Suggestions/28th-Feb-2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Revision as of 19:55, 26 May 2006 by Velkrin (talk | contribs) (→‎Cellular Necrosis)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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

Cellular Necrosis

{{suggestion|

suggest_time=00:06, 28 February 2006 (GMT)| suggest_type=Skill| suggest_scope=Zombies| suggest_description=Subskill of Brain Rot. Due to advanced levels of decay, some of the older zombies are now exhibiting signs of volatile chemicals in their tissues. These fluids react violently with the contents of necrotech syringes, causing a violent reaction in the zombies skin and in the syringe which results in the syringe exploding. The Zombie in question takes between 1 and 3 damage due to the reaction of its bodily fluids and the syringe. The scientist, sprayed with the volatile concoction as well as shards of glass takes 5 damage, with a flak jacket negating one point of that damage. The Scientist does gain exp for this (Equal to the damage done, and the kill bonus if the damage kills the zombie, however headshot would not apply in such a death). The Zombie gains no exp. Powered NT buildings contain the machinery required to neutralise these chemicals while treating individuals with brain rot, however these are not portable.

It is easy to avoid such individuals by scanning the zombies beforehand (As part of brain rot evasion), and is intended to be an amusing wake up for the zombie rather than a serious attempt to do damage to people. 

Person X injected you with a Necrotech Syringe, which reacted violently with your skin and exploded,
causing (1-3) damage and peppered Person X with shrapnel.

In response to the eventual claims of "its overpowered", you are most likely to run into such zombies while they are offline, allowing you to escape easily. It does make it a bit more dangerous to revive mindlessly, but not overly dangerous. Also, this would help provide newbie medics with people to heal.| suggest_votes=

  1. Keep - Author Vote. --Grim s 00:06, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - This is sweet I love the idea its cool but not over powering id deffinatly want to see this implemented --Deadeye207 00:09, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Sounds cool. Edit: Might I suggest *standard revive (first paragraph)* The serum inside of the syringe begins to quickly turn a black red. Before you can react the pressure causes the syringe to explode, sending shrapnel across your face. --ALIENwolve 00:11, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - Oh why not. --Brizth W! 00:12, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - Sounds amusing --Fourspaces 00:22, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - since the non zed players gets XP and you can still use it in necro labs i think its pretty balanced.--[[User:ericblinsley|ericblinsley] 00:22, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - Not particularly useful (especially since the zombie takes damage), but a great flavor skill. Plus it would inform the zombie of each time their Brain Rot robbed a scientist of 20 AP. I like it! --TheHermit 00:28, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - I'm lovin' it.--Denzel Washington 00:31, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. keep- Since you are gaining xp for the damage i guess it pretty much evens out Drogmir 00:38, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - A nice little surprise. But shouldn't it cause infection too? >:) --John Ember 00:40, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - Sounds good. --Marluxia 00:50, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - Would go swimmingly with something like, oh, say Aberrant Form. --Blahblahblah 00:51, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - I can see no problems with this skill. Plus, it might inspire some people to be a little more picky about combat reviving, especially in sieges. --Dr. Fletch 00:54, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - Great idea. I like it a lot. Agree with your "people to heal" theory too.--Mookiemookie 00:56, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill I'm just going to have to barely say no on account of "recently scanned". Its not like syringes are really easy to use or anything. Also, I dont like the idea of auto defenses. Theres precious few reasons to play a scientist, we don't really need to make their job worse. --Zaruthustra-Mod 00:58, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: Most scientist exp comes from DNA extraction, not reviving (Which, when you look at it, is woefully AP inefficient, scoring less than 0.25 exp per ap), and the skill doesnt harm DNA extraction whatsoever. Also, everyone knows its a lottery when reviving those you cant scan. This would merely serve to discourage all but those who love to live life dangerously. Also, my idea of an Auto Defence is something that attacks back every time the object is attacked, and unless someone is stupid enough to stick syringe after syringe into such a zombie (In which case they deserve what they get), i dont see how it could be seen as an auto defence, Personally i just see it as a minor hazard to players and syringe happy labcoaters, as it doesnt cause enough damage to seriously thwart them. "Oh dear, i just got hit with an exploding zombie, i shall finish my run, being more careful, and get healed up back at the safehouse". Besides, you are the one who is always saying that Zombies need to be made more fun. This is more for fun than anything else. --Grim s 01:13, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - Let's see--automatic defenses? Check. Penalizing players further, aside from the wasted AP for the syringe? Check. Voting kill? Check. Bentley Foss 01:10, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: If you check, you will see that im giving them something for that syringe. It may not be much, but its between 20% and 60% of what they would have gotten (With the potential for a kill bonus throwing it up a possible further 200%). See my comment to Zaruthustra for the rest. --Grim s 01:16, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - What Zarathustra said. --McArrowni W! 01:18, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - It's funny. Also, I finally would get to know if someone wasted a syringe on me. - CthulhuFhtagn 01:39, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep - What Blahblahblah said --Agent 24601 01:42, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - Mostly for humor value. Also I'd really like to see wasted syringes. --Sindai 01:44, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep - Would the zombie get kill bonuses for this? --Lord Evans W! 02:53, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - No. Since the zombie didnt take any action, they shouldnt get exp for it. --Grim s 04:41, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  22. Kill Hello innocent young scientist going out into the world to benevolently revive people for a token amount of xp. Let's arbitrarily have some glass shards fly into your face for doing your job. They've already lost 20AP, why give them an annoying pointless injury as well? If you want zombies to be able to see wasted revive attempts on them just suggest that. --Jon Pyre 03:43, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Congratulations on not reading the suggestion. Reviving is shitty exp per ap (Less than 0.25exp per ap to be exact, the DNA extractor is FAR better exp per ap, and is left completely alone). Also, as i said before, they get something when the zombie has this (Typically 1-3 exp, but as many as 13 exp with a kill), as opposed to nothing when a zombie just has brain rot, in that sense it slightly benefits newbie scientists, as they actually get something for theor trouble and the damage is not severe (1 FAK, which is another 5exp for someone else). As for seeing the attempts at reviving them? Check Peer Reviewed. The Syring Notifications suggestion there is mine as well. --Grim s 04:41, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re This goes against the whole "Don't Give It Away For Free" principle I hear so often around here. The zombie doesn't care about health. The survivor does. I don't care about xp. All this does is give brain rotted zombies a free attack. This would only be fair if it was possible to tell which zombies were brain rotted beforehand, getting injured as a result of carelessness is fine. Getting injured randomly because the zombie is already scanned or you succeed at scanning on the first try is not fair. Also it doesn't make sense...the reaction occurs because you inject the chemicals into the zombie, the syringe is empty. Why would it shatter if the reaction occurs inside the zombie? --Jon Pyre 02:31, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  23. Kill - I like this, however, there needs to be a way to tell if recently scanned zeds are brainrotted. Also I would like there to be some sort of percentage for the damage to the harman, even a high, high percentage, like 60/70 would be ok in my book, just because its too much like a 100% attack now. Its neat though. I don't hate this form of auto defense. -Banana Bear4 07:28, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  24. Keep - I take it this is a new skill right? - --ramby Talk 07:53, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  25. Keep - Otherwise Grim will cry. --Basher 11:04, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  26. Kill - What big ol' Bentley Foss said. Even if I don't agree with his choice of badger trap. Don D Crummitt 11:29, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  27. Keep - What big ol' Basher said. -- Craw 11:31, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  28. Kill - Rotters make it hard enough to do revives at marked revivial points (even with the DNA-scanning) --mikm W! 13:10, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  29. Keep - The risk makes it fun. Against large hoards it could become a new game amoung scientists, whoever gets hurt loses --RAF Private Chineselegolas 13:26, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 22 Keep, 7 Kill, 0 Spam/Dupe -- 14:11, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  30. Kill Being a scientist is already not easy. Why we should penalize player for wasting syrengies? --EnForcer32 15:02, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  31. Keep - Doesn't hurt the scientist too much, and may lessen random combat revives. --WibbleBRAINS 17:00, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  32. Kill - The premise is too silly for my tastes and I don't like the auto-defense precident. --Cybrgrl 17:29, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: Silly? You obviously know nothing about chemistry. Its quite easy for chemical reactions to build up pressure to the point where they break their containers, all it needs is a sufficient release of gas to build up pressure, and the vast majority of reactions i have encountered, especially those with acids involved, release quite a large amount of gas. Once again, it is hardly an auto defence. It doesnt protect the zombie from anything (In fact, the zombie suffers more than normal), all it does is make it a touch more hazardous to try and revive a zombie with the skill (Which, since it has brain rot, you really shouldnt be trying anyway) . --Grim s 21:34, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • RE Chemistry aside, i dont think a decomposing corpse is that good of a "container" any pressure built up would have escaped through the zombies multiple holes. Slavik 06:21, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  33. Kill - I just don't like the idea of an auto counter, for either side, even if it's only of when they try to revive you. Velkrin 19:26, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  34. Kill - Make the damage the same for surviors and zombies and I will vote keep. Other than that it is a good suggestion. --TheBigT 20:55, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - There is no reason for the damage to be the same. The damage to the zombie is a result of the reaction in its skin and has limited coverage, the shrapnel from the syringe on the other hand covers more area, and lets not forget its exploding in the scientists hand. Based on that alone it should be higher for the scientist. --Grim s 21:34, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 23 Keep, 11 Kill, 0 Spam/Dupe --21:19, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  35. Keep - I like it, but maybe remove the xp gained as whoever was injecting the zombies wasnt intending that it should blow up and harm the zed. -Whitehouse 21:37, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  36. Keep - I like it, and I think it's fair enough to give xp for damage done. The damage is not excessive, and would not increase the risk of poking syringes into rotting necks significantly (after all, the owner of the rotting neck sometimes wakes up and gives the reviver a friendly hug that does on the same order of damage).--Fred Dullard 21:44, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  37. Kill - Horrible, horrible. No, just no. --Daednabru 22:13, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  38. Keep - bring just a little bit more chaos to the game --CPQD 22:29, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  39. Kill - Dont penalize the player.--Uncle Willy 00:14, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  40. Keep - Sweet. Petrosjko 02:13, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  41. Keep - A good idea to give a zombie some defense/create some repurcussions.Requiememento 03:44, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 28 keep, 13 kill, 0 Dupe/Spam.03:44, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  42. Keep - Scientists should deal with the known. The unknown could be dangerous. --Gene 04:57, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  43. Keep - Wonderful, wonderful. Yes, just yes. --Beauxdeigh 05:14, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  44. Keep - Would make for a great surprise. --Maggot Therapy 06:11, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  45. Keep - Brilliant suggestion. --Kibbs 14:48, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  46. Keep - I wouldn't mind if the splash caused damage and infected the scientist. As we all know, infections are more a nuisance than really dangerous, but it'd sure be fun. --anachronist 19:09, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  47. Keep - More power to zombies is good Cinnibar 01:29, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 34 Keep, 13 kill, 0 Spam/Dupe 04:44, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  48. Kill - Exploding Zombies!?!?! no thanks. Slavik 06:21, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - If you actually read the suggestion, you would realise that its not the zombies exploding, but the syringe, and its a hazard for those who use syringes like there isnt going to be a tomorrow, and worth a good laugh. --Grim s 10:43, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  49. Keep - Yay for exploding zombies! I'd like this skill, and it is not unbalanced. Get over your 'oh noes i took damage' complex. --Leit 10:39, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  50. Kill - I don't buy it. The scientist takes more damage than the zombie? The zombie both has a violent chemical reaction going on within it's body AND is subject to the same shrapnel that is hitting the scientist and yet it take only 1 to 3 damage? EDITED TO ADD - In response to below - So why do Axes, Pistols, Shotguns, etc, all do the same damage to survivors and zombies alike? Make it balanced or don't make it at all. --Jmwman 12:38, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  51. Keep - In response to above, Zombies are a mass of rotting flesh. A couple glass shards arn't going to hurt it. --Mia Kristos 18:04, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  52. Keep - Interesting idea, would make life interesting for both sides. - Mortio
  53. Kill - (Aaaah the smell of imported forum voters in the morning....) First of all no matter how you spin it this is a nerf. It is easy to avoid such individuals by scanning the zombies beforehand Your assertion is wrong. You can scan a zombie only once. And when you scan them you have a 25% change that it will scan as usual, besides that fact, almost every time every zombie is scanned already by somebody else, before a necro has the chance to revive and the scan will yield nothing. So your changes to avoid this are slim even if you scan. In fact the only way to avoid this is reviving only contacts or reviving when both are on-line as is the strategy of the caiger revive point right now. This is only possible with a very high person count in the vicinity, every where else in game this would be near impossible. I remember the trouble of the mark I syringe. Giving zombies 1 to 3 hit point’s damage is of course totally useless. Zombies don't care for health, and certainly don’t care for 3 hit points. And the fact that Headshot doesn't work on them means that you'll do the zombies a favour anyway. So what you got left is 1-3 XP for 5 hit point damage to the reviver. (Of course the zombie could get lucky and be killed for a 1AP stand-up giving 10XP more to the reviver, but that’s about as likely as the need to wear mittens and a scarf in hell) Now that is indeed a very poor trade off. No matter that your syringe happy labcoaters (nice term by the way) are actually both the most dedicated and usually most in-genre role-playing players of them all. (Certainly on the survivor's side) Being a necro is both, very boring, (either search 95% percent of your time or have only 12 actions), unrewarding (just look at the stats page) and more at risk then usual survivors. They are the weakest group in game. If anything they need a boost in diversity of play options. (Not as much as zombies do I'll grant you). I could live with this skill if you could always discern which zombie has brain rot through some action, so that only the stupid and careless would suffer. (Who according to you are numerous) even if it was only at revive points. Otherwise it'll just serf to punish a small and underpowered group.--Vista 00:06, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
  54. Keep/Change - Shouldn't the zombie take more damage than the scientist? I can tell from personal experience that exploding thin glass is much less harmful than a bigass needle stuck in my neck. -Kraxxis 16:40, 3 Mar 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - Its assumed that the reaction, for the most part, takes place in the syringe, and that what little of the contents gets into the zombie to trigger the reaction is not as dangerous or as harmful as holding something that explodes and showers you with pretty glassy shrapnel. --Grim s 22:08, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
  55. Keep - Vista thinks too much, go lie down or something --Qwako 18:24, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
  56. Keep - Nothing to serious, makes sense logiclly!--DicktheTech 04:16, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 40 Keep, 16 Kill, 0 Spam - 20:55, 26 May 2006 (BST)

