Suggestions/5th-Feb-2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Revision as of 17:58, 9 April 2006 by Velkrin (talk | contribs) (→‎Dart Rifle)
(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

Feeding Frenzy

Timestamp: 09:15, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: If more than 5 zombies in the same area have this skill, then a damage increase for the zombies with the skill is rewarded. If there are more than 5 humans in the area with the 5 Feeding Frenzy zombies, than an even stronger damage increase is awarded. This does not affect barricade, or generator attacks.

Votes

  1. Kill Hordes are plenty powerful already combat-wise--McArrowni 03:11, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - This is an overpowered skill, this would make Zombies too powerfull during seiges, and this won't help the lower levels. - Jedaz 03:36, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - How can you say it is overpowered? The suggestion gives NO INFORMATION on what is being suggested, other than 5 zombies should get some kind of bonus. And why should 5 survivors being in the same area get an even bigger bonus?--Pesatyel 05:57, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. spam -Not a suggestion but an idea. doesn't tell were the skill would be located, doesn't tell the benefit. do the work. and besides all that, it is already clear that this will violate the multiply by a million rule.--Vista 12:01, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Even if it's a 1 damage bonus, it's vastly overpowered, also, I agree with Vista, do the math yourself. --C tiger 15:23, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 0 Keep, 4 Kill, 1 Spam - 18:48, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Power Station/Substation

Timestamp: 09:01, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Game Enhancement
Scope: Power Stations
Description: The two power stations in Malton don't seem to be serving a purpose. I propose that power stations can be powered up. This would power the entire suburb they were in. I also suggest that power substations be made. These exist for one in every suburb, and are in one building. A substation cannot be spotted from the outside (much like the Necrotech Buildings). If a substation is found and repaired in a suburb, and the power station supporting the suburb's sector is functioning, then the whole suburb could have power. If the substation is taken out, the whole suburb loses power. If the power station is taken out, then multiple suburbs lose power.

Votes

  1. Keep - Brilliant idea, and it would confuse the hell outta zombies ;) --Dark Wingstalker 02:37, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep --Lord Evans 03:15, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Yeah not to bad of an idea - Jedaz 03:38, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - Beats the more complex. --ALIENwolve 03:42, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - Needs a skill to recognize the buildings from the outside. Otherwise, it'd be just as hard for humans to find them. Maaayyybeee have it transfer to zombies, like Nec employment does. --Pinpoint 05:27, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Needs a bit more refining. Take a look at [[1]] in Peer Review (though I think Electric Company is merely an add-on to this). There is also [[2]], which was killed (7 kills to 2 keeps) and [[3]], which had 2 kills to 9 keeps.--Pesatyel 06:32, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - And might I suggest Wasteland or junkyards might be a good spot for them? Could be those fenced-in areas labelled "DANGER OF DEATH" you see various places that contain transformers and such. I'd also suggest a skill to be able to fix them. Ignatius Newcastle 10:28 6 Feb 2006
  8. Keep - Yeah, that will be cool and much more realistic. If the powerstation powered - that all the buildings in area powered. I like it. --EnForcer32 11:37, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep -seems more an alteration of the current peer-reviewed powerstation suggestions but it is a start. slowly we'll assemble one all encompassing workable suggestion. nice addition.--Vista 12:04, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - Sounds awesome and gives more for survivors to do other than defend malls. Using a random Junkyard or wasteland would be good for the substations, as it won't change the map much. --Devin Wright 12:38, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - But now its a low priority, until about 70% of buildings actuly have a use for power. right now only 2buildings use power. --Kirk Howell 16:22, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep --hagnat 16:31, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep --User:Airencracken
  14. Kill -- Despite the overwhelming support and the simplicity, my soul weeps at the idea of a small portabble gneerator powering an entire suburb, or more. I htink this breaks the "No Free Lunch" rule - setting up one generator you power up lots and lots of buildings, as opposed to setting it up in one of them, at the same effort. T'is why kill. - Skarmory 18:08, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep This would work well with a peer reviewed suggestion "How Power Plants Could Work 2" that I proposed a while back. I suggested a new engineering skill to maintain those power plants, maybe the same engineering skill could be used to repair power substations as well. And Skarmory, no mention of generators would made. You'd just be repairing the substation and the power plant, no generator needed. --Jon Pyre 03:56, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep This would be awesome, and could allow for clans of survivors dedicated to bringing electricity to Malton, as well as for clans sworn to keep it in the dark. This would bring some amazing flavor to the game, as well as give those Powerstations a use. Laplaga 02:31, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 14 Keep, 2 Kill, 0 Spam - 18:48, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Zombie Description

Spaminated slowly for some reason. --ALIENwolve 01:40, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Give Button

Well, apparently this has been spaminated farther than far. --ALIENwolve 01:39, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Advanced Research

Timestamp: 08:43, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill, Item
Scope: Survivors, Science
Description: Right now Necrotech seems to be an entirely benevolent organization but usually in zombie movies the research company investigating zombies has something unethical going on. Here's an idea that allows scientists to profit in immoral ways: Advanced Research would be a high level science skill that would use Lab Experience as a prerequisite. Scientists with Advanced Research are conducting more in-depth analysis of zombie biology and would be able to find "Tracking Chips" in Necrotech buildings. A tracking chip can be placed in any zombie, even one that has been scanned. Implanting a chip does not allow to you track the zombie's position or add it to Necronet, and the zombie can still be scanned by other people as normal. The condition of being DNA scanned and having an implanted chip are completely seperate.

What a tracking chip would do A tracking chip is designed to monitor zombies as they feed and gain data about their biological urge to consume flesh. When a zombie with a tracking chip kills a survivor the scientist that implanted the chip gains 3xp. Every time the zombie kills someone they would get a message signifying a chip is implanted in them: "You attack X for 4 damage. They die. You hear a faint beeping noise." The zombie has a 25% chance of ripping out the chip after killing a survivor, in that case the message they get would instead be "A small chip starts beeping and alerts you to its location. You rip it off." The chip would stay there until the zombie ripped it out, or until they were revived. To get this xp the scientist that implanted the chip would need to have a DNA Extractor on them. We already know DNA extractors have a wireless connection to the Necronet as they upload zombie information and report whether they have been scanned or not. If the scientist had an extractor they'd get a message like this through it. "Your tracking chip recorded the zombie "BrainMan5" killing "MaltonDude" in Ketchelbank." This would provide a flavorful way for scientists of getting xp, however since the most they're likely to get from any one zombie before the zombie takes out the chip is 6-9xp this wouldn't be a better xp source than combat, assuming chips were about as plentiful as shotgun shells. Plus it'd be worse in that it wouldn't harm the zombie, making it useless for defense. It'd still be a pretty good way of getting experience though, and useful for science characters that haven't started up the military skill tree and for those that don't want to fight.

Miscellaneous Some more about tracking chips: They're single use items that target a random zombie. If all the zombies in a square already had tracking chips you would get a message: "All the zombies here already have chips", but you wouldn't use up the chip. If a zombie had Brain Rot it'd be harder to implant a chip in it. There'd be a failure rate of implanting a chip equal to the failure rate of scanning them. Failing a chip implant would waste an AP but not use up the chip.

Necronet connection Perhaps all the data could be compiled and accessed in Necrotech buildings by people with Necronet access. It would just record all the zombie slayings and compare them to revives in that suburb, maybe giving a figure like "Darvall Heights in the past 24 hours: 210 revives 195 recorded victims." That'd give tracking zombies a practical realistic purpose like DNA scanning does, in addition to just being fun, useful, flavorful.

