
Now we're killing suggestions based on what they may eventually lead to? Like how "pistols" and "shotguns" will force people to start suggesting giant mini-guns and rocket launchers? Seriously, go back and take a look at this tree and tell me how it's remotely "mutant frog." There's some interesting stuff there that lends the game an entirely new texture for zombie players. --Stankow 16:43, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)
When in the same square as this zombie, humans will get a message saying, "You see a disgusting creature you assume to have once been human."
Oh, and I believe that rocket launchers were suggested before, too. --ShaqFu 17:02, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)
So what's so bad about that? Are we no longer allowing any flavor in the game? Is it an automatic Kill if anyone dares suggest that we add a description? Is it inherently bad to make people think, Do I really want to start up this skill tree that hurts me now, but will end up benefiting me later?
Yes, rocket launchers were suggested, and they were a bad idea, but that wasn't the fault of the person who allowed for pistols and shotguns. Ideas should be accepted or rejected based on themselves, rather than what they "probably will" lead to. --Stankow 17:35, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)
God knows that when I think of zombies, I think of hideous animal creatures made entirely out of raw flesh that can cling to walls and ceilings, spray poison from their mouth and have claws the size of knives. Wait, wait, silly me. That's not zombies I'm thinking of! That's "clich�d and worthless piles of crap"! --Katthew 08:48, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
Please look at the tree I linked to above. There's no "wall climbing" or "poison spray" there -- all of the suggestions are within the realm of current upgrades, with the addition of zombies being scary. Find me a zombie movie that doesn't include at least one scene of people freaking the hell out just at the sight of a zombie. Isn't the entire point of zombies that they're scary? --Stankow 16:05, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
DEATH SCREAM! You're right, that isn't a horrible skill idea at all. I also like the descriptiveness of "Mutation Lv1" and the way all it does is take away 10HP. It makes perfect sense for a zombie to mutate into a worthless pile of crap. In other words, no. --Katthew 16:44, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
What's horrible about the idea of zombies getting a low chance at making humans fail an action? I refer you back to the movies, where people freeze up in the presence of zombies all the time. The point of Mutation Lv1, as I've noted on a few occasions above, is that it makes players ask themselves, "Do I want to go up this skill tree at all, making my zombie character weaker now in exchange for more powers later?" --Stankow 16:59, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
As has been said before, skills that mess with other people's chance to hit are currently a no-no. Plus, since when do zombies scream? It's more of a low-pitched moaning. Or groaning, if you will. Also, since you can't see that far ahead on the skills tree when playing the game, it's more a case of "I bet this worthless, crappily-named skill will lead to even more worthless, crappily-named skills." And they'd be right! Hell, even if it led to "Zombie SSJ u can enrgy blasts for 2 billion dmagae as long as ur power level is gr8" I wouldn't buy those crappy skills. They are awful ideas. We're not including them, or any other Goddamn mutation skills. Everyone else agrees with me here, so let it drop. --Katthew 17:04, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
I'm willing to accept that we're not taking any skills that interfere with other people's chances to hit. I didn't see that in the massive block of gray this discussion has become. Speaking of which, might we want to split the Suggestions page to make it a little less unwieldy?
"since when do zombies scream?"? Since when do zombies not die permanently in any way whatsoever? Since when do zombies have human servants? We're writing our own rules here.
Thinking that people can't see any farther in the skill tree is denying the obvious. Is there anyone who's been in the game long enough to level up who hasn't seen the entirety of the skill tree?
I'll ask again -- where is a more appropriate forum for discussing these things? So far, "Everyone else agrees with me" appears to be three people, two of whom weren't commenting on the same things I was commenting on. Please, let me know where I can discuss things about the game and the wiki, if not the game-discussion area of the wiki. --Stankow 18:46, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
The Suggestions page, though large, is fine how it is. I am considering purging it again. There's a lot of useless things in there. Zombies do not die permanently in order to simulate a far larger horde, and also because there is no permadeath in this game at all. Judging how often the average zombie dies, that's a good thing.
Not seeing the skill tree was just one argument of many against those retarded skills. I could think of much more, but unfortunately most rely on having a sense of taste when it comes to this kind of thing. Let me be as clear as I possibly can be: these skills are terrible ideas and should not be included on the suggestions page ever again.
I am fine with discussing things in a sensible and mature manner, but some things are beyond discussion. These skills, for example, have no merit whatsoever. Everyone - that is, everyone who considers Spawn to be crap and guns to be better weapons than swords - would agree with me here. I could name thirty people right now who hate these skills. Give me five minutes to look up some names and I could provide a further fifty people who hate these skills. And yet I don't see anyone else besides you defending them. Because, let's face it, they're terrible skills that do stupid things and have utterly retarded names. They are not going in, end of discussion. --Katthew 18:57, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
Which is the guiding factor here, then? Is it game balance, as you quote immediately above, or is it being without precedent in the zombie movies that you personally have seen, as seemed to be your line of argument earlier?
For the fourth time, please tell me where all of this discussion is going on. I'd genuinely like to contribute, but if you get to cite huge numbers of people who agree with you, then I think it's only fair that you tell the rest of us where these decisions are actually being made. --Stankow 19:16, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
The guiding factor is whether or not it's good. It's hardly rocket science. As for where this discussion takes place, I assume (hope) you are familiar with IRC? Over thirty people in this channel at the moment, and well, well over fifty on the SA forums (where I can ask for opinions whenever I like). I promise you that I do ask for opinions, even though I know they're all going to agree with me anyway. Now please, let this discussion drop already. It's over. --Katthew 19:20, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
Please point out to me the objective standards of "good" that will render such a judgment easier than rocket science. While you're at it, please tell me which IRC channel I can find this discussion on. Since the SA forums are not open to the general public, I don't feel that using them as a reference is a fair reason for deleting suggestions. --Stankow 19:27, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
If you cannot tell what is a good idea and what is a bad idea, please refrain from editing this wiki. And though the IRC channel is unavailable to the general public, and the forums are unavailable to anyone without $10, they still contain a motley assortment of various people from all walks of life. You cannot say they shouldn't be used as a reference merely because you are not a member. I do use you as a reference, albeit much less often now you have wasted my time by consistently arguing this point when the decision has already been made days ago. END OF DISCUSSION. Don't make me ban you for a day just to force you to take a break from talking non-stop about these retarded skills. --Katthew 19:32, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
Well, it does mean that anyone who wants to verify your claims that 'Lots of people agree with you' has to fork over $10. it seems like it would be far easier to simply let people discuss things in an open forum. --Jeff 19:55, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
Or it means you can take my word for it, you know. Besides, even after multiple people at the beginning of this Godforsaken conversation said how bad these ideas were, Stankow still decided to argue the same stupid point over and over again. The only people who want these skills have no concept of a good idea, and therefore their opinions in the matter do not count. We're not having stupid mutation skills. Now, do I have to say END OF DISCUSSION again or simply lock this page so you can't keep complaining about a decision that got made by the majority several days ago? --Katthew 20:02, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
Katthew, you deleted the skill tree when mine was the only comment on it. Of the "multiple" people who have arguing against it since then, two of the three were arguing against "poison glands" and "wall climbing" and the like, none of which were featured in the skill tree that I was discussing. After that clarification was made, you and ShaqFu were the only people who still argued, up until the point that you threatened to lock my account for not seeing that your definition of "good" was simply the only one that would suffice in this discussion. If 2-1 is enough to end a discussion and get someone banned, then what's the point of this discussion page in the first place? --Stankow 20:37, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
I pointed out the skill tree to the IRC channel I was in. It was met with laughter, derision and overall condemnation for deletion. My own feelings were the same. So it went. You comment was the only one on this page, but not the only opinion voiced on the matter. Add that in to the fact that even if someone supports a VERY, VERY BAD IDEA it is still a VERY, VERY BAD IDEA. Now, do I have to tell you to drop this one more time? The stupid mutations skills are gone, dead, vanished, deleted, defunct, extinct and shall never, ever return. Now, once again, this conversation is over. Reply to this comment, and add further to this stinking morass of ignorance, and I will delete this entire conversation and ban you for a day. The decision has been made, so don't be upset that you lost. Get over it and move on. --Katthew 20:47, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
To avoid an unnecessarily wordy reply, as most points that feel should be brought forward alread have been, I will simply state that I agree and support Katthew's viewpoint. Adding this type of skill tree would reduce fidelity of the game with regards to good old fasion zombie movies. "Mutation" does not seem to factor into the spirit of this game --ArchAngel 20:16, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
Just wanted to add another viewpoint. I agree with Katthew about there being no need for a mutation skill tree; mutations of a wide nature are probably silly. Different types of zombie (thinking of faster, weak/slow, strong ones ala Half Life 2) would be best represented (if represented at all) as a different 'class' of Zombie. If the arguement is of minor mutations happening to Zombies, well, the standard tree already features this (sharper teeth, bigger claws). On the other hand, maybe some form of experimentation from a rogue Necrotech scientist could come into play? Zark the Damned 19:58, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
Zark, I think your comment about rogue Necrotech experimentation is an interesting one. Didn't someone suggest before that 'mutations' be tied to syringe use? Perhaps syringes could lose their '100% effectiveness' and gain the possibility of adding a new zombie skill. It would discourage syringes as an offensive weapon, that's for sure.--Jeff 20:05, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
Nice idea, Jeff. We really do need to do something about the syringes, they're just too powerful. Unfortunately, by adding a new skill, we wouldn't be doing anything to deter people using syringes to take out zombies already possessing that skill (Which would be everyone, after a little while). And if we made it so that the syringe had a percentage chance of adding any random skill, zombies would just use syringes to level themselves and their allies up. --Cortman 13:49, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)