}}

EAT BRAINS!

Timestamp: 00:18, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: NEW ZOMBIE SKILL
Scope: New zombie lifegaining skill (adds to "flavour" text)
Description: EAT BRAINS!

Cost: 100 Points. Minimum Requirements: Digestion, and level 5 Minimum. On Zombie skill tree should appear just below "Digestion".

Any time you kill a human target you MUST (you do it every time) drop to feast on their BRAINS!!!

Game Mechanic: When you kill a human you spend up to 5 AP you have remaining feasting... "BRRRRAAAAAIIIINNSSSS!" For each AP you spent in this manner, you gain 3 life. In essence when you kill a human you gain 15 life for 5 AP.

This is NOT as good as an augmented First Aid Kit (FAK), with the appropriate skill for 10 Life, because it only costs a survivor 1 AP and it's optional (use it when needed., AND they can choose to heal others).

Only the killing zombie gets this benefit, immediately after the kill. (Yummy!)

Rationalization: Eating brains temporarily counters "the pain of being dead" - "Return of the Living Dead". It does appear well fed zombies appear "happier" and more dangerous. Additionally, even if you aren't wounded, who turns down a free buffet really?

It adds to the "insult to injury" because now a zombie didn't just break into a building and kill a survivor, he ate a part of them! The cannibalistic acts of zombies eating survivors ADDS to the TERROR!!! Besides, survivors currently have "headshot" which is fair, but shouldn't the zombies have an "insult to injury" skill just to aggrivate the survivors?

What is heard at the location: By the victim... "You were killed by a zombie who happily ate your BRRRAAAAIIINNNSSSS!!!!". By the attacker... "You killed ____ and happily feasted upon his/her big, juicy, BRRRAAAAIIINNNSSSS!!!!". By the bystanders (living and dead)... "_____ was just killed by a zombie who happily feasted upon his/her brains!".