Votes

  1. Spam No something for nothings. --Stroth 08:59, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill More thigns for Necrotech = Good, Somethign for Nothing = Horrendously Dumb. --Jak Rhee 09:04, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re You still have to find and use an item, which all costs AP. It's not something for nothing. Think of it this way: it's like the xp you get from using a shotgun except you get it over time instead of at once, and it's neat for scientists. --Jon Pyre 09:07, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Iyt is worse then a shot gun. You can implant 5 zombies in ridly bank and just xp farm up the ass. - --ramby- Part of my talk page]]] 09:12, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Or just shoot 5 zombies and get xp instantaneously. It's not better in terms of xp, remember 1/4 times the zombie kills you lose the chip in it. Most of the time you'll get either 6xp or 9xp per chip before its destroyed, lower than the shotgun. Your odds of implanting a brain rotted zombie would be lower than successfully shooting a zombie. You wouldn't use up the chip on a miss but then again you wouldn't be dealing damage, so it's balanced against the shotgun in that regard. It's useful for scientists. --Jon Pyre 09:21, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
      • Re That is in theory, in actuality it will be far deferent. I know, I ahve had times when I hit every single time with my axe. and otehr when i spent several days ap in ammo missing at 65% - --ramby- Part of my talk page]]] 09:27, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Yes, sometime it will give more, but most of the time it'll give between 3 and 12 xp. Someone could hit with their axe ten times in a row and get 30xp but there's nothing wrong with that. --Jon Pyre 09:29, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep I actually like the idea, cuz I belive that NecroTech must not only heal zombies, but learn more about them as well. So, if there won't be XP bonuses, I'll want to see this in game --EnForcer32 10:06, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Spam - Players should not get exp for the actions of others. --Grim s 10:48, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - I actually quite like it but it might be too much server load.--The General 12:59, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Just plain out of genre. Rhialto 13:57, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - Don't know how the server would cope though. -- Norminator 2 14:01, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - This is some kind of pyramid scheme, right? --WibbleBRAINS 15:03, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - I just don't like this idea, nor did I like the very similar "tracking chip" one posted within the last week or so. Bentley Foss 15:59, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - I'd consider voting keep on a version of this modified to stop on death, rather than on the zombie tearing it out, although that might have problems of its own --Kingreaper 16:01, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - for most reasons given--Vista 16:05, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep --Lord Evans 18:07, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - Kill the XP bonus and make the chip do something else instead, like a Scent Trail for humans. --John Ember 18:26, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill- Xp leeching is a no no. I rather it just tracked where they were Drogmir 20:03, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - I'm going to play devil's advocate and admit I actually like it. Perhaps a % tohit on the implant? And it needs a better name, like "Field Research".--Arathen 22:23, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - I don't like the idea of the NT guy getting XP for sitting around doing nothing. - Jedaz 03:44, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - Unlike the idea of NT's DNA scanning zombies and getting something out of it (XP, but also the presence of the zombies on NecroNet) this is overly complicated and provides too much benefit for being an NT, with little effort. Ethan Frome 15:51, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill - Hmm. No. Xp farm = bad. - Skarmory 18:11, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - A good suggestion, it will give more things for Necrotechs to do. But maybe add a % chance to implant like an attack or if the Zombie you implanted dies you lose XP-- Monkeylord 08:27, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 6 Keep, 12 Kill, 2 Spam - 18:49, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Maintenance (Revised in light of game change)

Timestamp: 09:40, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors, Civilian
Description: Every widely used item has a skill associated with it. Why not generators? Maintenance would be a subskill of Construction. It would let you see how much fuel a generator has left like so: "A generator has been set up here. It will keep running for 17 minutes." Survivors with this skill would also be able to refuel a generator even when it already running. This would just set a generator back to full fuel and use up the fuel canister, as normal. You'd get less time out of the fuel canister than you would if you refueled the generator when perfectly empty but if there's only 5 or 10 minutes of fuel left anyway it'd be worth using up your canister, getting 5 minutes less out of it, and not having to wait around for the generator to run out. It'd be useful for those that want to keep a generator going continuosly but aren't free to log in any time they want and can't be around to refuel in however long it'll take for the generator to stop.

Votes

  1. Keep - Not bad, not bad at all.--The General 13:03, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - I like it! It does make sense that you can learn to top 'em up while they run, rather than having to leave it until the next time you're on after it runs out... --MorkaisChosen 13:12, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Makes sense to me -- Norminator 2 14:00, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep -LtMile 14:39, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Would you spend 100 XP ((or 75 or 150) for a skill that let's you fill up someone else's generator with no benefit to yourself? If it's running when you reach it, you can reap its benefit. If it isn't, you can fill it up. I like the idea of a maintenance skill, but I can't imagine anyone buying this, except as a last skill to complete the tree. --Intx13 14:58, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re The key of play a survivor is cooperation and mutual assistance. I have often spent a whole day's AP to find a generator and fuel just for others to use. --Jon Pyre 16:52, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - I don't like it. As Intx13 says, you get nil benefit for it. Survivors already have an obsession with putting generators in pointless places, and if you then tweaked this skill so that you got XP for maintenace, UD would turn into a zombies vs generators game.--WibbleBRAINS 15:08, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - They beat me to it. Bentley Foss 16:00, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Is anybody so stupid to check in every 10 minutes to check if the generator is running? --Vista 16:01, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Some people can't check in every 10 minutes. They might be checking in on lunch break, or just quickly before they go out somewhere. This wouldn't hurt anyone at all. You wouldn't be forced to use or even purchase this skill. But for some people it would be very useful. And it wouldn't provide xp. This would just be a useful skill for those that don't have unlimited flexibility with their time. --Jon Pyre 16:46, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • I actually meant that it would be stupid to check in every 10 minutes for it. just top it up when you log in normally. If people want to use the generator without having to provide fuel for it, tough. I just don't think that it is important enough.--Vista 16:59, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Generators are an act of charity though. After finding one and fueling one you're really not going to have enough AP to use it. It's part of cooperative survivor gameplay. I have the fuel. If my lunch break ends in 7 minutes and the generator is running for 9 more minutes why shouldn't I be able to get a little bit less usage out of my fuel but actually be able to use it to help others? Otherwise I might be hanging on to that fuel until doomsday. --Jon Pyre 17:04, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • that is such a rare ocurence that it just isn't worth it all the trouble of this skill or the trouble of buying this skill. a couple of people just having fuel in their inventory works far better. It seems to work fine right now.--Vista 17:30, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re It works but it's inconvenient. I had a fuel canister in my inventory for over a week once because I couldn't log on when its unfueled. This would be useful and probably very easy to code. --Jon Pyre 17:47, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Anything further should go to the talk page.--The General 18:15, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep --Lord Evans 18:08, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - I like giving survivors more ways to help each other out. It makes sense that some engineering types would be esp. capable at keeping the generators going. --John Ember 18:09, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep Author vote. It's a useful skill meant to help others. It's not necessary but just really handy, like Diagnosis is. Using it is entirely optional, and so it taking it. It would help a lot of people, hurt absolutely no one, and it's simple to code. --Jon Pyre 18:30, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - Makes sense and doesn't hurt anybody, so I'm for it. Dude70 20:05, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - Useful, balanced, and contrary to some's belief, not everyone is a selfish git. --Reverend Loki 20:12, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - Nice and simple, and it doesn't hurt anyone - Jedaz 03:48, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - Simple, but not particularly useful. The new flavor text for how close a generator is to empty is enough in this vein. It's not worth the time to make a new skill for this. Ethan Frome 15:54, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - I'd buy it. And to those who say nil benefit: So what? Does "Infectious Bite" give you benefit? Or "Feeding Groan"? "Death Rattle"? It's useful, and it has it's uses. I say we keep! - Skarmory 18:14, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    Tally - 11 Keeps, 5 Kills --Jon Pyre 19:05, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Headshot revision