Though I am not so vain as to claim anything definitive, as a biologist I'd like to think I can make an educated guess about how to shoehorn in mutations. First of all, zombie mutations would not spontaneously happen. Unlike comic books, when you get splashed by something that rearranges your internal workin's, you don't get superpowers. Just cancer. So no skills that suddenly become available.

There are, however, two times when the functions of your body are jerked around enough to fit in some DNA wrangling. First, there's the original zombification process. Any skills conferred here should technically be available to all zombies, and therefore would not be skills at all. I think surviving without a working circulatory system is a pretty good advantage anyway. The other time is when zombies are revived. The flesh basically has to be regrown, unless the new human wishes to die once again from gangrene. This gives you all an opening, with one condition: the changes should be something Necrotech would logically do. It would take far more time and equipment than a single rogue NT could scrounge, which is why syringes have to be found instead of manufactured on the spot. The conferred skills might add in resistance of some kind, or allow the human to keep some zombie skills. They would not turn a zombie into a superhuman killing machine, significantly alter what a zombie is, or provide a large pro-zombie advantage, though a few unethical 'modifications' would probably be favorably received, within limits. ~Lurve

How about you ignore the roleplay side of it and look at the skills themselves. Heck, they can be changed also. What's being suggested is a temporary loss for a gain later. It doesn't have to be mutation it can be whatever the hell fits in. Its the skill dynamic which should be discussed. At least one person has seen that and suggested a different roleplay idea.

Personal tools