Votes

  1. Keep - Now how could I not vote for my own suggestion? Seeing as how it adds to the game, antagonizes survivors, and gives zombies a reason to go "Kamikaze" on buildings when they can? What would be more satisfying to a true ZOMBIE than to feast on the brains of your enemies? --MrAushvitz 17:20, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - HP aren't really important to zombies, certainly not important enough to waste AP on it. Maybe if it were automatic upon the killing blow it would be useful, but as it is it would never be used. Oh, and do something about your caps-lock key. I think it's broken. :P --TheHermit 00:25, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill- I'm pretty sure e's trying to get into humor because of the constant cap locked BRAAAINNSSSS!!!!!!!!!!! if he's serious i don't like the idea of dudes eating my corpes each time i die. But that's just me Drogmir 00:41, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - I like the idea, zombies need to do a little more then killing. One must not only make the meal but enjoy it as well. As for the wasted AP, well its a skill don't buy it if you don't want it. Although I wouldn't be opposed to a quick dine and dash option. Guy Stu 00:45, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - I love the flavor of feasting on fresh kills. But zombies don't need more healing. Digestion can turn the tides in an "on line" battle (I've had to run from a zombie that was digesting back the damage I was dealing with an axe - and I've made survivors run in the same situation reversed), but aside from that - healing not needed - death matters not to the undead. Ankle grab negates need - especially as this is a higher level requirement skill and higher level zombies tend to have ankle grab. --Blahblahblah 01:02, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill I must? Seriously? So I'm buying a skill that steals 5 AP every time I make a kill, for health I don't really care about as a zed? Zombies make survivors switch sides on death, which I would take over headshot any day. --Zaruthustra-Mod 01:11, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - This is bad for more reasons than I care to enumerate. See above comments for some ideas, though. Bentley Foss 01:12, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - An awesome zombie nerf thinly disguised as a buff. How weird. --Sindai 01:13, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill Leave other people's AP alone. Don't steal 5 more AP from me after I stand up and eat the guy who headshot me. --Mookiemookie 01:15, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill So if I get killed, I lose 5 AP to headshot. If I kill someone, I lose 5 AP to this. What's the difference? And I get a load of useless life because heavens forbid that I get headshot and lose 5 AP. Jokes aside, (sorry if that was rude, I was just trying to convey to you the ULTRA-IMPORTANCE of AP to the zombies). --McArrowni W! 01:20, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - I'd much rather have AP than HP. --John Ember 02:37, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - This gives nothing interesting or new for zombies to do. I would hate to have the game tell me I happily feasted on his big, juicy anything. especially if it had as many letters and caps as BRRRAAAAIIINNNSSSS!!!! I guess if I could get a skill to make a survivor give me brain I might go for that. -Banana Bear4 07:34, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - A skill that uses up AP for a benefit I already have (digestion). Why would I take a skill that penalizes me, exactly? Timid Dan 15:05, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - Maybe if it weren't mandatory... --Dickie Fux 15:41, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - 1) zombies don't need healing skills. 2) zombies are killing machines and meant to be played as such. 3) if I were a zombie player, I'd never buy this skill, ever. --Arcibi 16:37, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - I like the brain-eating idea very much, but not enough to spend 5 hard-earned AP on it. --WibbleBRAINS 17:04, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - Great! now instead of spending 1 ap to stand with 60 HP, you force me to spend 5 to get only 15, this is like headshot only the zombie inflict it on themselves. No thank you! --Bermudez 20:45, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - I can heal 60HP if I hit the stand up button. And it also only cost me one AP. So why wouldnt I just keep killing until I die,then stand up again? What do I need to heal for? --Uncle Willy 00:17, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill -same as most people--Vista 00:17, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
  20. Kill -Why? Why? Why? A better version would be if the Zombie would give up 2 AP to eat the brains, and steals/gains the AP that was remaining when the human died... it would have the drawback that they might net -2 AP, but they could potentially net 48 AP, and AP are far more important to Zombies... though maybe cap the gain to 10 AP max net gain per human. Pvt Joke 10:17, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 2 Keep, 18 Kill, 0 Spam - 20:54, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Steady Aim

Timestamp: 03:30, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: This is a zombie hunter skill (it requires a minimum level of 10). Steady Aim is exactly like Tangling Grasp for zombies, exept for survivors with other consequences.
  • Steady Aim requires 5 AP and has a 50% chance of working.
  • Once used, all firearms becom 10%-30% more accurate depending on the power of the weapon (so as not to overpower weapons such as the flare).
  • Once used, survuvors can attack targets that are 1 block away, as well as within the block they are in.
  • Steady Aim fails if the survuvor moves or is attacked.

Votes

  1. Kill - Unbalancing. - --ramby T--W! - SGP 10:24, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - I can't crunch these numbers now, but I can say that my survivor's already plenty accurate, Pking is already easy enough, thanks though, new hunter skills would be nice. Oh, also theres no need for things like... tangling grasp for harmans or first aid kits for zeds. If you want tangling grasp, be a zombie. Want a first aid kit, be a harman. thats my take on it. -Banana Bear4 10:34, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - While I would like more Zombie Hunter Skills, this doesn't seem the sort of avenue that would fit in the game --RAF Private Chineselegolas 12:20, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill, if only for the fact that you can attack somebody outside of your square. --mikm W! 13:05, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kills this suggestion from a block away with a shotgun with 95% hit chance Jokes aside, 95% hit chance is way too much. Even with a 5 AP penalty (that drops to 3 if the opponent is in another square), you gain back much more in the ammo you didn't waste. I'll post the math later on the talk page, if you request it--McArrowni W! 14:16, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill Now friend McArrowni, that's not very welcoming behaviour! Here, follow my example 'Stop posting unbalanced ideas or I'll shoot' You shoot for 10 damage. The suggestion fall to the ground. 'Oops, sorry!' Always give warning before you shoot. -- Andrew McM W! 14:32, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill = What's been said. --Blahblahblah 15:00, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill Firearms are powerful enough. Timid Dan 15:03, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - No shooting into adjacent blocks. --John Ember 15:11, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - Wow, killing zeds on a different block @ 95% accuracy? Holy Moly! --WibbleBRAINS 17:08, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - No long shots, and the hit % for firearms is balanced as is. Velkrin 19:27, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  12. Spam A 95% to hit shotgun that does 10 damage from a block away? Puh-leeze!--Mookiemookie 23:03, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - If you hit someone they should be able to hit you back.--Uncle Willy 00:19, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Spam So I even NEED to note how overpowered and rediculous this is? I see no redeeming value... --Volke 01:43, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - I'm going to type this slowly so you can understand. YOU. ARE. AN. IDIOT. --Snikers 03:51, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - They've said what I was going to say (minus the insults). Bentley Foss 04:56, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - No long range shooting --Cinnibar 02:04, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - What? no insults from you anymore Bentley? Darn this suggestion for breaking you!...--Vista 00:20, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
  19. Spam - Let's add grenades to the game so a single survivor can throw them outside a mall and kill 50+ zombies at once with 90% accuracy. -Kraxxis 16:46, 3 Mar 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 0 Keep, 16 Kill, 3 Spam - 20:54, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Necrotech Base

Spaminated 8 spams, 13 votes, NO Keeps. Moved to user-rejected--Uncle Willy 00:24, 1 March 2006 (GMT)

Here it is

Shouldn't this be put back? Spam votes didn't even come to half, much less the 2/3 we need. I thought only mods could spaminate in the "3 Spam/No Keep" situation

8/13 is more than half. However, it is slightly less than 2/3. - CthulhuFhtagn 19:22, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Re - It's more like 8 to 13, or 8/21, close to 1/3 of the total. This is what I get for replying late at night. Read "votes" as "Kills" somehow. Still, not quite 2/3, so this still needs to be put back up for a day, at least 'til it gets a few spams. --Pinpoint 05:12, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

Health/out of total

Dupe - of Prognosis, 8 Dupe 2 kill 3 Keep --Vista 16:27, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

Streamline Profile Text

Timestamp: 15:33, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Interface Streamlining
Scope: Server Load
Description: Quite simply, I think we don't need to read the skill descriptions every time we click on a profile. It would cut server load and bandwidth if a truncated version of the profile were initially displayed with the skill names as links to descriptions of the skills. Most players do not need to read and re-read the skill descriptions for the people they are clicking on.

Server load decreased by the net change in size of profile vs the occasional "click on the skill to see what it does" by a newbie.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote. Timid Dan 15:33, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. kill I like seeing what the other guy was, I just spoted a zed spy because of those skills so no, I am not going to have them go away - --ramby T--W! - SGP 15:38, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - Please re-read the suggestion. I am not suggesting that the skill listing disappear, only that the descriptions of the skills need not be listed on every profile. Timid Dan 15:47, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Makes sense --McArrowni W! 16:43, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - I'm no propeller-head, but I think text takes up negligible bandwidth compared to graphics, sounds, and whatnot. --WibbleBRAINS 17:14, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - A clean screen is a thing of beauty. One suggestion: make the link to full descriptions go to the Wiki and open in a new window so as not to use up server hits. --Cybrgrl 17:38, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - I don't know enough about programing to know if it would make much of a difference or not - but I'd rather even the little bit of room it frees up not having skill descriptions added to more space on profile character descriptions (hope-hope). --Blahblahblah 17:52, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - All hail the prescious few suggestions that show genuine concern and solutions for current & future server problems. --MrAushvitz 14:06, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - Hell, it should even be easy to code for. If you really want, make the skill descriptions tooltip texts, so they pop up in those little yellow windows when you mouse over the skill name - even that should be simple for how this site is set up. --Reverend Loki 21:09, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - Nice -Banana Bear4 21:31, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - Lag is bad enough when I'm clicking names trying to find a nice target to attack. I don't want to be subjected to twice as much of it.--Mookiemookie 23:00, 28 February 2006 (GMT) Keep - Though I'm not sure how much good it would do.
    • Re: - Er... what? This was suggested to REDUCE overall server lag by reducing the size of the profiles by eliminating redundant text (we all know what Free Running does by now). How do you see a quicker page load increasing lag? Timid Dan 23:36, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you wanted what skills a character possessed to be hidden on another page.--Mookiemookie 00:55, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - Server load is not a reason to Keep (or Kill) a suggestion - and this would probably have a very minimal effect anyway. I like having the descriptions, though. --Norcross 21:41, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - Anything that makes UD faster is good. Cinnibar 02:28, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - Maybe UD will improve so any action won't take 10 seconds to do. -Kraxxis 16:51, 3 Mar 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - The impact would be ridiculously small. A few hundred bytes of bandwith? I don't think we're talking about more than a few MByte a day. Not worth it. --Dottore 14:14, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 10 Keep, 4 Kill, 0 Spam - 20:53, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Generator Attack Script

Timestamp: 16:18, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: other
Scope: All
Description: There is a very annoying trait in the game that allows players to attack generators, then scarper out of the building once the generator has been destroyed, with only the "death blow", as it were, to the generator being advertised. This implies that the character is able to destroy the generator "quietly". This is a simple proposal that when a player attacks a generator, each blow is recorded and advertised in a manner similar in display to when a character is being attacked. i.e

Player X attacks the generator (GMT 10.46)....and again (GMT 10.46)...and again (GMT 10.47).