Timestamp: 13:10, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill improvement
Scope: Survivors: zombie hunters
Description: You'll almost certainly be thinking "oh no, not another one!" Just be patient. There's been a lot of moaning about headshot, and I'm pretty sure it's been the most revised skill in the game. But it still just doesn't seem quite right: all it means is the zombie will lie down a bit longer. I believe the way it should work is like this: every time you make an attack after gaining the skill, there is an x% chance it will do extra damage, the chance of this happening (and the extra damage) depending on the weapon. To avoid imbalance, I suggest that the more poweful weapons, such as shotguns, either have less chance of doing one or do less extra damage. No-one wants to see 10% chances of doing 20 damage hits! This skill could also get knives used more, if they are made to have a high headshot chance. This would also open up the possibility further Zombie Hunter skills: increased chance of headshots occuring.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote.--MorkaisChosen 13:13, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - 1: Survivors don't need to do any more damage, 2: You have not given any numbers and I am not going to pass a suggestion if Kevan is going to have to waste his time doing the maths, 3: I agree we don't want 20 damage hits but it would have to be quite a high chance to succeed and quite a large amount of extra damage for this to persuade people to use it instead of guns (this would then, of course, be unbalanced), and 4: it was a nighmare to read and understand, so I suggest you go through it again and make it a bit clearer because if Kevan finds this as garbled and incoprehensible as I do then God help him!--The General 13:52, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - This would actually result in a less effective headshot. Rhialto 13:53, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Why? Does the game need this? Beyond the initial chatter and whatnot when the latest change was introduced, everyone seems pretty happy with it now. --Intx13 15:00, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Why? almost everybody but the most rabid supporters of either side is happy right now. seen it's history lets not meddle with it any more. it's just not worth the trouble it'll cause.--Vista 15:55, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Not only have people quit complaining about headshot, but this is a dupe of about sixteen other "headshot becomes critical attack" suggestions. Headshot is quite fine right now. Leave it alone. Bentley Foss 16:01, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - I like headshot the way it is. --Uncle Willy 16:29, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Whooo. This bring memories. Before the HS modification the suggestions page was always filled with headshot revision ideas. Just like it were just a few days ago with generators and people wishing to see who destroyed them. Anyway, no. This is a bad idea. Headshot already do a great job stoping zombies. --hagnat 16:45, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Everyone beat me to it.. --Blahblahblah 18:04, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - 1 more damage would be Ok, But double damage is unbalancing --Lord Evans 18:12, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - Headshot's fine as-is. --John Ember 18:24, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - Headshot works just fine right now. Dude70 20:06, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - Wow, there's a lot of supporters of the current headshot. Including myself by proxy, I suppose, seeing how critical hit suggestions have been done to death.--Arathen 22:28, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - Yeah I have to agree with Arathen, I think that the current headshot is good as it is as it doesn't disadvantage anyone more so than anyone else. - Jedaz 04:02, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  15. like it/Kill it - nice idea...but lets not open another can of non-meat whoop ass for the griefers. -- Nicks 17:20, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 1 Keep, 14 Kill, 0 Spam - 18:50, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Different Speech Types

Timestamp: 13:27, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Survivors inside building with 50+ players
Description: Due to the rescent update where survivor can only speak to the 50 nearest players had made communicating and cooperating differcult. This improvement will give a drop-down window infront of the speech box, with 2/3 options: Shout (OPTIONAL: 1- 3 AP, everyone in the room can hear, or: only supporters, those who have donated can use, or: 2 AP, nearest 100 can hear), talk(only 50 most rescent active players can hear, 1 AP) and whisper(only players on contact list can hear, 1 AP)People reading the message woud be somthing like: "Brian Hunter Shouted: 200 zombies outside, run!" or, "Papa Smurf walked over and whispered in your ear: Retreat to the base 5S and 3E, hold there for breifing"

Votes

  1. Keep - Author's vote, kinda late. --Papa smurf255 01:00, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - I like it -- Norminator 2 13:59, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Amazing idea!!! Incredible! -- tranhanam0027 13:59, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Do not trust this man's opinions. ^ ;) -- Andrew McM 14:05, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Kevan introduced the change to REDUCE server load. Don't you recall the horrible lag during the strike? --Grim s 14:33, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Surely though the whisper part could potentially reduce server load. Even if just a tiny bit... --Blue Wild Angel 21:18 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - I like the whisper part, and wouldn't mind seeing that option. But like Grim said. There is a purely technical reason you can't talk to more then 50 people. So that's out. --Paddy Fitzgerald 14:55, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - I think it's a good idea. As to the server load issue, if you're spending an extra AP talking loudly, that's an AP you're *not* spending hitting the server with another database request. I don't think that many people would chat with a cost of 2 AP to reach a wider audience. --Intx13 14:56, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - Kevan can decide if it's too much load on the server.--The General 15:07, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - Kevan can decide is not an argument. If kevan decided everything, there would be no need for this page. --Uncle Willy 20:35, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - Normally I would agree with you but when it comes to server load I think that arguament is fine considering that Kevan is the only one who really nows how the server works and therefore he's the only one who should really decide on this issue.--The General 16:47, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - Possibly make it 3 AP to shout, but aside from that, it's fine. --TheTeeHeeMonster 15:09, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - An increase in AP will reduce server load, and will allow 'important' messages to get to more people. Plus, whispering is just too cool.-Lxndr 15:40, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - Meh, let it go through to the queue, and maybe it can be implemented if Kevan gets a chance to upgrade the server in the future. Donate people, donate! --WibbleBRAINS 15:12, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - It's all very simple, Kevan made the fifty person talk limit to limit server load so either learn to live with it as a neccersary evil, or if you want to change it according to 'Kevan can decide on server load' vote to have it abolished entirely. none of this wishy washy stuff. that said the wisper option should be an suggestion in itself. that has some merit.--Vista 15:44, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - Theres a limit for a reason, and it's not because people like the limit. ;) --Uncle Willy 16:30, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - i agree.. in the update they said they made it because of the zombies at kitch park...until then things were fine this will make it much better --dragonboy218 17:04, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - The idea is good. I don't know if it will kill the server or not, but if it won't, it would be a nice improvement. --Dickie Fux 17:06, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - Ditto Vista. Cut out the yell, and repost the whisper. --Blahblahblah 18:06, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill --Lord Evans 18:16, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  17. Keep - Good idea. This will still keep the server load down as the higher AP cost will deter players from shouting at everyone in the room every time. I agree with making it 3ap to shout. I think whisper could be 1ap and it'd be fine. --John Ember 18:22, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep/Change - Though the shout should get out because of server issues this is a good suggestion, remove it and you get a full keep. - Nine 18:26, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep - Let Kevan worry about server load; he could increase the AP needed to counteract it anyway. -LtMile 19:19, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - Good idea, I like it. Besides, "server load" is not a valid reason to kill, per the guidelines... --Reverend Loki 20:15, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • re reread the guidelines, it's not considered a very good reason. It's still a valid reason though. and as the sole purpose of the 50 people limit is to spare bandwith/server load it's kind of the sole point to judge this suggestion on.--Vista 11:51, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 13 Keep, 6 Kill --Reverend Loki 20:17, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  21. Kill - "Kevan can deside" IS NOT AN ARGUEMENT, USE SOME COMMEN SENSE PEOPLE! - --ramby- Part of my talk page]]] 20:45, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - Most of the suggestion does nothing to server load. If people actually start wasting their AP and shouting every time, the cost can be raised. Same goes for whispering if it turns out that a lot of people have so many contacts in the same building that it becomes a problem. --Signal9 22:01, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  23. Kill - I have to agree with the "Kevan can decide != Argument" point.--Arathen 22:31, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  24. Keep - Shout/scream and whisper would be a very good addition. BTW: Server Load is NOT a very good kill reason.--Inte 07:21, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • re I don't think "Kevan will decide isn't an argument" points are correct. It's his game, and if he wants to add new features its his choice what to add, and we're here just making suggestions on what to add. There are at least 5 who said that "Kevan can decide isn't an argument, but only 1 or 2 who said somthing about Kevan deciding the server load. IT MAKES SENSE, it's his server, not yours and he knows how much it can take. Fullemtaled, how 'bout you use some commen sense? Read what your posting before you do it. --Papa smurf255 13:19, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 15 Keep, 8 Kill, 0 Spam - 18:51, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Genetic War: Getting Psyche' Up

Spaminated 8 Spam votes, 4 non spam votes, 2/3rds of the vote is spam and more than 7 spams. --Grim s 14:57, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Removed additional commentary, go to talk page (although you already seem to have done that) --Brizth 16:16, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Headshot Revision

Timestamp: 14:40, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Survivors
Description: This suggestion propose that with the skill of headshot and a pistol should include the effect of giving a survivor a 25% chance with each shot to hit the head. When the survivor makes a head shot, it will not take the deduction from flak jackets. The zombie hunter can not use this effect against survivors. The effect of headshot will still apply of forcing the zombie to get up for the cost of 5 more ap when killed.

Votes
Votes here

  1. Keep Authors vote. Also, before you say anything. Yes, zombies can wear flak jackets. --Shadow213 14:41, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill We know. Also, hell no. --Martin Odum 14:43, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re K, but just want to say that I had some people complaining that zombies can't wear flak jackets, so had to type it down.--Shadow213 14:41, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - It's fine as it is. We change it again and the zombies will strike. --TheTeeHeeMonster 14:51, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill This suggestion would give zombie hunters 1 or 2 extra XP for killing zombies who are wearing flak jackets, 25% of the time. Hardly enough of a change to warrant the time coding it, in my opinion. Reread the suggestion, and I see that it nerfs the flak jacket for all hits on the zombie, not just the killing blow. Still a kill, nuthin' wrong with flak-jacket-wearing zeds. --Intx13 14:51, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Humans kill humans in the game all the time. Why shouldn't this skill give PKers that ability as well? Unfairly balanced, therefore Kill voted. --Liche 15:09, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Because you're a zombie hunter not a human hunter 2 differn't thing. Also why in the world would you want pkers to be more powerfull unsigned comment.--Vista 11:53, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Headshot doesn't need to be made any better! If this was suggested as a second tier zombie hunter skill then I might reconsider it (but only if it also worked on survivors as well).--The General 15:16, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - You want your flak jacket to work, but for some reason the ones worn by zombies not to. No. --WibbleBRAINS 15:20, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. kill - why should we make headshot more powerful? It's always a good thing if you can give reasons for your change--Vista 15:35, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Not only have people quit complaining about headshot, but this is a dupe of about sixteen other "headshot becomes critical attack" suggestions. Headshot is quite fine right now. Leave it alone. Bentley Foss 16:09, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - This is not a critical attack, the headshots that I seen before has increased damage. This one merely lets it go through flak jackets considering flak jackets are ment to be worn on bodies... so why is it protecting heads? Unsigned comment --Grim s 04:03, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - I like headshot right now. --Uncle Willy 16:32, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - Whooo. This bring memories. Before the HS modification the suggestions page was always filled with headshot revision ideas. Just like it were just a few days ago with generators and people wishing to see who destroyed them. Anyway, no. This is a bad idea. Headshot already do a great job stoping zombies. --hagnat 16:47, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - I'd personally go for what The General said - but not just a free adjustment. Headshot itself is O.K. now, lets not upset it's delicate balance.--Blahblahblah 18:11, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - Headshot's fine as-is. --John Ember 18:20, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - Make it a skill after Headshot then you get a Keep - Nine 18:29, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - Why only pistols? Why only zombies? And of course, WHY?!--Arathen 22:34, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - Strike, here we come. --Papa smurf255 01:02, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 1 Keep, 15 Kill, 0 Spam - 18:51, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Scent Blood and Infections

Timestamp: 15:38, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill improvement
Scope: Zombies
Description: A minor change to differentiate Scent Blood from Diagnosis, to perhaps give some reason for buying the former even if you already have the latter. There's no other survivor skill that completely overrides a zombie skill. Basically, the idea is - allow a zombie with scent blood to also tell, on sight, what survivors in the area are already suffering from infections. Individuals below 25HP get an asterisk - perhaps a number-sign for infected? A small, but I think useful, change for zombies that might make this skill more desired even for those zombies that have Diagnosis, without breaking balance in any way I can tell.

Edit: Let me stress this is an addition to the skill. It would still display HP as well, as per Diagnosis. - Lxndr 16:39, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote. Lxndr 15:38, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep --Gauldoth 15:39, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - but rather as a new skill, but isn't important. I'm for removing diagnosis as a cross skill, not make zombies further dependend on survivor skills. zombies should have the abilaty to be as effective as possible without having to play as survivor, so not to mis vital skill for them.--Vista 15:50, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - This isn't meant to make zombies dependent on Diagnosis. It's meant to be an addition to Scent Blood, not to remove any of the existing functionality.
    • I missed that, sorry.--Vista 11:55, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - We should be reducing the number of crossover skills not increasing them!--The General 16:03, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - I like it. It simplifies the process of infecting everyone in a particular area upon a barricade breach. Bentley Foss 16:14, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - I like it as well. This modification fits in well with the spirit and intent of Scent Blood, and it makes sense that zombies should be able to detect who has been infected. --Liche 16:52, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - Very nice. --Brizth 16:54, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - I like it. However, note that the "completely overrides" in the description above is not entirely accurate; Scent Blood is still more useful for zombies, as one can discern wounded survivors in adjacent squares. Perhaps this should be added as a separate skill entirely? --Bulgakov 16:57, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - That's Scent Fear. Right? Scent Fear tells you survivors in adjacent squares. Scent Blood is the zombie diagnosis skill. Or am I forgetting something?
  9. Keep - Would work as an improvement, or a new skill. --Dickie Fux 17:10, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - Ditto above ^ and other's similar comments. --Blahblahblah 18:14, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep --Lord Evans 18:19, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep I like it --EnForcer32 18:59, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep --LtMile 19:20, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - I've always wished for a skill that allowed my zombies to see who's infected.--Mookiemookie 19:57, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - Makes sense. Dude70 20:21, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - thats good except now survivors need a reson to buy diagnose as well. Make diagnose be able to tell who is infected.--Kirk Howell 22:17, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  17. Keep - Since Scent Blood doesn't cross over, this is fine. - CthulhuFhtagn 22:02, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - Good for infecting everyone, not too over powered. Good idea --Papa smurf255 01:06, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 17 Keep, 1 Kill, 0 Spam - 18:52, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Hunger

This suggestion has been Spaminated. Useless and would Nerf Zombies horribly. 8 spams to 2 keeps.--Grim s 16:14, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Dam you! You got to it 1 minute before I did! (Now that's griefing)--The General 16:14, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
I am coordinating with four or five other wiki users on IRC, as such, i have the advantage. --Grim s 16:17, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
I shouldn't have re-saved it to make the eigth Spam vote appear, I should have just spaminated it immediately.--The General 16:25, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
And again. A Spam vote on this suggestion was inappropriate. Look at the food suggestion for survivors. We're killing it, just as this one should have been. --Scorpius 16:20, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Didn't I Spam the last one?--The General 16:25, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Scorpius, this skill would have zombies who died of hunger stand up at 1 HP. That is completely unbalanced, beyond anything the survivor ones were. --TheTeeHeeMonster 16:34, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
that would mean a zombie dies automaticaly every half hour after logging in. and no bite would solve that, because you'd die of hunger before logging in. and zombies can't get enough bites in to go to full health, thus dying of hunger before logging in, notting getting enough bites in to go to full health, etc, etc. --Vista 17:15, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Well... it only takes 1 ap to stand up. The problem is not the dying itself, it's when you are trying to take over a place and all the sudden you die. Nobody attacked you because you were with 500 zombies, but you just died from hunger. So what are they going to do? Just dump you and barracade the building so all your efforts was wasted. --Shadow213 17:57, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Hooked on Zombics

Timestamp: 17:06, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: high-level survivors
Description: Add 2 skills to the zombie hunter tree: Zombese for Beginners and Advanced Zombese. The first skill would let survivors understand every 2nd or 3rd word a zombie says; Advanced zombese would allow complete translation.

Game rationale: After fighting the zombies for so long, zombie-killas are actually able to discern speech patterns in their almost-unintelligible groaning.

Personal rationale: I'm sure zombies are always saying funny stuff, but I never have the time to run it through the translator. It also seems fair--as even low-level zombies can understand human speech, shouldn't humans at least be able to buy a skill that does the same?