This way it is easy to identify the culprit who is destroying the generator. Much hilarity ensues when everyone descends on aforementioned culprit and kicks his arse.

I understand that many people may find it "fun" to destroy generators discretely, as it is one of the only subversive acts (other than being a Z scum spy) in UD. However, not only is it unrealistic to be able to smash a big, metal object without a sound, it is also highly annoying for over half the UD population.

The only practical reason against this is that it may hit the servers..

Votes

  1. Keep Author Vote. Booyah! Don D Crummitt 16:18, 28 February 2006 (GMT
  2. Kill It is meant to be annoying. Plus what is the point of this if you do see who breaks the generator, how likely is it that everyone is active at the same time?Blue Wild Angel 16:38, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • RE Why would it matter if everyone is active at the same time? This would be useful even if 2/10 players were active. It's just weird when you are active that one minute you're in a building with power, and the next you find out the gennie has been destroyed without any implication it was being attacked. Don D Crummitt 16:44, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
      • Re My point was that this is only really useful information when you are active, otherwise a simple "survivor name breaks the generator is adequate information". Blue Wild Angel 16:54, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - You can already see who the culprit is, and it doesn't really take that many hits to do the deed. This would be extra spam for no benefit. --John Ember 17:19, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - What ^ said. If the person does the deed and runs away, knowing what times the attacks were made doesn't make any difference - if they are still there, they are still there and you already get the notice that they destroyed it - if they are gone, they are gone and you can run a hunting party for them if you like. --Blahblahblah 17:40, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - When someone attacks a generator in a corner of the mall with 500 other people, there are enough people active to make sure the attacker doesn't get the last hit in. This would be quite useful. --Reverend Loki 21:26, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - I would argue WHO is attacking a generator is just as important as WHO is attacking a player.. if not MORE so. Period. --MrAushvitz 14:30, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - So someone broke the malls generator. I would be more annoyed to hear every time someone attacks it than to just have a broken generator. They are really not useful in most buildings. Sure NT's are nice to have powered, but I don't think that this will discourage GK's at all. It would just add some nice spam to the window. -Banana Bear4 21:34, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - The current message is fine. Generators don't get destroyed nearly often enough for this to matter. Bentley Foss 05:00, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Who cares about generators in malls? A spammed up screen is more annoying than a broken generator. --Dickie Fux 16:23, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - I have too much spam on my screen each day already. --Cinnibar 02:29, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - I agree. Besides, one man's spam is another man's flavor. Take away anything that can be viewed as spam and it's a pretty sorry game.--Jmwman 12:44, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill -Unneeded--Vista 00:32, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 4 Keep, 8 Kill, 0 Spam - 20:53, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Letting players control their Brain Rot: Reanimation(revised)

Timestamp: 17:30, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: Though Brain Rot is now reversable in powered NT buildings actually getting revived that way is extremely difficult and probably requires extensive metagaming. Selecting Brain Rot means you're going to essentially be a zombie for the forseeable future. This makes taking the skill a heavy decision, even though you can be revived it will take so long to get revived each time you die that you're more or less giving up all the human skills you took so long to earn. I suggest a subskill of Brain Rot that allows a limited form of an off-toggle for the Brain Rot skill for players that may eventually change their minds or feel like a change of pace.

Reanimation would be subskill of Brain Rot with the following effect: When a survivor that took Reanimation when they were a zombie dies the stand-up button to become a zombie would have a small checkable box next to it. If they check this box upon standing their Brain Rot skill would become dormant and have no effect, the in game reasoning being that the revivification they underwent in a powered Necrotech building to become a survivor reanimated their rotted gray matter and cured them of this afflication. They can be revived and scanned as normal. If they do not check the box and stand it is assumed their Brain Rot took hold again and it would operate as normal, thwarting scans and stopping revives. They would have this choice each time they are revived and killed again as a survivor, each time they die they could choose if they want to play as a Brain Rotted zombie or not. The decision is permanent until the next time they are revived and killed as a survivor.

  • Note: This skill would give more power to the players. Brain Rot wouldn't be an eternal commitment, you could choose to use it or not use it freely. It would not be easier for zombies with this skill that choose to be Brain Rotted to be revived, they would still need to enter a powered Necrotech building. They would not get to choose between being Brain Rotted or normal until they are revived and die once again. Why should Brain Rot be a penalty and keep players from doing what they want in the game? This gives power to players and let's them have fun doing what they want to do. If you're a dedicated zombie player you might not want to use this ability but there's no reason to deny this to others.
  • Note: If the player chooses not to have their Brain Rot affect them the skill is displayed differently in their profile (perhaps a different color text or some other method) to indicate to others it is dormant.

Votes

  1. Keep Author vote. Why should a skill be a penalty? There would still be a tradeoff for using Brain Rot to resist combat revives, it would be just as hard to get revived. All this would do is give the choice of whether to be a brain rotted zombie or not each time you are killed as a survivor. Players should have fun playing the game, their own skills shouldn't limit their options. This skill would not change how brain rot functions and would not nerf the skill in any way, it would just give more gameplay variety to those that want it. --Jon Pyre 17:30, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Brain Rot is *supposed* to be permanent. If you are not sure you want to play a zombie forever, then don't buy Brain Rot in the first place. Besides: Zombie spies. Need I say more? --Cybrgrl 17:44, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - I like that brain rot is a difficult choice to make, and would like to see some skill(s) under it to provide greater reward/incentive - but not an easy way out. --Blahblahblah 17:49, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Brain Rot is supposed to make you immune to revivification. It does that. Why shouldn't players be given more gameplay options? Brain Rot is useful for one playing style but the great thing about Urban Dead is you can play in many different ways. Why not allow people to switch back and forth between different playing styles occasionally? It wouldn't nerf Brain Rot, it would simply let people have more options. There's no reason to force players to start up a whole new character just because somebody decided that Brain Rot should be a ball and chain. It isn't meant to limit players. It would still fufill its purpose: stopping revives. Just this way players wouldn't be forced to live with their decision like they were signing a contract. Brain Rot has pros and cons. You'd still have to live with them, just you could choose to accept them or not once in a while. --Jon Pyre 17:50, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - Did you mean this Re to go under Cybrgrl's comment? For me, I'd still like to see a different skill under brain rot - and not an easy way out. If you are playing as a zombie and you want to not be revived, there are things you can do to easily insure you return to the undead (and still remain in character roll playing - ex: oops, I got stranded outside this building with 10 zombies next to me, etc.) - brain rot is supposed to be a hard choice skill, or Kevan would have made it easier when he gave the NecroNet way out is the way I see it. --Blahblahblah 18:02, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
      • Re I think the reason he made Necronet was so zombie players could get any new crossover items/skills introduced in the game, but I'm not going to try to guess he motivations. My point is, it's a game. If this would make some people have more fun and hurt nobody why oppose it? Brain Rot would still be a decision you'd have to make, once you accept it you'd have just as much difficulty being revived. But this way if you want to play differently for a while you don't need to make a new character. It seems silly to force people to do that. And there could still be subskills of brainrot to act as incentives...perhaps if you chose not to have Brain Rot activated any skills like that would also become dormant. Your idea of Brainrot subskills is completely compatible with this, there'd would still be an incentive to use your Brain Rot for any hypothetical enhancements. --Jon Pyre 18:22, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - I like that it still requires the tricky powered revive to get the process going the first time. --John Ember 19:33, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - Like JE said, the fact that you have to get revived with the normal Rot hardships the first time makes this OK with me. It'd be better if you can only be revived the normal way a limited number of times after setting your brain rot dormant before it came alive again, or something, but multistep skills are bad so this seems the best possible option.--'STER-Talk-Mod 20:29, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - But for balence purpouses there might be a higher level requirement than "brain rot" itself. More powerful zombies controlling their own "destiny" as it were. --MrAushvitz 14:02, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - I like this. It would let more people have more skills and do more things to have more fun. More is more. -Banana Bear4 21:37, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - If you dont want your brain rot to work, DONT BUY IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. --Grim s 23:12, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Dont want to rot? Don't buy the skill. It's as simple as that.-Uncle Willy 00:46, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - I liked the other one more --Lord Evans W! 00:47, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill just no. many groups refuse to revive rotters and this will force them to revive them.--RAF Lt.G Deathnut 02:56, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill No way. I wouldn't mind letting them "buy off" Brain Rot by spending 100XP to just drop it (and having to spend another 100XP to buy it back), but letting them just turn it on and off at will is ridiculous. --Norcross 03:23, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - What they said. Bentley Foss 05:02, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re To what all you guys said, if someone plays as a Brain Rotted zombie for a month then decides they'd like to play as a non-brain rotted zombie why should their skill limit their options? As I said, it's silly to force people to make a new character. What point is there? Tell me that. What on earth is accomplished by making Brain Rot limiting? Because "IT'S PERMANENT SO DEAL WITH IT?" That's not a reason, that's just the status quo. Reanimation hurts nobody because anyone who didn't want to play a brain rotted zombie would just start a new character anyway. It won't hurt zombie numbers, you can't FORCE people to play a side they don't want to. This just gives players more options and doesn't make people restart the game from scratch or have multiple characters. It's just mean to limit other people's fun. This wouldn't make switching between them easy, you'd still need to get a powered NT revive. Don't vote against the enjoyment of other players for no reason. --Jon Pyre 05:41, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - No, thanks. --Basher 10:30, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - That does not seem very rotten does it. Check out Rotter's Relief they will be needing some help I'm sure. --Maggot Therapy 21:02, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - Just don't buy brain rot. --Cinnibar 02:34, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - Just don't get brain rot, as everyone else stated. - Erados 03:52, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - Caveat emptor.--Mookiemookie 04:39, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill -John, Brainrot is extremely powerful, it eliminates the zombie way of dying. to have it turned on and off at will is extremely destabalizing. random revives would become near impossible. And although a certain type of zombie players wouldn't mind that. It destroys one way of roleplaying and demishes another. One, the cross-over player who role-plays both sides as they comes to them and doesn't meta game would never get revived without resorting to out of character. two the dedicated zombie who took it as a way of roleplaying and of distinction whould be robbed of his status. a lot whould hate it. It would also make combat revive impossible (more in charater then ?rise) wich although ultimatly more damaging then useful should stay open as a roleplaying avenue. If you want to be revived easy, don't buy it. if you want your revivication to be very hard to avoid it when you don't want it. Do buy it and live with the fact that revivication is still possible, but more difficult. I know persons who bought it as a survivor to increase the penalty of dying for them. There is no way either in flavor or in game mechanics that would work for this as you want it. it'll always break more then it fixes.--Vista 01:11, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 5 Keep, 14 Kill, 0 Spam - 20:52, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Zombies know to much!