Votes

  1. Kill - I'm sure someone has suggested this before, but anyway: Most zombies directly type in "Barhah banana gangbang harmans." It's not going to come out any different. --TheTeeHeeMonster 17:07, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill -the nonsense you get is the nonsense they're going for.--Vista 17:11, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - What they said. Also, this would allow high-level survivors to understand zombies better than zombies can understand each other, which doesn't seem right to me. --Dickie Fux 17:13, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Translate this: R!ng, r!ng, r!ng, r!ng, r!ng, r!ng, r!ng, Banana haahn! --hagnat 17:18, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • O! O! Is it "Ohhhh, I wish I were an Oscar Meyer weiner?" --TheTeeHeeMonster 17:45, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment - no way it's I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts and they're all standing in a line. --Shadow213 17:53, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • come on my honey, my come on my rag-time gal?--Vista 19:09, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • No you fools, those are the lines for back-up singers in the zombie musical, Grarrgh. AllStarZ 23:59, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Dun dun dun duuuuuun... I JUST GOT IN FROM MALTON, BABY...and you didn't even know I was around...MaulMachine 14:34, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Maybe, maybe, if zombies had the ability themselves first --Brizth 17:20, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - I was going to vote Keep but then I re-read it and realised that this would be unbelievably unfair on on zombies who don't have a way to understand each other!--The General 17:57, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Isn't that the point. Zombies = garbled muck - somewhat discernible, and allowing very basic phrases. Humans = speak. I don't want the two to blend. --Blahblahblah 18:20, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Most of the times Zombies just murmle some random keys or use keys that pass the decoding system, like M, A, G, R, etc... to translate all that that would result in a gigantic 'dictionary' on the server to translate all the rubish zombies pronounce, and come on: "Ram Gang, Ram" is quite understandable for everyone... ~ Nine 18:54, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Zombese is a work-around that's against the spirit of the rules, if not the letter. Why make it official? Anyway, the translators are available to Zombie Hunters as well.Ignatius Newcastle 19:08, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill/Dupe- I already made a version of this but i can't find the link. You basicly found very high tech necro tech equipment and under the highest skills can use it to translate zed speech Drogmir 19:10, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - Zombies dont say anything worthwhile.--Uncle Willy 19:31, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - While I love the title, I don't think it'd work that well. From my experience zombies directly type in the gibberish anyways. Dude70 19:35, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - So wait. Zombie hunters can understand zombies, but ZOMBIES can't understand zombies? Yeah, no.--Arathen 22:38, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - What they all said, pretty much. Bentley Foss 05:04, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 0 Keep, 14 Kill, 0 Spam - 18:53, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Last Gasp

Timestamp: 17:19, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: improvement
Scope: everyone
Description: Once per day, survivors with surplus XP can spend 100 XP for one additional AP. For zombies, the ratio is 50:1.

Rationale: This is meant to represent a last-ditch, desperation effort to reach safety/barricade the building/get off that last shot/whatever. The zombie ratio is lower to balance out all those months where headshot took away XP. It also gives people something to use all those surplus XP on.

Votes

  1. Kill - Right, so this means that those with the most XP to spare are probably going to be those who have the most skills on the opposite sides. Ergo they are going to be the ones who care about death the least. Meanwhile those who need more AP to get to safety because they have been using all their XP to focus on one side, can't use this skill. 2 thumbs down. -- Andrew McM 17:27, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill -- Ju Ju Master 17:36, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - It's only useful to the high level survivors who really don't need the help.--The General 18:01, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - I like this. I could see players agonizing over whether to buy that next skill or use one more AP to shut the doors. Sets up some interesting dilemmas. Might consider making Last Gasp a skill which has to be purchased first (but one which works for both species once purchased). Not sure what the reasoning is for giving the zombies a more favorable ratio; might consider making it even across the board. --John Ember 18:17, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Sorry, not a fan of it. Dilemmas over closing the door, or spending the XP on a skill - would almost always resolve themselves with waiting a half hour to log back on and close it for free XP (in all possible dilemma circumstances). --Blahblahblah 18:26, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Today we get 2 HS revisions, and now an AP one. I agree with The General. I've seen users with about 3000XP banked, they are the ones who DON'T need this. --WibbleBRAINS 18:28, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill -I'm a user with about 3000XP banked, I am the one who DOESN'T need this.--Vista 19:02, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - I've never liked those Last Gasp im about to die, give me one more AP skills.--Uncle Willy 19:29, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - For reasons stated above. Dude70 19:39, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Abstain Yeah, this is too overpowering since while the reasoning is nice, people will just horde XP and give their side an unfair advantage in a siege. --Volke 22:24, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT) EDIT: Wait, only once per day? Its not overpowered this way, and just one last additional AP every 24 hours (essentially buying one AP) doesn't seem like it'd make that big a difference when everyone is using it. However, starting players are the ones who'd need this most, who can't buy it since they need that XP for skills, and the ones with XP to spare aren't the ones who need it, so I'm not sure how useful/harmful this will be in the end... --Volke 22:30, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - Leavy Your Own AP Alone --Scorpius 23:05, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill Benefits higher level survivors ALOT. AllStarZ 23:56, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - They all beat me to it. Listen to what they said, especially Andrew McM, Volke, Scorpius, and, well, everybody else... Bentley Foss 05:06, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - Given the choice between 100 XP and waiting half an hour, I'll just wait and take my chances. --Intx13 14:05, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 1 Keep, 12 Kill, 0 Spam - 18:54, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Dehydration

Dupe of the peer reviewed suggestion preserved ligaments with 3 Dupe votes (including the one I was about to add).--The General 19:21, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Atmospheric Barricade Rattling

Timestamp: 19:13, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Atmospheric Effect/Warning
Scope: Survivors inside buildings
Description: To add a frisson of fear to the survivors inside buildings, let's let the rattling of barricades be heard - but not necessarily for any reason. Maybe they were stacked badly and wind blew things off-balance. Maybe zombies are attacking. The survivors can't know, and will get that extra bit nervous.

To avoid spam, the message should only be shown once, even if it happened several times whilst the user was away. "A crashing noise comes from the barricades." or "The barricades shake - was it the wind, or is there something out there?" or suchlike.

To be clear, it should happen if zombies attack - but also randomly at other times. That's the key: It may be important or it might not - and they have no way of knowing without going outside and putting themselves at risk.

Votes

  1. Keep - Spooky. I like it. --John Ember 19:46, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - There are more important things but I can't vote Kill on that.--The General 20:03, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep --Lord Evans 20:45, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - I want to be scared out of my pants;not knowing if it is a strong breeze or a zombie horde that's hitting the barricade. --Penance 21:43, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - Nice. --Signal9 21:46, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - Anything that makes survivors wet their pants with fear = a good thing. - --ramby- Part of my talk page]]] 21:48, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep I like the flavor, but its also great in telling you if any zeds attacked while you were gone. or was it the wind? --Kirk Howell 22:10, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - Adds to the game and has no drawbacks. I don't see why not. --Rani 22:46, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - I'm going to play the devil's advocate. So the baracades will have rattled every single time you're logged out. It gets to the point where people ignore the rattleing because it *always* happens. More spam on the just logged in screen (flares, feeding groans, etc) EDIT:--Scorpius 23:29, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: Should be possible to get around that by tweaking the frequency (and possibly by giving only a chance of hearing when it really is zombies? - but the only getting mentioned once will help with this.). Might need a little tweaking to get the optimum effect, but I'd suggest that around one every five days on average would be a good start. Ignatius Newcastle 19:49, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill -barricades go down= zombies. barricades stay the same= useless message spam. Kind of hard to get afraid from something you can place immidiatly. I'm all for flavor when it actually tied into something that actually does something.--Vista 23:15, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - As the two above me have said. This would be quite useless. --Brizth 23:31, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - Vista: How do you know someone hasn't just rebar'd? Admittedly, this would have worked better before we started being able to see deaths. But still.--'STER-Talk-Mod 01:11, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • You either get ten more rattles or if it's just a one off, the barricades go down later, just as they do now.--Vista 07:32, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep (Author Vote): It'd scare me. Ignatius Newcastle 10:44, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - Sure.. - Nicks 17:31, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 11 Keep, 3 Kill, 0 Spam - 18:54, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Dart Rifle

Timestamp: 19:07, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Type: Weapon
Scope: Humans, Scientists
Description: This is a rework of the NecroTech Rifle idea presented before, made without the original author's authorization. Grab your popcorn, this one is a biggie. Sorry for anything wrong with the technical descriptions, my English skills aren't good enough to explain them fully.

Several months after the outbreak, NecroTech finally devised an experimental "counter" to the zombie plague. Instead of trying to develop more efficient syringes that would make the NecroTech employee vulnerable while trying to revive a subject, NecroTech chose to create a silent, efficient way to innoculate zombies with their newly-developed revification serum: a sniper rifle.

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

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

In Game Considerations

1.- Although it might be considered a sniper rifle the Dart Rifle can NOT fire into different blocks.
2.- The skill required to fire the rifle correctly appears under the NecroTech skill tree, requiring NecroTech Employment. Since the weapon and instructions on how to use are found only as memos in the NecroTech buildings, and the weapon was specially designed for civilian use. Military characters used to high-recoil, multi-shot firearms will most probably experience difficulty in mastering the weapon.
3-. Ammo (Rifle Darts) would be found singly (like shotgun shells) and the rifle could hold only one at time. The search probabilities for it should be only a bit higher than syringes, as there's risk of missing a shot. The Dart Rifles could be found either empty (60% chance) or holding a Dart (40%) chance. The Rifle itself is rarer than revification syringes, since it's an experimental weapon, but the darts are easier to manufacture and should be found with the same probability of finding other items, like books or DNA extractors in NT buildings.
4.- The following related skills should be introduced into the NecroTech skill tree:
*Basic Rifle Use - requres NecroTech employment, adds 20% to hit (stack-able with Basic Firearms Training).
*Advanced Rifle Use - requires Basic Rifle Use, adds more 30% to hit, for a final 75% hit percentage. At this point a user skilled with other firearms can make use of the stealth nature of the weapon and spend more time aiming while hiding, thus allowing for greater accuracy.
5.- Damage would be 4 per hit (giving out 7XP. 4 by the damage and extra 3 for the possible revification). Zombies hit by this weapon remain at the top of the stack (as if struck by a normal attack), but the next attacks are aimed at the next zombie. Missed attacks "skip" zombies as well, so ten shots against a stack of 5 zombies would mean 2 attacks against each zombie. Zombies already carrying a "revification" flag give out 4XP if hit again by a Dart Rifle, and suffer stacked effects from multiple doses (2HP/AP if hit twice, 3HP/AP if hit thrice...). Survivors would receive only 1 point of damage and not be affected in any way by the serum. A zombie hit by the Dart Rifle would undergo "Conscious Revification", losing 1HP per AP spent (including AP spent in Death Rattle or other forms of communication). When reaching 0HP, the zombie dies and stands up as a survivor. Brain-Rotted zombies would still be affected by the revification serum and become "infected", as it would first act in their bodies, then be inactivated when trying to regenerate their brains, so after being killed by the revification proccess, they would simply stand up as zombies again. If a zombie is killed after being shot with a Dart Rifle, it can stand up as a survivor (or a zombie, in case of Brain-Rotters) immediately. Survivors killed by Dart Rifles would rise up as normal zombies. Zombies killed by Dart Rifles stand up as zombies again, and can be affected by Headshot.
6.- Targets hit by a Dart Rifle receive a "A sniper hit you for 4 damage" message instead of "[Survivor Name] hit you for 4 damage" and would have no link to the attacker's profile. That would make it harder for revived zombies to seek revenge on the NT who revived them (thus giving them a slightly less risky way of living their lives), and would add some "sniper" flavour to the weapon. Each shot would have a 10% chance to display the following message "A sniper hit you for 4 damage. You recognize [Survivor Name] as the shooter.", meaning that the target managed to see where the shooter was hiding. Survivors would have 20% chance to identify someone who shot at them with a Dart Rifle. Characters shooting Dart Rifles at zombies can be tracked with Scent Trail, but can't be identified unless they are spotted by the zombie just after the shot.

Possible Questions/Complaints

1.- You'd be reviving rotters!.
  • No, I wouldn't. Rotters would suffer the same symptoms and eventually die. Since most Brain Rotters have Ankle Grab already, they would simply have to stand up for 1 AP after being knocked out. No harm, only a bit of nuisance.
2.- 7XP for only 4 damage? Are you crazy?
  • Since the weapon cycles the stack (meaning you'll find difficult to attack two zombies with this weapon if the stack is big), you'd most probably be reviving one zombie per shot. Against single zombies, multiple attacks would simply waste of ammunition, as the zombie would only suffer 4 damage per shot, you would give them more chances to see who you are, and the only thing that would happen is that they'd die and be revived quicker. The extra 3XP in the first shot would be awarded for giving the zombie the "revificating" flag.
3.-. What the...?! You're just nerfing the new game change!
  • This anonymous "a sniper attacked you" is just a way to make the NecroTech job a bit less risky. It's reasonable, since many revived zombie seek to kill the NT who revived them before killing themselves again. Also, it adds some flavour to the game, and some pretty interesting roleplay possibilities for the forum-based play-by-post roleplays and journals people keep for their characters.
4.- Combat revives!!!!
  • This is pretty much the point of the weapon. It can revive people wanting for revives, and can annoy unwilling zombies. Since the only things that can drive zombies away from a location are boredom or annoyances, the survivors will want to keep the zombies annoyed. The old Headshot did well on that aspect, but it raped XP without mercy. The Dart Rifle would annoy zombies for no prejudice except that they'd notice they're dying again, one action at time. In a siege situation, revived zombies who want to be zombies can just stand up and stay where they are until they're slain by the other zombies (doesn't take longer than a few minutes in a crowded area, a la Caiger Mall). The weapon isn't common (even though it doesn't mean it's balanced, according to the multiply it by a billion guideline), and it can only hold one dart at time, so people can't simply stock up and go on a "50 zombie revification spree", as some people argued it could be possible with syringes after NecroNet was implemented. At most, a character with 25 Dart Rifles (or only one loaded Rifle and 24 extra Darts, after stocking up for at least a week) and maxed-out skills could revive/annoy 18 or 19 zombies in only one run before having to stock up on weapons and ammo, and with only two zombies spotting him/her.
5.- It's underpowered!
  • It's not a weapon made to kill zombies. One hit would mean they're "revificating", so their own movements would do the rest. It's made to revify or annoy zombies, not to kill them. If you eventually score a kill with this weapon, you're not reviving the zombie, but at least the zombie is going to receive a very nifty "A sniper hit you for 4 damage. You took a Headshot!", and you get the extra 10XP.
6.- It's overpowered!
  • The high accuracy is compensated by the fact you must load the weapon every time after firing. Besides, the damage is lower than the least powerful firearm (the Pistol), and it's not made for killing zombies at the spot. It's not an effective weapon to defend your safehouse, but it is useful to attack the zombies crowding outside your safehouse and trying to bore or annoy them enough for them to move away. Brain Rotters wouldn't suffer any drawback, since they would just die and get up anyway if another survivor attacked them.
7.- OMFG SN!PER!!!1! REVIVE R0TTERS!!! SPAMMIT!!! SPAMMIT!!!shift+1!
  • I'm pretty sure this is going to happen at least once, but I really hope people vote seriously here. This suggestion isn't game-breaking. It doesn't nerf any skill. It helps the most underrated class in the game (which is the NecroTech, not the zombies). It gives some more flavour to the game, since "[Someone] attacked you for X damage" gets boring after some time. Sure, this suggestion is to be implemented only after the zombies' numbers rise up to at above 40% again, or when Kevan thinks the zombies are powerful enough. It shouldn't take long, if Kevan implements a few more much-needed zombie buffs soon.

I think that's all. This suggestion is open for voting. Please read the Talk Page before voting to see the discussion behind this suggestion, and also please read the entire vote list, as there are some good points explained there, too. --Omega2 19:36, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Votes