Timestamp: 17:54, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Zombies without memorys of life.
Description: Why can zombies tell humans apart but humans can't tell zombies apart? It makes no seanse a zombie cant tell the differnce between two humans or vice versa. I say that zombies should when incountering a human or group of humans see this "You see a group of tasty looking meat bags". But upon gaining the skill memories of life the zombie is then able to reconize different humans. Zombies that cannot reconize humans would attack a random human when attacking, much like when a humans attacks a zombie. It just makes sense for zombies to not be able to tell humans apart. When zombies with the ability to see health, but don't have Memories of Life see a group of humans they can still attack the weakest human or which ever one they want without it being random. But it would still show only meat bag not "so-and-so" NOTE This does not get rid memories of life's effect only adds to it

Votes

  1. Keep Author vote-Deadeye207 17:54, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - I will reconsider my vote after you run a spell check and reword your suggestion so that I can tell exactly what you want to do. --Cybrgrl 18:03, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill This is a unique zombie trait. It makes them hard to kill and harder to single out. It doesn't make sense for humans to have such a skill. Balance and complete homogeny aren't the same. --Zaruthustra-Mod 18:22, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - I say, if I need to know what my targets look like. I'll target humans. If I don't, well I'll target zombies. There is nothing left to be said that didn't already get run over by the Z-train. -Banana Bear4 18:27, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re opps sorry sorry sorry This isn't what I meant at all. What I meant was zombies shouldn't be able to tell humans apart, not humans should be able to tell zombies apart sorry for the confusion-Deadeye207 18:30, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
      • Re:Re There was no confusion. There is nothing wrong with zombies telling humans apart-Banana Bear4 19:23, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Oh the horror! Zombies actually have advantages that survivors don't! - CthulhuFhtagn 18:34, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re What I was trying to say was zombies shouldent be able to tell the differnce between humans-Deadeye207 18:41, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - I'm voting kill on this one, because I don't agree. I will vote "Keep" on any suggestion that limits people to one suggestion a day, however. Timid Dan 18:51, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Zombies remember some things even without Memories of Life, otherwise they'd be hapless babes. --John Ember 19:37, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - And judging by your spelling in the title, you don't know too much. --TheTeeHeeMonster 19:49, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Your suggestion is a failure. As is your grammar. And, apparently, your cognitive thinking skills. --Arcos 19:50, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - What the guy is saying is, until the get MOL zombies shouldn't be able to tell humans apart. They would only gain the ability to tell them apart after they get MOL. He is not in any way suggesting that players be allowed to tell zombies apart. Grammar + spelling = bad, actual idea = okay.--'STER-Talk-Mod 20:32, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - "Meatbags" are nearly all the same to low-lvl zeds anyways... when you have problems eating at all, you eat what you can, and don't get picky. --McArrowni W! 20:52, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - No, I think it's fine as it is right now. That said, looking over some of the other kill votes on this idea, it certainly seems that you've managed to bring out the asshole vote... --Reverend Loki 21:02, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - Many of us think it's a good idea, but you have to word it very carefully, that includes spelling. Re-issue this idea with careful wording that even the most anal-retentive lawyer can't pick apart, and you'll probably have a lot of "Keep" votes. Good idea! --MrAushvitz 14:02, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Thanks guys so you really think this is a good idea? Thanks I'll re submit tommarrow and it will be spell and grammar checked to perfection!-Deadeye207 22:05, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - Let's make new zombies even more unattractive to play! No, let's not.--Mookiemookie 22:58, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Pretty much. People who say "zombies should be stupid" constantly seem not to grasp that nobody enjoys playing at being an idiot. Zombies have to be fun to play, or there's no game. Period. --John Ember 04:55, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. kill - Removes the metagame newbie help aspect from zombie play. Very bad idea. --Grim s 23:00, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  16. SPAM - spammity spam! Spam! Green eggs and spam! --Jorm 23:01, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - What they said. Bentley Foss 05:03, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - What Mookie said. There are not enough zombies in the game as it is. --Basher 10:35, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill - Recognising your opponents is one of the small advantages a newbie zombie has. --WibbleBRAINS 19:47, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  20. Kill - I have corrected your grammar and spelling so that people will judge on the suggestion not the spelling. But, I, in turn, also think this is a bad idea.--The General 19:55, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  21. Kill - This is not a good idea --Cinnibar 02:35, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - Why care to kill this? This takes nothing away from Zombies... Humans are nameless food to Zombies, and besides a number or letter, humans shouldn't be worth having a name in the rotting eyes of Zombies. This wouldn't discourage Zombies, it would discourage being a Zombie spy, as now the spies would be vulnerable to being attacked by the zombies. If a Zombie wants to not end up hurting their spies, then they can take the MOL skill so they know thier spies from the rest of the herd. This is logical, easy to impliment, and promotes Zombies to act as Zombies, attacking humans indiscriminately. How about people stop complaining about fun suggestions, innovative suggestions, and intelligent suggestions, and aid in the elimination of cheating, griefing, and general stupidity. --Pvt Joke 10:54, 3 March 2006
    • Final Tally - 4 Keep, 17 Kill, 1 Spam - 20:51, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Advanced Flare Signaling

Timestamp: 19:51, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors/flares
Description: The military has been developing new technology to improve communication through the use of flares. A device has been successfully manufactured and mass produced, which coats the flare casing with a powdered dye (held on by a thin glaze) which reacts with the gunpowder upon detonation to produce a color visible in the explosion. A special division of the military has been hard at work installing these devices in Factories and Armories throughout Malton over the course of the last few months. Now all devices have been installed, and the military has released the information to the denizens of the city.


The following skill to be added as a branch under "Free Running".
  • Advanced Flare Signaling - "This skill allows flares to be coated with a colored dye inside powered Factories for 1 AP"


4 colors are available to dye flares with - Red, Blue, Yellow, and Green - along with the standard/current flare (non)color. This only colors flares already in inventory. Once a flare has been colored, it will have R, B, Y, G after the name "Flare Gun" on the item (As: Flare Gun __; which would read Flare Gun R, Flare Gun Y, etc.). A flare may only be run through the machine once, so after a color has been chosen for it, it can not have it's color altered again. The machine has already been installed in all Factories and Armories, so no new item is introduced - just a coloring process. The building must have a running generator for the machine to work. Said buildings with running generators will have a new button available that reads Color Flare, which a player with the skill can click on to bring up a drop down menu with the color options, to color a flare in their inventory for 1 AP. If no flares are available to be colored, an error message will be shown to the player - You have no flares to color.