  1. Kill -- I'm not opposed to a weapon that slowly kills and revives a zombie. But anonymous attacks bother me. If you ping a zombie, you might have ten others on your back -- that's how it goes. --John Ember 19:49, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - I don't like the anonymity of the "A sniper attacked you..." part. If I'm being attacked, I want a chance to attack back. That's only fair. I don't buy into the "safety for the NTs" argument. Its a hazardous job, working with zombies. I don't like the not being able to stop the revivification process after being hit with it. Survivors get to stop the DE-vivification process when a zombie uses infectious bite on them, so why should it be any different for the other side?--Mookiemookie 19:51, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: Because zombies aren't harmed in any way if revived. You might find it annoying, but your character can simply jump out a window or sleep on the streets and be killed again. Survivors must be lucky and get revived (or metagame). It could rain syringes on Malton and that wouldn't make a difference for the zombie characters, because they could simply get Bodybuilding, a Flak Jacket, and hurl themselves out a window. --Omega2 19:56, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
      • Re: You make a good point, but my vote still stands based simply on the anonymity aspect.--Mookiemookie 19:59, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - Not true - low level zombies and those without combat skills become completely ineffectual until they can find that window. Even if they don't get killed again before they do they're going to waste a lot of AP and be out of the fight. Hugely effective tactically. --Rise 16:10, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: If a survivor dies its difficult to become revived. If a zombie is revived, its not at all difficult to die.(stay outsde for a day or jump from a window) so the fact that zombies can't stop revivication doesn't bother me soo much.--Uncle Willy 20:11, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - I'm okay with annomity, but 10% is way too low. 60%-75% would be better, that way most of the time people will know its you, like any other weapons. but occasionally you'll get lucky and they won't. If you change the annomity % i'd vote keep.--Uncle Willy 20:03, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - I said everything I had to say in the Talk Page. --Blahblahblah 20:08, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill Keep - The WCDZ cackles with glee at the thought of a sniper rifle suggestion in the peer reviewed page Unfortunately, Grim has a point. Doubling the revive rate is bad, bad, bad. And makes this effectively finding new ways to do old things. Too bad, it looked good, and a lot of work seemed to be put into it. --McArrowni 20:15, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep --Lord Evans 20:54, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT) Vote not justified --Grim s 05:30, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep I Like this Idea and I'm surprised by the time you spent explaining it. I Think its the longest logical explanation of a skill I have ever seen. Argus Nole 21:00,5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - Chalk up another for the WCDZ. --TheTeeHeeMonster 21:02, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - I like the work you've put into this, but I don't like th e suggestion. If you don't want to take the chance of being killed by combat-revived zombies, don't combat-revive zombies. Keep a gun handy. Bringing anonymous human characters into the game is the start of a very slippery slope; soon zombie-hunters and PKers will start demanding anonymity...--WibbleBRAINS 21:18, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: I don't think you get the whole point... the characters aren't anonymous. They are just able to make an anonymous attack, with a chance of being discovered. It's not like every weapon will have this privilege. But I think I understand your point of view. --Omega2 21:39, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - Finally, a survivor answer to infectious bite. --Poodge 21:24, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - --Mikm 21:33, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT) Vote not justified --Grim s 05:30, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - It's not a bad idea. --Sindai 21:35, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - This suggestion is very good.I like this idea. --Penance 21:51, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - I like the idea, very well balanced, seing that even if you hit, someone else could come along then kill it and they wont be revived. --Kirk Howell 22:08, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - Simply because this suggestion is insanely overpowered. Infinite stacking and incurability of the infection pretty much would mean that all a human has to do is hit a zombie once with a dart, and they’re dead, regardless of skills. An infected human can always find an FAK and heal – that’s why infection is balanced, because it’s not an automatic death sentence. Remove the stacking ability and provide for some sane method for zombies to heal the effect without dropping dead, and I wouldn’t have a problem with it. --Ampoliros 23:43, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - Okay... two things: Brain Rot and Ankle Grab. If those are unavailiable, more two things: sleeping on streets and jumping out of windows. And, as a last sidenote: death is not instantaneous. --Omega2 23:56, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep Um, excuse me, but zombies already can get insta-killed by peopl with syringes. Anyhoo, I'm fine with this. There isn't any severe repercussion to this, and in any case I would still prefer syringes. Find a good way to throw in a bolt-action rifle and I'll be even happier. AllStarZ 23:54, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  17. Keep - Cooool. --ALIENwolve 00:42, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - makes sense. --FourAces 01:57 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill - Humans do not NEED an infection analogue. The only differences between this and infection is the fact that infection can be treated, and the fact that infection doesnt cause revivification (Which you already have a mechanism for). This would boost the revive rate through the game at a great pace, tilting the game strongtly against the zombies, back to pre-strike levels, if not back to the state we were in in September (Which was far, far worse). --Grim s 03:01, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: it's not like I didn't expect such a paranoid comment from you, Grim. I'll do me a favour and spare myself from arguing with you. Either way the results are the same. --Omega2 03:06, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - I know I voted something similiar (except without a story line behind it...) I don't want to vote dupe because I really like the idea with this and the suggestion before (if there is one it just feels like I did), but everyone voted spam and deleted it... why do people vote spam just to vote keep on an idea nearly similiar? Probly because you added more flavor to how it sounds or something... I don't know! --Shadow213 03:20, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep Anything to give rotters a hard time is a friend of mine. --RAF Lt.G Deathnut 03:26, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - I have mixed feelings about this, but it's well thought out enough to at least let Kevan think about it. Grim is certainly being paranoid; it's just a syringe with a lower hit rate that's harder to find! -LtMile 03:40, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  23. Kill - I love the flavor, but the implementation needs a little work. While zombie players will whine endlessly about any suggestion that could possibly hurt them, perhaps not being able to "cure" the gradual revivification is a bit unfair. How about making it so that there's only an 85% chance of the secondary effect taking place, and this drops to 60% for Brain Rotters? --Arcibi 04:26, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT) Keep - I'm seeing that this is more of an "annoyance" weapon than a combat weapon, and I like that. Changed my vote to Keep. --Arcibi 19:12, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - Read Grim's vote above to have a good example. Zombies aren't hurt by death, and this is not insta-death either. Syringes are insta-death. This suggestion would be a syringe with a chance to miss, little (but above zero) effect on rotters, and more versatility when trying to revive groups. Oh, and something to make the NT's life a bit easier. You see, most people argue that zombies aren't easy to play, but I personally find NTs harder (I leveled two zombies to max level, and now I'm trying to get my NT past the 4th level). On a lower percentage of the effect happening, what difference does it make to Brain-Rotters? One Action Point. Besides, the weapon itself has a 25% chance of failing, even if you have all three skills needed to fire it properly (against only two from the syringe). Again, it's made to annoy. Annoying the zombies is a valid and effective tactic, and that's what I'm talking about here. --Omega2 13:51, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
      • Re: - ah, I see what you're getting at now. I agree, my character is a NT and they are pretty difficult to play. And I'm always up for annoying the hordes. Changing my vote now. --Arcibi 19:12, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  24. Kill - I don't like the idea of a survivor-powered version of Infection, or a new way to perform revives. If you want to revive a zed, jab the needle in him. It's a much quicker way to cycle through a stack and costs a heck of a lot less AP in the long run. Bentley Foss 05:15, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - Valid points on AP-consumption. Once again, it's not made to be a dedicated revive source, but a way to annoy zombies. The infection makes absolutely no difference to the zombie's combat power, and even when fighting real time, defeat would be better, as the zombie would be killed and get up as a zombie again instead of being revived. --Omega2 13:51, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  25. Keep - Sounds good to me. Dude70 06:39, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  26. Kill I like the idea. 75% is way too high a hit % (I'd even say it should be lower BECAUSE of the "stealth" nature). Why would a zombie already hit with a revive flag give out more XP? Brain Rotters should have a % chance of not being revived. Needs a higher % to be seen by the target.--Pesatyel 07:01, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - 75% after getting three skills, as opposed to the 100% from syringes with two skills. With "stealth", I meant that the user would have more time to take aim, being able to stay at longer range, hidden, and not worrying about recoil or noise. I think I used the wrong words: zombies already carrying a revive flag do not give extra XP. The only XP a character would get from them is the XP for the damage inflicted. Rotters aren't revived, and spending a single AP to get back up (with Ankle Grab) sounds better than being headshot. I was trying to be a bit realistic with the to-be-seen-percentage. Zombies aren't extremely aware of their surroundings, especially when the enemy is well-hidden and picking the shots without noise or any other indication of their presence except the direction the shot came from. --Omega2 13:51, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  27. Keep - I like this idea. --VinLumbtin 12:18, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  28. Keep - It is rumored that the United Nations Intelligence Taskforce is providing support to the WCDZ in order to ensure that this suggestion is implemented. It is also rumored that the UNIT Science Corps can't wait to get their hands on this new weapon. --John Taggart 13:21, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  29. Kill I like the suggestion, I do, but not having a way to stop the revivification process is unfair. It's actually worse than instantly getting revived, then you stand up and play as a human. Here you have to play around as a zombie and basically waste your AP to die. By the time you break through barricades or find someone to eat you'll be human. I'd support it if it let zombies stop the revivification process by biting someone. The regenerative powers of warm flesh could interfere with the regenerative powers of the syringe perhaps. Also I don't think the effects need stack and if used against a survivor it should not be anonymous. --Jon Pyre 16:37, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: I'm working on that. If you have any ideas, please go to the talk page. I want to make a more balanced version of this suggestion after I get all those dissent points weighted down and properly balanced. --Omega2 16:44, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  30. Keep - I love it. I have spent countless weeks gathering syringes to go on massive revive runs only to be stalked by the ones I revived. h4rdcor3 17:27, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • TALLY: - 19 Keep, 10 Kill. -- --Jon Pyre 16:37, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT) (GMT)
  31. Kill - I don't like this skill. --Qwako 17:26, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  32. Kill - I don't like this idea. --Nicks 17:33, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  33. Kill - Cool! Are you going to give 7XP for zombies infecting humans too? What? That's giving too much XP? Thats what I thought. The way I see Infection is that it gives zombies a chance in an outnumbering situation to take on a safehouse. Each infected survivor has a good chance of fleeing, thus giving zombies incentive of bargeing in a crowded safehouse outnumbered. Otherwise no zombies that are not in a group will attempt to invade safehouses, and just stay outside being slaughtered waiting for a group to form. Humans are never supposed to get that chance. In an outnumbering situation, Humans can (and is supposed to) flee. It's a survivial apocalypse game, remember? --Wikkid Bigshot 17:33, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment removed for uselessness
      • Omega, don't feed the trolls . . . . --John Taggart 21:35, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
        • Thanks, John. I should have realized how useless is to go ahead with this. Check the talk page, I'm trying to create a better version of this. --Omega2 21:38, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  34. Kill - This will increase the revival rate, and, as an annoyance weapon, make the game more annoying for zombies (especially lower level ones). Weakened zombie power and a more annoying game are a bad combination. --CPQD 22:52, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  35. Keep -I like it---darkSnake 23:52, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  36. Keep - I love this suggestion and I think the XP is great. 7 XP is a perfect number because you are both reviving and hitting for some damage. --TheBigT 23:40, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  37. Kill - I don't like steath weapons at all. Velkrin 08:32, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 22 Keep, 15 Kill
  38. Keep - Add one more to the tally, I like the idea, it's well though out. Mabey change the percentages on the stealth rate (make it more like 50/50) but other than that it's good - Jedaz 10:36, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  39. Kill - Good lord, an incurable stackable infection with firearm hit percentage? Are you out of your fucking mind? I understand that you'd want to make the NT more powerful. This isn't the way to do it. Too much XP, too lethal, and out of character for a noncombat class. At least syringes don't work on rotters outside of very specific circumstances. --Leit 11:24, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: I think I'll never get tired of saying that... syringes = instadeath with 100% accuracy and no chance of cure. And "non combat class"? All characters in UD become exactly the same when they max-out, so saying that one class has a specific role works only when the character is a beginning. After all, you can't blame me for combat (and the actions derived from combat, like healing and reviving) being the best, and almost only, way to gather XP in this game. Go level up a NT, if you want to know what's hard.
    • To your Re a re.: I have levelled an NT. Without firing a single shot. The whole idea of different classes is to provide a different style of gameplay. Let's give the NT a firearm... oh yes, that's very different. The NT is the fastest way to get to the instadeath syringe, sure... which has absolutely no effect on brain rotted zombies, and which provides a flat 5xp and then removes a source of xp for other survivors. This is without even touching on the 'anonymous human' abortion. Go and come up with something useful. Also, in future, don't make assumptions about other people's playing style. I like playing NT. This is why I don't want to see it become just another soldier. --Leit 08:04, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  40. kill - All summed up. Adn syringes only = instakill if the subject zombie does not have brainrot - --ramby- Part of my talk page 13:44, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  41. Kill - The numerous, valid negative points already discussed outweigh any other considerations. The sheer annoyance factor of constantly being anonymously revived without chance of striking back at your attacker will drive more zombie players away from this game than any other factor. --Liche 15:21, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  42. Kill - So we've not tackled the analogues of flak jackets and bodybuilding for zombies. Now we're going to give the survivors an infection analogue without giving the zombies a cure infection FAK equivalent -- all with bizarro "it took NecroTech a hojillion years to invent a pellet rifle" gun porn story, to boot! -- Let me expand this a little here. There's a load of zombies, maybe about 800 at Pagram now, just outside Caiger. With 25 fully loaded rifles, 40 scientists could walk out, fire off their entire load, and end the siege right there. That's the "times a million" principle right there -- does it need to get any worse? Oh, even one rifle loaded 25 times for one player still equals out to about 132.25 XP per 50 AP spent. Yeah, that's real nice, you can get just about three levels in two days like that. Shambling Pete 15:44, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    And this is different from syringes how? the search percentage is so low that the damage/AP is much lower than, say, the pistol.
  43. Kill - The fact that there isn?t a cure for the infection (as FAK for survivors) is a huge disadvantage to zombies, as they will eventually die. Also the anonymous hit (both for zombies and survivors) would make PKing much worse.Morbiuz 15:50, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  44. Kill - You've put an impressive amount of time into this, and it'd be nice to give NTs more to do, but if implemented this could skew game balance to hitherto unseen levels. Nervie 16:02, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  45. Kill - A one-shot, extremely high percentage kill against zombies (even rotters) with bonus XP, stealth abilities, stack cycling for perfect efficiency, that penalizes already limited zombie communication and with no heal opportunities? This would convert UD into a zombie-hunting sim with zombies as an endangered species. The game would be over except for PKing. --Rise 16:06, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  46. Kill - Balance issues would be for sure against the zeds, and there are already too few zeds. PKers would find a great use for that -- keep their life hard, that's the point. Might be considerable only as a revive tool, no damage, no PKing, fewer XP and more requirements. --NT 18:05, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 23 Keep / 23 Kill
  47. Keep - You have thought out the suggestion well. It is something I would like to use. Two thumbs up. --Matson Jade 18:52, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  48. Keep - hey, it's a suggestion contested enough to be worth voting on. a slow revive sounds like an interesting concept, and allowing a way for NTs to protect themselves from retaliatory PKs sounds good to me. damage/AP is negligible, revs/AP isn't more than syringe.--'STER-Talk-Mod 19:41, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  49. Kill - I don't like this skill. --Basher 20:14, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  50. Kill - Words cannot express my contempt at the overpowered, poorly-thought out, withered abortion of a "suggestion" that this vile piece of filth is. - CthulhuFhtagn 22:06, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  51. Kill - Hooray this just became a survior apocalypse game cause the zombie numbers would be down to PK victems within 2 weeks. --Meanest 22:30, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  52. Kill - If NT's are scared to revive, don't do it. Pick up a gun instead. In addition, Grim is right, survivors don't need an "infect" ability. Mo P
  53. Kill - Don't like the anonymity. --Bubbles 00:58, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  54. Kill - Survivors don't need an infection. They don't need a way to make combat revives. And they REALLY don't need an anonymous attack. --TheHermit 05:41, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 23 Keep, 29 Kill, 2 Invalid Keep votes.
  55. Kill - Compare this against Zombie infection. Zombies only get a 30% bite attack accuracy and the infection is curable, while the dart gun is 75% and isn't curable? Not only that, but the anonymity factor makes it extremely unbalanced. --Kraxxis 19:36, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  56. Kill - Being 'revivified' is worse than being dead for a zombie the same way being partially wounded is - a zombie is best when it's dead (stand up for full health), or at full health. This is a bit 'gimpy'. FireballX301 05:54, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  57. Kill - Huh huh huh. Petrosjko 08:00, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  58. Keep - Is Don, Is Good-Suggestion Kivals 08:27, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  59. Kill - Rarely have I seen so much work put into such a dismal idea.Strapon Bev 11:30, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  60. Kill - Too long of a suggestion to read all the way. Also, this just doesn't make sense, why would you spend time finding a gun and ammo for it when you can make a syringe and do the same thing with less effort? I am speaking as a reviver myself and I would rather not hae a new skill to buy to use s useless item. However, good concept and it would be great for RPing, as long as normal syringes can be used as ammo. --Death 01:03, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
  61. Kill - Survivors already have a fine way to annoy/bore zombies into leaving. It's called "barricading". Beyond this, the accuracy, the incurability, the effect on zombies who've purchased Brain Rot, and the anonymity are all show-stoppers. You get the gong, I'm afraid. --Centerfire 01:51, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 26 Keep, 35 Kill, 0 Spam - 18:58, 9 April 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/5th-Feb-2006&oldid=193648"