Note: This attempts to bring variety and more reliable communication through the use of flares (which is currently a useless spam item, for all intensive purposes). Different meanings would quickly be applied to the various colors (similar to the way zombies without "Death Rattle" have had meanings applied to their various -and limited- text options). As this is a skill, which requires some degree of dedication to acquire; and as there is a process required to color flares - it is not so easy to abuse/spam with as flares currently are.

Clarification: The message from a colored flare would read the same as the flare message is currently, just with the color added to it.

Votes

  1. Keep - But a soft kill, because this is a decent idea, but almost a dupe. The backstory was very well thought out, but there are already a few similar proposals that are less complex to implement. I do applaud the nice backstory and clear thought that went into this, but I really think the implementation is the issue. Specific questions that come to mind : How would one select which flare gets colored? Would existing colored flares get re-colored? What flavor text is visible when the new flare type is fired? Timid Dan 20:48, 28 February 2006 (GMT) Edit (later) : Changed to keep after consideration, comment clarification - Timid Dan 22:24, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - Author vote & Re to above^. The selection of flare to color would go first available in inventory, same as loading a gun - etc. Existing flares have no color - they are just a generic flare description, nothing would change in that regard. The flavor text for the colored ones would simply be something to the effect of: You see a blue flare fired X direction, X direction. It's not a dupe - I know, because I suggested the other colored versions that have come up recently (also worked some ideas over with the author of the non colored ones) and have done things to this based on voter response to those. The delay in posting this version was it took me a while to come up with a good back story/way to color the flare, which was the biggest problem most kill voters had with the other version. --Blahblahblah 21:29, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - I just happened to really like the flare signal suggestions that fired at non-specific angles (low/med/straight up) and thought they were far easier to implement (no AP, no factory-specific code). But I'm on the fence on this one. Timid Dan 21:53, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - I wouldn't press the matter beyond what I've already said if you weren't on the fence - but it doesn't hurt to have multiple suggestions with different mechanics to achieve the same function. What if Kevan wants to do something for flares, but hasn't liked the things he's seen thus far? Like "Feeding Groan", it could very well be something he wants to do, but hasn't thought of - or seen a good way to do it yet. If this makes peer review, it doesn't mean it automatically goes into the game - as with all suggestions that make the review. Plus I like this version because it's another building(s) to put generators in. --Blahblahblah 22:08, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Very cool idea. More reason to power buildings, new uses for factories and armories, better survivor communication. A creative addition to the game that's still very simple to implement. --John Ember 21:45, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment - Ooh! I just realized survivors will probably develop color sequences to mean certain things too. Red followed by Yellow means "zombies, 20 or more"; Red followed by Red means "zombies, 50 or more." That kind of thing. --John Ember 14:39, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - Now THIS I like!!! A signal to every living human in the area who can see it and recognize the message. It's an alternative "In game" form of communication other than cellphones and running up to a player and talking to them. Should be a millitary skill, but whatever, a scientist could do it too.--MrAushvitz 14:48, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - :) It is a military skill. Free Running is a military skill, this would go under that. --Blahblahblah 22:03, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • RE - :) So it is! My bad.--MrAushvitz 15:20, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep --Cybrgrl 22:22, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep *Applauds* This is a great way of introducing colored flares into the game! Adding a process to color flares in factories is no less realistic than making revivification syringes in NT buildings! Simple and effective, makes factories more interesting and provides a way to put a general meaning behind a flare. Just great. I think my idea to have an angle could also work alongside this too to allow flares to have an even more specific meaning to them, then you'd have both color (general meaning) and angle (coded meaning to specific allies). And don't think it needs to be a military skill since it's more of a sciency process to change the flare color. I'd should probably go under Civilian skills, maybe even as a subskill of Construction to indicate the player has a background in engineering. --Jon Pyre 22:25, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Dupe -Peer_Rejected_Suggestions#Colored_Flares and it was rejected.--Uncle Willy 00:44, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Not a dupe - I honestly don't think I need to explain all the differences.. if you have eyes, you see them. --Blahblahblah 01:14, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - Not quite a dupe, and it give pourpose to factorys --Lord Evans W! 06:05, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Just because you color your flare doesn't mean that people still won't ignore it. Bentley Foss 05:04, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment True, but perfection is a pretty high mark to set. This would be fun, maybe useful, and doesn't hurt anything. A worthy improvement. --Jon Pyre 05:47, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - I like it much better than the previous flare suggestions you guys came up with especially as this gives factories a real use.
  11. Keep - Excellent idea!!! What I don't like is the fact that coloring a flare take 1 AP and can only be done in a Factory or Armory. This will be a waste of time trying to find multiple flares at a building, running to a Factory and color them one at a time. I think you should add an XP gift for coloring the flare and/or multiple coloring for 1 AP. --Nam 08:53, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - It needs to be somewhat of an involved process - if it is too easy, it will just wind up being abused like flares are now. For the XP gain, I didn't think about it one way or the other when I was working on it - I just wanted to make it so flares can actually be useful. Maybe that's something Kevan would see fit to add when/if implementing - you never know.. --Blahblahblah 18:39, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - Low priority but a very good idea nonetheless. Don D Crummitt 14:50, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - Would the message read something like "A red flare was fired...?" If so, that's no more spammy than flare messages are now. --Dickie Fux 16:17, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Refer to my author vote - that's exactly how I intended it. I'll add a clarification note to the suggestion. --Blahblahblah 18:29, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - DAMMIT, just hte other day i was thinking about coloured flares, though, this suggestion works better than the one in my head. Slavik 06:29, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Tally = 12 Keep, 1 Kill, 1 Dupe, 0 Spam

Travels Light

Timestamp: 15:15, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Millitary Skill
Scope: Benefits from a "light load"
Description: This skill is meant for a "small, fast and mobile" concept. Your character is a lot more effective when not "armed to the teeth" with a whole shwack of junk. You can always find your pots and pans later, you need to be able to MOVE when you see zombies come crashing through that door.

Prerequisites: Free Running and Level 5+.

Adds to the skill tree right under "Free Running".
  • Travels Light - "This skill allows your character's maximum AP to be increased by 5 IF you last logged out with 15 or less items in your inventory. Note - Some equipment counts as 2 items for this calculation. This skill does not apply to zombies, this skill is related to top running speed, which zombies lack."

RP Benefits: Scouts and other millitary personnel may enjoy the "Hutt! Hutt! Hutt!" and "Move! Move! Move!" elements this skill implies. Then again, maybe your grunt loves that heavy backpack when surrounded by the enemy. Medics "behind the lines" carried only what they absolutely needed, so they can carry a body if nessesary.

Votes

  1. Keep - A millitary skill that represents how your character is more mobile than the "average man". Makes a lot of sense for characters who don't need a lot of junk, or have finally found everything they need.--MrAushvitz 15:30, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - So a properly equipped Hunter (say, 7 loaded shotguns) can not only steal 5 AP from a zombie, but can boost his own by the same amount. You do realize there is a shortage of zombie players, right? --John Ember 22:23, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Zeds are already at an AP disadvantage. Let's not increase that. --Cybrgrl 22:26, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - I take it you mean "could" and not "can" carry a body. I believe typos like those can be edited. Otherwise, this is fine. Gives an incentive to stop carrying so many guns. Doesn't hurt the don't touch AP too much, IMO, because the drawback looks okish--McArrowni W! 22:36, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - What McArrowni said. And I quoteth Kevan from the FAQ section - "Question: Fifty Action Points isn't enough! Answer: The limit of 50AP per 25 hours is to keep the game balanced and to stop too much from happening overnight; if we doubled the recharge rate, it'd mean people getting in a hundred AP's worth of actions while other players were offline, which is enough to cross the city or deal an easily fatal amount of combat damage. There may eventually be character skills which modify the maximum AP and its recharge rate, but the basic starting-character settings will remain the same." Personally, I see that as "go ahead and make suggestions". If someone can come up with a good way to do it, maybe that's all Kevan is waiting for. In regards to it not applying to zombies - there's nothing stopping anybody from coming up with a zombie answer to this. Maybe something with feeding on a fresh kill... hmmm... Afterthought - I'd rather see this as a "Zombie Hunter" skill, but not enough to change my vote. --Blahblahblah 22:56, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep It's a suggestion to increase max AP and it's actually balanced! Astounding! --Jon Pyre 22:54, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep -- I'm going to go with a tentative keep here. I wonder if this is a big enough change on it's own. Maybe if there were a way to make a built-in character thing. It's almost small enough to be the extra XP for reading books thing scientists have. -- Andrew McM W!
  8. Keep - What Jon Pyre said. Incredible! --Brizth W! 23:02, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - Explaining why would be summing up every other keep vote so far. --Reverend Loki 23:09, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - leave the AP alone, survivors don't need the buff--Bermudez 23:10, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - Best AP-related suggestion I've seen. Good in that the rate of AP gain doesn't change. Timid Dan 23:29, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - Oh emm gee. It messes with AP and it works. how the heck?--'STER-Talk-Mod 00:34, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - Simple and elegent, I like this idea. But as Blahblahblah said, possibly as a Zombie Hunter skill. We need some more of them --Private Chineselegolas RAF 00:36, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - Makes sense --Lord Evans W! 00:52, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
    Comment "...allows your character's maximum AP to be increased by 5 IF you last logged out with 15 or less items in your inventory..." This means maximum 55 or go from 38-43? What's to stop a player from logging in, out, in out, and getting 5 AP every time? (Also, to make it fair to zombies, perhaps these players should take extra damage by being less heavly protected... I don't know, just something...) --Agent 24601 00:55, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - I'm assuming that APs still accumulate at the same rate, only this character can accumulate up to 55. But I'd also suggest that the character gets the bonus if and only if he/she stays below 15 items, and any extra APs over 50 is lost once a char gains more than 15 items. --Ralav 01:20, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - its is just an increased maximum ap, not an insta+5-ap-perlogout. This is a fine thing, especilly for those who like to chop zeds head off with the fire axe. --hagnat talk 01:46, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  17. Keep - I'm surprised - I actually like this one! And it's not open to abuse, since you still have to "earn" the extra AP by waiting for them to accumulate. A nice way to let those who can only log in once per day keep a few AP in reserve, like those of us who log in multiple times can already. --Norcross 03:08, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - No. Absolutely not. --Jorm 04:40, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill - Humans do not need more AP. --Grim s 04:46, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  20. Kill - Potential for abuse since bonus is based on previous login; player can get the bonus and then carry more than the limit.--Dangermouse 04:50, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  21. Kill - What part of leave your own AP alone did you not understand? Bentley Foss 05:07, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  22. Kill - see above --CPQD 06:29, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  23. Keep - Good drawback to a decent benefit. The potential for abuse on this one is nill. Let's say you logout with less than 15 items. Come back with 55 AP. Ok, you've got 5 AP to get "more than the limit" and even then, you've just used your spare AP getting over a limit that no longer applies. Congratulations. That "Leave AP Alone" rule should be stricken. Kevan has already said that there might be skills and items in the future that mess with AP. --Pinpoint 09:07, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  24. Kill -problem with this that the AP bonus is usuable to other things then moving. for searching it doesn't matter how many things you have in your backpack, yet you can search and barricade more with this then normal. but even with that inconsistancy I'm not for it.--Vista 12:06, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  25. Kill - No more nerfs for humans until the ratio is fixed. --Strapon Bev 13:04, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - This makes them more powerful. MaulMachine 13:07, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - And you aren't supposed to vote for one side. There might very well be another implementation that changes the balance. Once there is, how are you going to explain to someone that his suggestion is a dupe of this suggestion which was killed "because back then one side was stronger that the other". Peer-rejected is not for "rejected now", it's rejected forever. --McArrowni W! 13:18, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - If you set a standard for killing things just because it is for one side or the other, you can expect the other side to return the favor. A good suggestion is a good suggestion, regardless of the sides (arguing whether the suggestion is good on its own merits is another matter, but taking sides is only going to result in the other side fighting back and killing what could be great ideas just on sides). Making Peer Review doesn't make the suggestion go straight into the game. Kevan's not an idiot he's not going to throw things into the game to tip the favor of a side unless he's following it up with a counter balance on the other. --Blahblahblah 18:52, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  26. Keep - I like. MaulMachine 13:07, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  27. Kill - Change it so it won't allow the person to carry any large items -- it's hard to travel light with two generators and five shotguns. I would also suggest no Flak Jackets, either, as I assume they hinder movement somewhat.--Dickie Fux 16:33, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  28. Kill - I don't think the "15 items or less" checkout thing is enough of a penalty for something that increases your playing day by 10%. --WibbleBRAINS 19:59, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  29. Kill - I hate. --Beauxdeigh 23:46, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  30. Keep - I don't hate --Cinnibar 02:37, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  31. Kill - I like it and it would work but I am stayin with my dont mess with AP standpoint.--RAF Lt.G Deathnut 04:29, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  32. Keep - It's not that big a deal. The conditions to use it are pretty extreme and it doesn't actually give extra AP. --Sindai 04:35, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Tally - 18 Keep, 14 Kill, 0 Spam, 0 Dupes --Pinpoint 05:24, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  33. Kill- Because I can ---Qwako 17:27, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  34. Keep - Well put together!! - Nicks 19:21, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  35. Keep - Good suggestion, provides a nice benefit that isn't a free lunch --Brett Day 11:38, 11 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 20 Keep, 15 Kill, 0 Spam - 20:49, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Torment The Living

Timestamp: 16:00, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Zombie Skill
Scope: More intelligent zombies add to RP opportunities, and overall terror!
Description: Your zombie doesn't just like to eat people, he/she likes to tell people he/she is about to eat them! You like to "play" with your food, and derive great pleasure from the fears of these humans.

Prerequisites: Scent Fear, Feeding Groan, and Level 10+.

Adds to the skill tree right under "Feeding Groan", your character needs to overcome certain verbal communication limitations before this skill is even possible.
  • Torment The Living - "This skill allows your zombie to speak in completely coherent sentences, 3 times a day for 2 AP each. When you do so outside a building, all survivors inside the building can hear what you have said (they are unable to resist listening to your unnatural 'voice'.) Any time you use this skill to speak at a location (or just outside a building) where there is a human survivor who is either alone and/or at least 5 levels below you gain 5 XP."

Game Text: You speak to a survivor outdoors "A zombie whispers ________ to you, you can barely believe your ears!". You speak to a survivor inside a building "You hear an unnatural voice hiss _______ from behind the nearest window... this can't be happening!" RP Benefits: It is usually customary to mutter things about how tasty someone's brains will be. Insult the living about the "weaknesses of the flesh". Share unwanted information with the living about how "good" it feels to be a zombie. Use your favorite one liners: "Someone's in my fruit cellar... someone with a fresh SOUL!"-Evil Dead, "Send more paramedics" - Night of the living dead, "More brains!" - Night of the Living Dead.

Votes

  1. Keep - Now this invites all manner of more personal RP opportunities between living and dead. the interactive possibilities are endless. "I just killed your friend outside, his flesh was warm and his blood HOT.. but that's why I made him run for a while.. to warm my belly. Are you warm in there my friendssssss?".--MrAushvitz 16:15, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill I like where you're going with this but zombies would just use the two daily coherent talks for coordination, basically giving them the primary advantage survivors has. Maybe if instead it was something that allowed you to only give a message to the person you kill. --Jon Pyre 23:06, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • RE - :) Excellent point, however that doesn't mean the other zombies will understand what you are saying. Giving a message to someone you kill is all fine and good, but they're about to become a zombie anyways. I was hoping for intelligent zombies "outside the walls" to annoy and harass survivors within. This also includes the up close and personal conversations. "Are you lost, my pretty? Such a cold night to be all alone, outside."--MrAushvitz 16:20, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - I really like the idea behind this, but as Jon Pyre states, the potential for abuse is just too great. I do look forward to seeing the revision of this suggestion in the future... --Reverend Loki 23:11, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. 'Kill - My zombie can do enough to torment the living with death rattle--Bermudez 23:12, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    Comment - I really don't know what to say on this one, the idea is awesome though! What if it was along the same lines as feeding groan (only usable when faced with survivors)? I suppose that would nerf the idea somewhat however. Thus, I comment only! Blue Wild Angel 23:19, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - I was interested as per Blue Wild's comment, but the XP gain killed it for me. Timid Dan 23:32, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - I'm sorry, I really do not like the idea of intelligent zombies and the abuse possible. I don't think this idea can be fixed. Death rattle is fine. --Agent 24601 00:38, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - While I would enjoy this skill a lot, I can not vote keep with a clear conscience. The first reason is that this is unneccesary and just imagine what the zombies that say granma gangbang would say with a coherent voice. "A zombie whispers Hey Harman, wanna cyber? A/S/L to you, you can barely believe your ears!" hahaha. this would be great. nope. I like the way death rattle makes things sound. -Banana Bear4 00:29, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - One of the big points in this game is that zombies can't talk.--Uncle Willy 00:40, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Death rattle is limited to certain letters for a reason. Maybe if you could *only "communicate" with a/multiple survivors with a list of pre-existing "taunts" that would use the zombie's body language as well as his limited speech. --McArrowni W! 01:15, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - The name is awesome.. that's about where it ends with me. Any XP gain for speaking is broken at the start. And I like that zombies can't speak as humans can - Death Rattle is fun to play with, and I don't want the line between the sides blurred. --Blahblahblah 01:55, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill The name attracted my attention. The idea itself has instilled murderous hatred within me. AllStarZ 02:27, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - *Sigh*. Does anyone else seen the x-ray view inside this suggestion ? Zombie Outside a building: hello, anyone inside ? +5XP, yes, there is; No xp, no there isnt, move along. --hagnat talk 03:52, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - Wow, you've made a way for somebody to level up without doing anything whatsoever. Great plan. Or, not. Bentley Foss 05:09, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - XP for speaking?!? What will you propose next? AP bonuses for tap dancing?!? (Please don't.) --Gene 05:12, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill -Lets give zombies the abilaty to play chess also and play polo also. Zombies =/=survivors and survivors=/=zombies. if you want to wispher sweet nothings to people, play survivor.--Vista 12:00, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - Death Rattle is inventive and fun to play with. I'd like an extra hard consonant if anyone proposes that. --WibbleBRAINS 20:58, 1 March 2006 (GMT) (Who the HELL deleted my vote here at 20:04GMT????)
  17. Kill - Death rattle is good enough. We don't need this. --Cinnibar 02:40, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 1 Keep, 16 Kill, 0 Spam - 20:50, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Street Preacher

Timestamp: 17:15, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Civilian Character Sub-Class
Scope: An interesting slant on what happens to religious leaders in the face of what seems the "apocolypse"
Description: You are a priest, pastor, cleric, (psychic?), shaman or any other religious leader of sorts (even a televangelist!) From your perspective it is the apocolypse, armageddon, the final battle between good and evil, and it is your duty to save all of the souls that you can! Maybe your former "flock" is now dead.. Maybe you aren't even a 'real' priest but one of those street people who wore a 'The end is near' sign on yourself all day.

Starting equipment: Crucifix (or any non-denominational religious icon), First Aid Kit. Starting Skills: Last Rites. The street preacher 'suffers' a +25 XP cost for millitary skills, and +50 XP for science skills, they may still learn them.. but not cheaply. There are some skills this penalty does not apply to (ex. First Aid), anything that is considered attending to their flock or being of humanitarian aid.

Street Preacher skills are a seperate sub-tree of miscellaneous skills, not available to other character classes.
  • Last Rites - "Your character is able to go about getting XP by praying for the dearly departed (a basic ritual.) Any time your character is at a location that contains bodies, you can see the click option "Last Rites" if one or more of those bodies needs to be consecrated (priest has not gained XP from it since it died). 'Last Rites' costs 2 AP and gains you 2 XP per use. You have no way of knowing how many bodies at this location are unconsecrated, however your character will 'feel' when further sacraments are no longer nessesary here." For game purpouses the "blessed"/"Not blessed" status of a body is simply a number 0 or 1 for example next to the body at the location, and only affects a street preacher's clicking options. So far as anyone knows it has no effect on the zombie who is about to rise (but maybe it saved their soul!)
  • Bless you, my child - Skill Tree Under 'Last Rites' "Your character may spend 3 AP at any time to perform a blessing at this location. The effect is random, based on your level, and usually does nothing, but the effects usually increase search chances at this location for other characters. All characters in this area will read '_____ performed a blessing at this location, asking a greater power for hope in these dark times.' "
  • Rebuke The Damned - Skill Tree Under 'Bless you, my child' "Your character may spend X AP any time they are at the same location as any group of zombies, where X is their total numbers at that location. By doing this you gain X XP for rebuking them, cursing them, and threatening great and terrible things will happen to them. It has no other effect per se, other than the game text 'A strange human approaches your zombie group and dances about moaning and hissing at you.. for a while.' humans see this as 'A street preacher approaches the nearby zombies and threatens and curses them. Also accusing them of all manner of impurity and hellfire.' "
  • I Shall Smite Thee - "Your character gains +20% to hit with any unarmed punch attack. "
  • Strike Thee Down! - Skill Tree Under 'I Shall Smite Thee' "Your character gains +10% to hit with any unarmed punch attack. Your character deals +1 punch damage so long as they have at least 1 crucifix in their inventory. "
  • Religious Fervor - Skill Tree Under 'Strike Thee Down!' Prerequisite: Level 5 "Your character gains back 1 AP every time you miss a zombie 2 attacks in a row, with any attack. "
  • Unclean! - Skill Tree Under 'Religious Fervor' Prerequisite: Level 8 "Your character gains +10% to hit with all attacks against any zombie when inside a church. "

RP Benefits: The street preacher believes that he/she is helping the cause. Perhaps they are! But in such a dire situation, many survivors look to anyone who can help them get through it.

Votes

  1. Keep - I've been thinking about this one a lot lately.. what happened to members of the clergy (and important church members) when the infection started? And now that it's a fact of life (and many have uncurled from their fetal positions), how do they percieve they will be 'saved'? Maybe one way of looking at it, is 'we're all going to die, so you'd better be good, and have faith!' It creates a LOT of RP options, and a number of street preachers can simply wander about quoting various verses, cursing the undead, and telling everyone to 'Repent!' ".--MrAushvitz 17:15, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Multiply by a million. lets say you have 50 AP and youre standing outside a mall siege, their is a million corpses. thats 50 XP w/o moving an inch.--Uncle Willy 00:37, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - There are many problems here. One your starting a new skill tree. I think that breaks some of the basic assumptions. Second, a couple of the skills you suggest give direct xp for ap with no percentage for failure. You said blessing a location would have a random effect, but didn't say what that random effect might be. I guess its good that you didn't include anything about lightning strikes direct from Dr. G, but other than that... -Banana Bear4 00:38, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - There are a couple bad skills in there. The one that gets you AP is top of the list. And then there are the pseudo-magic type skills that seem to be mystical in origin. Just say no. Timid Dan 00:42, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - The AP refund is the main down side, but the "Rebuke The Damned" skill could be fun... --Private Chineselegolas RAF 00:46, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
    Comment - "spend X AP...gain X XP" The idea behind the skill is fun, but theres too much reward. -Uncle Willy 00:59, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - The idea could be remade (if the author doesn't I will) but as of now it is not efficient with some skills, and the power of god aspects should be toned down. --Agent 24601 00:56, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill This is overpowered in at least half of those listed, and doesn't work too much flavor-wise. I mean, this isn't a fantasy RPG where bishops have light magic to cast, and gaining XP from dead bodies is too much (its why using them as zombies FAKs is an idea thats shot down). Plus, there's then the "multiply it by a billion" rule... --Volke 00:59, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - Mostly just to be contrary. There are some good ideas in there, it seems a shame to demolish the whole idea just because of a couple admittedly flawed ideas.--'STER-Talk-Mod 01:00, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Spam - Evangelist-fu? (or is it cruxcifu?). Plus multiple things said above--McArrowni W! 01:19, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - Overpowered. And no religion giving you benefits. - CthulhuFhtagn 01:30, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - I really love the flavor. However, this is an ambitious set of changes and will surely need to go through a few iterations. I think this is completely in genre, and I'd like to see something like this make it in. --John Ember 01:43, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - Mostly what's been said. My biggest problem is chopping up the skill costs - even within classes (The street preacher 'suffers' a +25 XP cost for millitary skills, and +50 XP for science skills, they may still learn them.. but not cheaply. There are some skills this penalty does not apply to (ex. First Aid), anything that is considered attending to their flock or being of humanitarian aid). And I have trouble seeing the point of an entirely new survivor class with such a limited/specific roll play potential... maybe an addition to the civilian class (but that would toss out all the new skills, which personally I see as more humorous than anything else). --Blahblahblah 02:02, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - "Your character gains back 1 AP every time you miss a zombie 2 attacks in a row, with any attack." This is the biggest reason for my kill vote. Imagine someone starting a preacher character and then buying all the gun skills and getting one free AP anytime they missed twice in a row with a shotgun. I do, however, like the basis for the idea. Improve the way such a class would gain XP, get rid of the increased search chances for blessings and the AP gain skill, and I may vote keep. --Navigator 02:23, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill I just don't like religion. It's pretty much the root cause of many of humanity's miseries. AllStarZ 02:32, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: I just don't like zombies. Their pretty much the cause of all this trouble. You can't vote based on opinions like that. --Agent 24601 02:44, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill OK, let's see... supernatural effects, new character class type, new skills not available at all to any existing characters, multiple AP actions, gaining XP with no interaction, gaining AP (that requires a combo!), and oh yeah, even more supernatural effects... is there any "kill" reason this one misses??? --Norcross 03:15, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - I've fulfilled my asshole quota for the day, so I'm just going to say: Religion in Malton, as in life, is for roleplay value. If you want to preach, you can use the "speak" button. That's in addition to reasons above. --Arcos 04:26, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - I just don't like it. It's too much like NT scanning but with prayer instead of DNA. And blah on the religion angle. Bentley Foss 05:10, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - Street preachers should be zombie fodder. --Gene 05:16, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill - I get enough old-fashioned ear banging OOC. --Maggot Therapy 06:46, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  20. Kill - No, you do not kick ass for the Lord. Rhialto 10:59, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  21. Spam -multi AP costing actions, magical effects, inconsistacty in the skill tree XP cost Etc. etc. I could make a list of all the horrible broken things in your suggestions but then it would be longer then your suggestion itself. there is not one thing that redeems this.--Vista 11:57, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  22. Kill - I don't think this is in genre, not to mention it breaks all sorts of rules. Could we leave the attacks on religion off this page. It's fine and dandy if you're an atheist, but there's no need to be rude about it like a second grader. --Pinpoint 18:11, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  23. Kill - I could go on for pages about what is wrong with this, but I'll just back up what Gene said. --WibbleBRAINS 20:10, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 3 Keep, 18 Kill, 2 Spam - 20:50, 26 May 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/28th-Feb-2006&oldid=264064"